Mr. Pete, one does wonder what was going through Labour's collective head on that.
Did they think if May got ousted the Conservatives would do anything but move in a more sceptical direction?
May's deal was the most pro-EU one they were going to get.
They thought they could overturn the result of the referendum
They were hoping the Tories would come to their senses and support a softer Brexit of the kind now being advocated by noted Remoaner Daniel Hannan. Unfortunately the Tories whipped their MPs to vote those options down, replaced May with psychopathic liar Boris Johnson, and came up with a plan even dafter than May's, which they are now trying to unpick. But yes, clearly all of this is the fault of the Labour Party.
Dan Hannan always advocated the sort of soft Brexit I wanted. He has not changed his view on that.
But yes it is amusing and a little sad that it was the actions of the irreconciled Remain fanatics that allowed the narrative, and the type of Brexit, to be driven by the hard Brexiteers.
Were they primarily or even largely responsible for where we are now? No.
Did they help contribute to it and could they have helped to prevent it if they had not been so hell bent on reversing the referendum? Undoubtedly yes.
The type of Brexit we ended up with was born of hardliners on both sides. They both made sure there could be no compromise.
The Labour Party voted for compromise, the Tories whipped their MPs to oppose it. Those are the facts.
No the Labour Party did not vote for compromise.
Looking at the breakdowns for the indicative proposals see if you can spot which one the Labour MPs preferred
Proposal H - EFTA and EEA only 4 Labour MPs supported it. If they all had it would have passed. Proposal L - Revoke article 50 - 111 Labour MPs supported it. Proposal M - Rerun the referendum - 198 Labour MPs supported it.
Of the other 5 proposals 2 were effectively No Deal and 3 demanded we stayed in the Customs Union which was impossible without us remaining as full members of the EU.
So much for Labour supporting compromise.
This is such a dishonest post, sorry. I cannot let it stand without correcting the record.
The purpose of negotiating a customs union with the EU was to protect free trade the Irish border. You will note that Johnson's deal only achieved this goal by erecting trade barriers in the Irish Sea, which he is now trying to dismantle. In other words, a worthy goal that the government has failed to properly deliver.
For the first round of indicative votes:
Almost all Labour MPs voted for Ken Clarke's amendment K to negotiate a customs union as part of any deal. It was defeated by the Tories voting overwhelmingly against, with only a handful of Tories supporting it.
Almost all Labour MPs voted for Nick Boles's Common Market 2.0, ammendment D, which proposed EEA/Efta membership and a comprehensive customs arrangement. It was defeated by the Tories. Only a handful of Tory MPs supported it.
Almost all Labour MPs voted for the Labour Party's own compromise calling for close economic alignment with the EU, ammendment K. Voted down by the Tories.
The revocation amendment was supported by a minority of Labour MPs and some Tory MPs but in any case was only in case of no deal to avoid a catastrophic economic impact.
The confirmatory public vote wasn't a rerun of the referendum - it simply said the public should have a say on any Brexit deal that was negotiated. A reasonable way of breaking the parliamentary deadlock.
George Eustice's EEA/Efta deal (amendment H) received little support from any party as without anything to say on a customs union it had no solution to the Irish border. Only 65 MPs voted for it.
Yes, Labour voted for compromise. The Tories voted against.
Wrong. You are arguing from a point of profound ignorance.
The Customs Union proposals were complete non starters. Membership of the Customs Union requires membership of the EU. There are strange little exceptions for some of the tiny principalities like Monaco but they were never on offer to the UK.
Nick Boles, Ken Clarkes and the Labour proposals all included Customs Union Membership. The Labour proposal was explicitly The Customs Union since it included the UK having a say in EU third party trade deals. Even though this was impossible.
These proposals were just as dishonest as you are now being in trying to misrepresent them.
Your party voted for chaos because they refused to accept the referendum result and that is exactly what they got.
Wrong. You can be in a customs union with the EU without being in the EU, like Turkey. Is this perfect? No. That's why we shouldn't have left. Not all the proposals called explicitly for a customs union, they were calling for a customs arrangement of some kind to deal with the Irish border question. Otherwise, how is that problem solved? Not by the current deal, which the government is currently tearing up. What solution do you have? What compromise did Tory MPs vote for? None. Labour MPs voted for every compromise on offer, except for the one that failed to deliver a solution to the (still) main outstanding problem.
I already addressed that. Stop creating straw men.
And the Labour proposal was specifically for membership of The Customs Union because they said they wanted to have say over EU trade deals. They were either profoundly ignorant or profoundly dishonest.
And you are telling outright lies. Labour did not vote for every compromise on offer. The most obvious compromise was the EFTA/EEA membership and only 4 Labour MPs supported that.
Dragging in how the Tories voted is immaterial because I have not been supporting their stance either. They ere just as bad. I was specifically calling you out for your utter drivel about Labour supporting compromise. They didn't. They only supported proposals that were either impossible or which negated the referendum result.
It is clear from your opening paragraph that you also would rather have reversed the referendum result which is why you deserve nothing from scorn for your dishonesty.
It feels like you're the one being dishonest though. You enumerated the Labour votes on some of the indicative votes, but dismissed the customs union one as "impossible". Now we see it wasn't "impossible" but merely undesirable in your opinion.
No, as set out they were impossible. Membership of the Customs Union requires full EU membership. The Labour proposal particularly was clearly for membership of The Customs Union not just 'a' customs union as they argued for UK input to EU third party trade agreements.
Labour's proposal was for *a* customs union not membership of *the* customs union.
The only customs union that would allow the UK to have a say on EU third party trade deals (which was explict in their proposal) would be 'The' Customs Union. It was typical political dishonesty to try and dress it up any other way. Something you are repeating now.
Or the UK and EU could have negotiated a new customs union between the UK and EU that gave the UK some say. That should have been possible given that we always hold all the cards in these negotiations.
We never held all the cards. I deal with realities, not pipe dreams. You are more interested in defending your beloved party than in finding an actual solution to these issues.
I have literally provided a solution: Efta plus a customs arrangement similar to Turkey's to allow for frictionless trade GB/NI/EU. This is the compromise that Labour voted for. It isn't perfect but it protects the GFA, protects trade and honours the referendum. What is your solution? And what compromise did the Tories vote for?
Its odd how you view only getting what you want as a compromise.
From the meaningful votes the "compromises" that significant numbers of Tories backed were No Deal, and the option nicknamed 'managed no deal'.
In the end we got the compromise of a new deal, which Parliament was able to accept, so all's well that ends well.
I didn't want to leave. So leaving without screwing over Ireland or our exporters seemed a good compromise to me. No deal isn't a compromise, it is a form of Brexit so severe that all Brexiteers assured us during the referendum campaign that it would never happen. And I would note that the deal we have got has placed the GFA in peril and the government that negotiated it now wants to tear it up, so if it's a compromise it's not a great one.
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
The EEA was created as a temporary alternative for countries that weren't yet politically willing to join the EU in full, but the ultimate goal (even if it takes decades) was still the same.
I really don't see the attraction of leaving our former status in favour of the EEA as it would prevent us having different sectoral policies and limit our ability to champion new alliances or new forms of cooperation.
Richard is proposing joining EFTA, not the EEA.
I believe he's using EFTA as a synonym for EFTA/EEA. Joining EFTA on its own wouldn't change our current relationship with the EU.
No, he really isn't.
He's proposing we join EFTA, but only EFTA.
So we are outside the Single Market. How do we benefit? What’s the point? I don’t believe that is his position. But he can tell us
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
The EEA was created as a temporary alternative for countries that weren't yet politically willing to join the EU in full, but the ultimate goal (even if it takes decades) was still the same.
I really don't see the attraction of leaving our former status in favour of the EEA as it would prevent us having different sectoral policies and limit our ability to champion new alliances or new forms of cooperation.
Richard is proposing joining EFTA, not the EEA.
I believe he's using EFTA as a synonym for EFTA/EEA. Joining EFTA on its own wouldn't change our current relationship with the EU.
No, he really isn't.
He's proposing we join EFTA, but only EFTA.
Actually no. I am in favour of FoM and always have been so I am proposing that we join EFTA and then use that to join the EEA. The EEA is not the EU. It is a trading agreement without all the political stuff.
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
It is clear. And always was. You want to be in the Single Market, you have to accept Freedom of Movement. The four freedoms are indivisible. The EU Commission was always explicit on this point, and never budged
Yes.
The reality of island of Ireland politics + the Brexit vote is why both sides should make this a special case.
The Brexit vote swung the way it did because of FoM. Neither side campaigned in Ref2016 on the basis that exiting the EU was impossible because of Ireland - merely that it was a problem to resolve. Events have shown it's insoluble both practically and politically.
Therefore both sides should give way. The UK should give way on SM membership (via EEA or Swiss arrangement) and, uniquely, the EU should give way on FoM.
Peace in Ireland matters more than either of these things.
It does but politicians on both sides are far more interested in the advantages of using NI as a negotiating lever.
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
It is clear. And always was. You want to be in the Single Market, you have to accept Freedom of Movement. The four freedoms are indivisible. The EU Commission was always explicit on this point, and never budged
Except in Mrs May's backstop. Which was therefore a considerable lost opportunity.
Was it? I’m a boffin on EU affairs compared to 99.3% of the population but by the time we got to the Arguments Over The Backstop I confess my eyes glazed over and I missed details. Tho that seems like quite a big detail
ANYWAY it is a criminal indictment of our politics that we, as a nation, did not sit down, and have not sat down, and discussed all these options, from the hardest Brexit to EEA/EFTA
We’re like someone who got divorced but paid no heed to our own situation after the divorce and so we’ve ended up sleeping in the car. All sides are to blame for this,. The Hard Brexiteers who told lies because they worried the voters would say Remain if they thought about it, the Remainers who tried to overturn the referendum when they could have been doing exactly THIS: arguing passionately for EFTA/EEA (and surely winning the day), and of course all the lying governments that denied us prior plebiscites on the EU
But mistakes can be rectified. We need a national conversation now as to what we do. Boris and Starmer both need to go, before we can do this
Yes, the EU justified it as a "temporary measure", presumably like the temporary ceasefire between North and South Korea signed in 1953. It really gave us exactly what I think the majority wanted, away from all that ridiculous politics nonsense in the EU, a control on freedom of movement and free trade. Why SKS did not see this and get Labour to vote for it en masse is yet another question mark on his judgment.
Because he wanted a 2nd vote, and he wanted to overturn the referendum - like so many of his Labour colleagues. It’s why both he and Boris need to quit the scene
Price looks really good, but 3.24 lb and 9.7 hour battery; I'll stick with my more expensive and more solid MacBook Air at 2.7 lb and 15 hours. But horses for courses.
Once you Mac, you don't go back.
I did. Hated my Mac
Can't bear Macs. No idea why people say they are easy to use. I find them a bloody nightmare.
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
It is clear. And always was. You want to be in the Single Market, you have to accept Freedom of Movement. The four freedoms are indivisible. The EU Commission was always explicit on this point, and never budged
Yes.
The reality of island of Ireland politics + the Brexit vote is why both sides should make this a special case.
The Brexit vote swung the way it did because of FoM. Neither side campaigned in Ref2016 on the basis that exiting the EU was impossible because of Ireland - merely that it was a problem to resolve. Events have shown it's insoluble both practically and politically.
Therefore both sides should give way. The UK should give way on SM membership (via EEA or Swiss arrangement) and, uniquely, the EU should give way on FoM.
Peace in Ireland matters more than either of these things.
Or the UK could just invoke Article 16, say we aren't conducting any checks on either border (Irish Sea or land) and challenge the EU to do their own if they please. If they don't, which they won't, the problem's resolved.
No border, no alignment, but no checks is the right solution. Allow NI to serve in a quantum state of Schrodinger's Brexit, where they are in the Single Market so trading with Ireland freely, and in the UK, so trading with the UK freely.
Yes that breaches the "integrity" of the UK's market, and the "integrity" of the Single Market, but peace in Northern Ireland wasn't won by a rigid adherence to the "integrity" of the rules or one side takes all.
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
The EEA was created as a temporary alternative for countries that weren't yet politically willing to join the EU in full, but the ultimate goal (even if it takes decades) was still the same.
I really don't see the attraction of leaving our former status in favour of the EEA as it would prevent us having different sectoral policies and limit our ability to champion new alliances or new forms of cooperation.
No it wouldn't. EEA membership does not prevent any other trade deals nor other forms of cooperation. It also looses all the political rubbish that came with EU membership. It is about trade and the Single Market, nothing more.
Questions. My assumption is that once 54 letters went in Boris's days are numbered and everyone knows it. The only issue being when.
1) Is this correct 2) If correct, what reason is there for Tory MPs to prolong their (and our) agony for months, knowing the Boris cause is hopeless -'if were done when tis done' etc 3) Is there a cunning plan and if so what.
1) I think yes. The only thing which can save him is winning an election. 2) There isn't a reason because there is no organised opposition in the Tory Party. Nor any successor to coalesce around. 3) See above
I would like Rishi to resign and (somehow) trigger a leadership contest, which Penny wins. A fabulous choreography of events, leading to a PM we can be proud of. #pm4pm
I'm on her at 60s - so not unhappy with the hype - but I'm intrigued by your sudden enthusiasm for her. Why aren't you getting behind Patel?
I quite like Patel myself but she's very much a known (and not especially well liked in many quarters) quantity. I think Mordaunt is less tainted, and a better Commons performer, but there's something else indefinable that has caught my imagination. Did you know, she's also Irish (Southern Irish) so I almost feel she could smooth those waters a bit too.
I'm going to stop being positive about her here, as I will damage her by her being my favourite for the job. At the moment it's remarkable jusy how many PBers have time for her, from TSE and Stuartinromford, to BigG.
I've just watched PMQs, and certainly on the surface Starmer caused the PM little discomfort (unlike Angela Eagle). But his decision to focus on the NHS was clearly thought through - he's not daft. So here's my explanation:
1. While Boris focuses on tactics - one day at a time - Starmer focuses on strategy - to win the next GE. 2. Starmer decided not to intrude on the enemy's own grief after the confidence vote - don't interrupt etc. 3. Everybody knows the NHS is really struggling, and Boris's boosterism about it flies in the face of people's own experience - a head of steam that will build before the next GE, as there isn't time to resolve the waiting lists etc. (I suspect the anecdote about someone dying while waiting an hour for an ambulance, greeted in silence by the HoC, cut through - it sounded powerful when replayed on R4). 4. Finally, Starmer may be keeping something in reserve until he is cleared (assuming he is) by the Durham police - once/if that happens, he'll home in on the contrast.
So, in conclusion - yes, not a great performance by SKS. But I'll bet it was well considered, even if not well delivered.
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
The EEA was created as a temporary alternative for countries that weren't yet politically willing to join the EU in full, but the ultimate goal (even if it takes decades) was still the same.
I really don't see the attraction of leaving our former status in favour of the EEA as it would prevent us having different sectoral policies and limit our ability to champion new alliances or new forms of cooperation.
Richard is proposing joining EFTA, not the EEA.
I believe he's using EFTA as a synonym for EFTA/EEA. Joining EFTA on its own wouldn't change our current relationship with the EU.
No, he really isn't.
He's proposing we join EFTA, but only EFTA.
Actually no. I am in favour of FoM and always have been so I am proposing that we join EFTA and then use that to join the EEA. The EEA is not the EU. It is a trading agreement without all the political stuff.
Wait:
Didn't we have this argument a few weeks ago, and you were very dismissive of the EEA?
Or am I just very confused?
Personally: I would be happy with a EEA arrangement if and only if it allowed the government to discriminate in favour of its own citizens, in areas such as benefits. Switzerland, which does have FoM, has such a provision. So, while everyone is required to purchase health insurance in Switzerland, the most affordable plans are only available to those who are citizens.
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
It is clear. And always was. You want to be in the Single Market, you have to accept Freedom of Movement. The four freedoms are indivisible. The EU Commission was always explicit on this point, and never budged
Except in Mrs May's backstop. Which was therefore a considerable lost opportunity.
Was it? I’m a boffin on EU affairs compared to 99.3% of the population but by the time we got to the Arguments Over The Backstop I confess my eyes glazed over and I missed details. Tho that seems like quite a big detail
ANYWAY it is a criminal indictment of our politics that we, as a nation, did not sit down, and have not sat down, and discussed all these options, from the hardest Brexit to EEA/EFTA
We’re like someone who got divorced but paid no heed to our own situation after the divorce and so we’ve ended up sleeping in the car. All sides are to blame for this,. The Hard Brexiteers who told lies because they worried the voters would say Remain if they thought about it, the Remainers who tried to overturn the referendum when they could have been doing exactly THIS: arguing passionately for EFTA/EEA (and surely winning the day), and of course all the lying governments that denied us prior plebiscites on the EU
But mistakes can be rectified. We need a national conversation now as to what we do. Boris and Starmer both need to go, before we can do this
Agree with almost all of this. Just to add we have a national forum for this called parliament. After the 2016 vote it was required to be uniquely sane, progressive, non-party and useful. Like in 1940 it had a job to do for the rest of us. Its failure here, unlike 1940, was and is horrendous.
At the end of the last thread I asked if SKS had once again proven himself to be the Stuart Pearce of penalty kickers (other English players are available) and the response seemed to be that this was a cunning plan to allow Boris to survive and cause yet more damage to the Tories.
I don't like the cliche, "well, its a theory" (there are many others that I will use with relish) but it does cover the situation. What I think we need to do is look for evidence in support of that theory, like the many occasions when SKS has used a rapier of wit to devastating effect. And I am kind of struggling.
I know it is Guido reporting but the press are not good when he had such an open goal
Sir Keir’s PMQs performance today was less of an own goal, more like a player running up to take a penalty and then missing the ball. There weren’t very high expectations for the Labour leader going into the session this lunchtime, just a case of pouring salt in the wounds opened by Tory MPs on Monday, and yet he decided to do a very low energy set of questions on health funding. Looking down the timeline, it looks like LOTO may have to accept a misstep today…
Times’ Henry Zeffman: “Not sure Labour MPs will think Starmer’s showing at PMQs quite met the level of the PM’s peril”
Mail’s David Wilcock: “‘This line of attack is not working,’ Boris Johnson tells Keir Starmer at #PMQs – and he may have a point.”
Daily Mail’s Henry Deedes: “This should be the #pmqs of the year. Starmer’s moment. And he’s already killed it. The chamber now devoid of atmosphere.”
Telegraph’s Christopher Hope: “Keir Starmer is missing his open goal”
CityAM’s Stefan Boscia: “Half way through and Keir is missing an open goal here”
TalkTV’s Kate McCann: “Labour benches are silent, many not even looking at their leader as he speaks. Many dislike PMQs pantomime, but I’m not sure this Labour approach works”
JOE Politics’ Oli Dugmore:“Is Keir just really bad at politics? Is this some kind of master stroke I don’t understand? Feels like Boris is wiping the floor with him today”
New Statesman’s Ben Walker: “This isn’t 4D chess, this is just ineffective.”
The i’s Paul Waugh: “His troops, rebels and loyalists alike, were always going to be behind @BorisJohnson today but he is enjoying himself at #PMQs. Clearly delighted at Starmer’s failure to land blows and dismissive of Blackford.”
Adam Boulton: “Starmer’s inability to ad lib, reply to taunts or deviate from his pre-cooked plan not helping him.”
Times Radio’s Matt Chorley: “I genuinely think this is one of the worst PMQs Starmer has had… Hopeless.”
I watched it. It was fine to me. I liked the strategy of ignoring what is called an open goal. Labour need to talk more about years of Tory failure now not Boris failure, in case Boris does go, though it’s looking very unlikely he will go before general election now.
It’s up to Tories to remove Boris, not Starmer. Boris is Opposition parties prize asset at ballot box now. But opposition still need to paint picture of Tory failure, not Boris failure in case Boris goes, the change voters need to want from Labour perspective, is change of government not change of Tory leader.
Labours campaigning this summer will quite rightly be about years of Tory failure on domestic policy, not Boris failure. Labour won’t mention partygate or Boris all summer now, but they will talk about conditions in hospitals, waiting lists, ambulance response times, crime up, less doctors, etc.
The 148 and friends in media are just going to have to get used to it 😁
Yes I agree with this, I heard Starmer say earlier to Johnson, you have been in power for 3 years, that is the wrong thing to emphasise, he should be hammering home, the Tories have been in power for 13 years, and the country is in an awful state because of this
Mr. Pete, one does wonder what was going through Labour's collective head on that.
Did they think if May got ousted the Conservatives would do anything but move in a more sceptical direction?
May's deal was the most pro-EU one they were going to get.
They thought they could overturn the result of the referendum
They were hoping the Tories would come to their senses and support a softer Brexit of the kind now being advocated by noted Remoaner Daniel Hannan. Unfortunately the Tories whipped their MPs to vote those options down, replaced May with psychopathic liar Boris Johnson, and came up with a plan even dafter than May's, which they are now trying to unpick. But yes, clearly all of this is the fault of the Labour Party.
Dan Hannan always advocated the sort of soft Brexit I wanted. He has not changed his view on that.
But yes it is amusing and a little sad that it was the actions of the irreconciled Remain fanatics that allowed the narrative, and the type of Brexit, to be driven by the hard Brexiteers.
Were they primarily or even largely responsible for where we are now? No.
Did they help contribute to it and could they have helped to prevent it if they had not been so hell bent on reversing the referendum? Undoubtedly yes.
The type of Brexit we ended up with was born of hardliners on both sides. They both made sure there could be no compromise.
The Labour Party voted for compromise, the Tories whipped their MPs to oppose it. Those are the facts.
No the Labour Party did not vote for compromise.
Looking at the breakdowns for the indicative proposals see if you can spot which one the Labour MPs preferred
Proposal H - EFTA and EEA only 4 Labour MPs supported it. If they all had it would have passed. Proposal L - Revoke article 50 - 111 Labour MPs supported it. Proposal M - Rerun the referendum - 198 Labour MPs supported it.
Of the other 5 proposals 2 were effectively No Deal and 3 demanded we stayed in the Customs Union which was impossible without us remaining as full members of the EU.
So much for Labour supporting compromise.
This is such a dishonest post, sorry. I cannot let it stand without correcting the record.
The purpose of negotiating a customs union with the EU was to protect free trade the Irish border. You will note that Johnson's deal only achieved this goal by erecting trade barriers in the Irish Sea, which he is now trying to dismantle. In other words, a worthy goal that the government has failed to properly deliver.
For the first round of indicative votes:
Almost all Labour MPs voted for Ken Clarke's amendment K to negotiate a customs union as part of any deal. It was defeated by the Tories voting overwhelmingly against, with only a handful of Tories supporting it.
Almost all Labour MPs voted for Nick Boles's Common Market 2.0, ammendment D, which proposed EEA/Efta membership and a comprehensive customs arrangement. It was defeated by the Tories. Only a handful of Tory MPs supported it.
Almost all Labour MPs voted for the Labour Party's own compromise calling for close economic alignment with the EU, ammendment K. Voted down by the Tories.
The revocation amendment was supported by a minority of Labour MPs and some Tory MPs but in any case was only in case of no deal to avoid a catastrophic economic impact.
The confirmatory public vote wasn't a rerun of the referendum - it simply said the public should have a say on any Brexit deal that was negotiated. A reasonable way of breaking the parliamentary deadlock.
George Eustice's EEA/Efta deal (amendment H) received little support from any party as without anything to say on a customs union it had no solution to the Irish border. Only 65 MPs voted for it.
Yes, Labour voted for compromise. The Tories voted against.
Wrong. You are arguing from a point of profound ignorance.
The Customs Union proposals were complete non starters. Membership of the Customs Union requires membership of the EU. There are strange little exceptions for some of the tiny principalities like Monaco but they were never on offer to the UK.
Nick Boles, Ken Clarkes and the Labour proposals all included Customs Union Membership. The Labour proposal was explicitly The Customs Union since it included the UK having a say in EU third party trade deals. Even though this was impossible.
These proposals were just as dishonest as you are now being in trying to misrepresent them.
Your party voted for chaos because they refused to accept the referendum result and that is exactly what they got.
Wrong. You can be in a customs union with the EU without being in the EU, like Turkey. Is this perfect? No. That's why we shouldn't have left. Not all the proposals called explicitly for a customs union, they were calling for a customs arrangement of some kind to deal with the Irish border question. Otherwise, how is that problem solved? Not by the current deal, which the government is currently tearing up. What solution do you have? What compromise did Tory MPs vote for? None. Labour MPs voted for every compromise on offer, except for the one that failed to deliver a solution to the (still) main outstanding problem.
I already addressed that. Stop creating straw men.
And the Labour proposal was specifically for membership of The Customs Union because they said they wanted to have say over EU trade deals. They were either profoundly ignorant or profoundly dishonest.
And you are telling outright lies. Labour did not vote for every compromise on offer. The most obvious compromise was the EFTA/EEA membership and only 4 Labour MPs supported that.
Dragging in how the Tories voted is immaterial because I have not been supporting their stance either. They ere just as bad. I was specifically calling you out for your utter drivel about Labour supporting compromise. They didn't. They only supported proposals that were either impossible or which negated the referendum result.
It is clear from your opening paragraph that you also would rather have reversed the referendum result which is why you deserve nothing from scorn for your dishonesty.
It feels like you're the one being dishonest though. You enumerated the Labour votes on some of the indicative votes, but dismissed the customs union one as "impossible". Now we see it wasn't "impossible" but merely undesirable in your opinion.
No, as set out they were impossible. Membership of the Customs Union requires full EU membership. The Labour proposal particularly was clearly for membership of The Customs Union not just 'a' customs union as they argued for UK input to EU third party trade agreements.
Labour's proposal was for *a* customs union not membership of *the* customs union.
The only customs union that would allow the UK to have a say on EU third party trade deals (which was explict in their proposal) would be 'The' Customs Union. It was typical political dishonesty to try and dress it up any other way. Something you are repeating now.
Or the UK and EU could have negotiated a new customs union between the UK and EU that gave the UK some say. That should have been possible given that we always hold all the cards in these negotiations.
We never held all the cards. I deal with realities, not pipe dreams. You are more interested in defending your beloved party than in finding an actual solution to these issues.
I have literally provided a solution: Efta plus a customs arrangement similar to Turkey's to allow for frictionless trade GB/NI/EU. This is the compromise that Labour voted for. It isn't perfect but it protects the GFA, protects trade and honours the referendum. What is your solution? And what compromise did the Tories vote for?
Its odd how you view only getting what you want as a compromise.
From the meaningful votes the "compromises" that significant numbers of Tories backed were No Deal, and the option nicknamed 'managed no deal'.
In the end we got the compromise of a new deal, which Parliament was able to accept, so all's well that ends well.
I didn't want to leave. So leaving without screwing over Ireland or our exporters seemed a good compromise to me. No deal isn't a compromise, it is a form of Brexit so severe that all Brexiteers assured us during the referendum campaign that it would never happen. And I would note that the deal we have got has placed the GFA in peril and the government that negotiated it now wants to tear it up, so if it's a compromise it's not a great one.
No deal is a compromise just as much as your proposal is. Its saying that we wanted a deal, but we recognise that we haven't been able to reach an acceptable agreement with the EU, so we will have to compromise that we will leave without one which isn't what we wanted but respecting the EU's difference of opinion with us.
The fact that you don't like it, doesn't make it not a compromise. I didn't like your proposal so, swings and roundabouts.
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
The EEA was created as a temporary alternative for countries that weren't yet politically willing to join the EU in full, but the ultimate goal (even if it takes decades) was still the same.
I really don't see the attraction of leaving our former status in favour of the EEA as it would prevent us having different sectoral policies and limit our ability to champion new alliances or new forms of cooperation.
No it wouldn't. EEA membership does not prevent any other trade deals nor other forms of cooperation. It also looses all the political rubbish that came with EU membership. It is about trade and the Single Market, nothing more.
The EEA is based on regulatory harmonisation where the EU institutions control the regulations, so it's an illusion to say that it it is "without all the political stuff".
Imagine if every EU member but one decided to go for the EEA option. They would all be left having to implement regulations determined by the sole remaining EU state.
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
The EEA was created as a temporary alternative for countries that weren't yet politically willing to join the EU in full, but the ultimate goal (even if it takes decades) was still the same.
I really don't see the attraction of leaving our former status in favour of the EEA as it would prevent us having different sectoral policies and limit our ability to champion new alliances or new forms of cooperation.
No it wouldn't. EEA membership does not prevent any other trade deals nor other forms of cooperation. It also looses all the political rubbish that came with EU membership. It is about trade and the Single Market, nothing more.
And IIRC many areas such as agriculture and fisheries are outside the EEA.
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
The EEA was created as a temporary alternative for countries that weren't yet politically willing to join the EU in full, but the ultimate goal (even if it takes decades) was still the same.
I really don't see the attraction of leaving our former status in favour of the EEA as it would prevent us having different sectoral policies and limit our ability to champion new alliances or new forms of cooperation.
No it wouldn't. EEA membership does not prevent any other trade deals nor other forms of cooperation. It also looses all the political rubbish that came with EU membership. It is about trade and the Single Market, nothing more.
We have trade with the TCA though. All the objections with regards to NI and customs paperwork that people are complaining about are to do with customs, which you (rightly) don't want to join.
So what would we gain from EFTA or EEA membership that we don't have with the TCA?
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
The EEA was created as a temporary alternative for countries that weren't yet politically willing to join the EU in full, but the ultimate goal (even if it takes decades) was still the same.
I really don't see the attraction of leaving our former status in favour of the EEA as it would prevent us having different sectoral policies and limit our ability to champion new alliances or new forms of cooperation.
Richard is proposing joining EFTA, not the EEA.
I believe he's using EFTA as a synonym for EFTA/EEA. Joining EFTA on its own wouldn't change our current relationship with the EU.
No, he really isn't.
He's proposing we join EFTA, but only EFTA.
Actually no. I am in favour of FoM and always have been so I am proposing that we join EFTA and then use that to join the EEA. The EEA is not the EU. It is a trading agreement without all the political stuff.
Wait:
Didn't we have this argument a few weeks ago, and you were very dismissive of the EEA?
Or am I just very confused?
Personally: I would be happy with a EEA arrangement if and only if it allowed the government to discriminate in favour of its own citizens, in areas such as benefits. Switzerland, which does have FoM, has such a provision. So, while everyone is required to purchase health insurance in Switzerland, the most affordable plans are only available to those who are citizens.
No, honestly I don't remember us arguing about the EEA for years. I thought we were both in agreement on all this stuff. My heart she is broken!
I am sure you knew I am a radical advocate of FoM, far more than the most liberal of EU fanatics as I would extend it far beyond just the EU. It is impractical of course and would never be accepted but we all have our unicorns.
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
It is clear. And always was. You want to be in the Single Market, you have to accept Freedom of Movement. The four freedoms are indivisible. The EU Commission was always explicit on this point, and never budged
Yes.
The reality of island of Ireland politics + the Brexit vote is why both sides should make this a special case.
The Brexit vote swung the way it did because of FoM. Neither side campaigned in Ref2016 on the basis that exiting the EU was impossible because of Ireland - merely that it was a problem to resolve. Events have shown it's insoluble both practically and politically.
Therefore both sides should give way. The UK should give way on SM membership (via EEA or Swiss arrangement) and, uniquely, the EU should give way on FoM.
Peace in Ireland matters more than either of these things.
SM benefits without FoM. Not sure what we're giving away there.
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
The EEA was created as a temporary alternative for countries that weren't yet politically willing to join the EU in full, but the ultimate goal (even if it takes decades) was still the same.
I really don't see the attraction of leaving our former status in favour of the EEA as it would prevent us having different sectoral policies and limit our ability to champion new alliances or new forms of cooperation.
No it wouldn't. EEA membership does not prevent any other trade deals nor other forms of cooperation. It also looses all the political rubbish that came with EU membership. It is about trade and the Single Market, nothing more.
The EEA is based on regulatory harmonisation where the EU institutions control the regulations, so it's an illusion to say that it it is "without all the political stuff".
Imagine if every EU member but one decided to go for the EEA option. They would all be left having to implement regulations determined by the sole remaining EU state.
Most EU regulatory harmonisation is around ISO standards, and IIRC EFTA countries maintain their independent representation at the ISO*.
* Switzerland certainly does, and I assume that Norway and Iceland do too.
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
It is clear. And always was. You want to be in the Single Market, you have to accept Freedom of Movement. The four freedoms are indivisible. The EU Commission was always explicit on this point, and never budged
Yes.
The reality of island of Ireland politics + the Brexit vote is why both sides should make this a special case.
The Brexit vote swung the way it did because of FoM. Neither side campaigned in Ref2016 on the basis that exiting the EU was impossible because of Ireland - merely that it was a problem to resolve. Events have shown it's insoluble both practically and politically.
Therefore both sides should give way. The UK should give way on SM membership (via EEA or Swiss arrangement) and, uniquely, the EU should give way on FoM.
Peace in Ireland matters more than either of these things.
SM benefits without FoM. Not sure what we're giving away there.
Democracy.
The Parliament we elect wouldn't set our regulations, we'd have to follow the regulations they pass instead, but without our own elected representatives having a say in the regulations being written.
At the end of the last thread I asked if SKS had once again proven himself to be the Stuart Pearce of penalty kickers (other English players are available) and the response seemed to be that this was a cunning plan to allow Boris to survive and cause yet more damage to the Tories.
I don't like the cliche, "well, its a theory" (there are many others that I will use with relish) but it does cover the situation. What I think we need to do is look for evidence in support of that theory, like the many occasions when SKS has used a rapier of wit to devastating effect. And I am kind of struggling.
I know it is Guido reporting but the press are not good when he had such an open goal
Sir Keir’s PMQs performance today was less of an own goal, more like a player running up to take a penalty and then missing the ball. There weren’t very high expectations for the Labour leader going into the session this lunchtime, just a case of pouring salt in the wounds opened by Tory MPs on Monday, and yet he decided to do a very low energy set of questions on health funding. Looking down the timeline, it looks like LOTO may have to accept a misstep today…
Times’ Henry Zeffman: “Not sure Labour MPs will think Starmer’s showing at PMQs quite met the level of the PM’s peril”
Mail’s David Wilcock: “‘This line of attack is not working,’ Boris Johnson tells Keir Starmer at #PMQs – and he may have a point.”
Daily Mail’s Henry Deedes: “This should be the #pmqs of the year. Starmer’s moment. And he’s already killed it. The chamber now devoid of atmosphere.”
Telegraph’s Christopher Hope: “Keir Starmer is missing his open goal”
CityAM’s Stefan Boscia: “Half way through and Keir is missing an open goal here”
TalkTV’s Kate McCann: “Labour benches are silent, many not even looking at their leader as he speaks. Many dislike PMQs pantomime, but I’m not sure this Labour approach works”
JOE Politics’ Oli Dugmore:“Is Keir just really bad at politics? Is this some kind of master stroke I don’t understand? Feels like Boris is wiping the floor with him today”
New Statesman’s Ben Walker: “This isn’t 4D chess, this is just ineffective.”
The i’s Paul Waugh: “His troops, rebels and loyalists alike, were always going to be behind @BorisJohnson today but he is enjoying himself at #PMQs. Clearly delighted at Starmer’s failure to land blows and dismissive of Blackford.”
Adam Boulton: “Starmer’s inability to ad lib, reply to taunts or deviate from his pre-cooked plan not helping him.”
Times Radio’s Matt Chorley: “I genuinely think this is one of the worst PMQs Starmer has had… Hopeless.”
I watched it. It was fine to me. I liked the strategy of ignoring what is called an open goal. Labour need to talk more about years of Tory failure now not Boris failure, in case Boris does go, though it’s looking very unlikely he will go before general election now.
It’s up to Tories to remove Boris, not Starmer. Boris is Opposition parties prize asset at ballot box now. But opposition still need to paint picture of Tory failure, not Boris failure in case Boris goes, the change voters need to want from Labour perspective, is change of government not change of Tory leader.
Labours campaigning this summer will quite rightly be about years of Tory failure on domestic policy, not Boris failure. Labour won’t mention partygate or Boris all summer now, but they will talk about conditions in hospitals, waiting lists, ambulance response times, crime up, less doctors, etc.
The 148 and friends in media are just going to have to get used to it 😁
The press reviews Guido quotes might have been unduly influenced by coordinated Tory cheering. That said, I thought Starmer missed a trick by not asking for a list of new hospitals. He also missed that Boris said there would be 48 rather than 40. Starmer does tend to stick rigidly to his pre-written questions which might mean he cannot think on his feet or it might be a fixation on clips for news bulletins and social media: there were a couple of jokes about booing/cheering Boris, and 24 hours in A&E.
Angela Eagle and Ian Blackford did well, and the Durham guy (Paul Howell, Sedgefield) was not bad. The most interesting answer was probably Boris denying the story from the last thread (or the one before) that he had not consulted First Treasury Counsel about NIP.
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
The EEA was created as a temporary alternative for countries that weren't yet politically willing to join the EU in full, but the ultimate goal (even if it takes decades) was still the same.
I really don't see the attraction of leaving our former status in favour of the EEA as it would prevent us having different sectoral policies and limit our ability to champion new alliances or new forms of cooperation.
No it wouldn't. EEA membership does not prevent any other trade deals nor other forms of cooperation. It also looses all the political rubbish that came with EU membership. It is about trade and the Single Market, nothing more.
The EEA is based on regulatory harmonisation where the EU institutions control the regulations, so it's an illusion to say that it it is "without all the political stuff".
Imagine if every EU member but one decided to go for the EEA option. They would all be left having to implement regulations determined by the sole remaining EU state.
Most EU regulatory harmonisation is around ISO standards, and IIRC EFTA countries maintain their independent representation at the ISO*.
* Switzerland certainly does, and I assume that Norway and Iceland do too.
Most are yes, but some are not which is why elections are held for elected representatives to debate other ones which are not - elected representatives we would be lacking.
Saying most are, so we don't need elections, is like saying most people are law abiding, so we don't need the police or the courts or jails.
To stress again, there's no equivalence in the foreclosing of options between Leavers and Remainers, and to do so is to rewrite history. May conducted the most decisive foreclosing of options near the very beginning by ruling out free movement to appeal to the hardest-line Leavers, and Johnson solidified this foreclosing of options to them even more outspokenly to become leader. The only conceivable fault on the Labour side was Corbyn then being much less willing or able to marshal more moderate options on Europe into a coherent plan for softer Brexit, than the hardliners who gradually took over the Conservative Party, and whose responsibility this all primarily is.
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
It is clear. And always was. You want to be in the Single Market, you have to accept Freedom of Movement. The four freedoms are indivisible. The EU Commission was always explicit on this point, and never budged
Yes.
The reality of island of Ireland politics + the Brexit vote is why both sides should make this a special case.
The Brexit vote swung the way it did because of FoM. Neither side campaigned in Ref2016 on the basis that exiting the EU was impossible because of Ireland - merely that it was a problem to resolve. Events have shown it's insoluble both practically and politically.
Therefore both sides should give way. The UK should give way on SM membership (via EEA or Swiss arrangement) and, uniquely, the EU should give way on FoM.
Peace in Ireland matters more than either of these things.
SM benefits without FoM. Not sure what we're giving away there.
Simple. The current policy of both main political parties in UK is to be outside the SM with all the benefits that freedom brings in the minds of its supporters. (Though Labour's language on this is a bit strangulated). We give up that policy. They give up wanting FoM as a one size fits all policy.
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
The EEA was created as a temporary alternative for countries that weren't yet politically willing to join the EU in full, but the ultimate goal (even if it takes decades) was still the same.
I really don't see the attraction of leaving our former status in favour of the EEA as it would prevent us having different sectoral policies and limit our ability to champion new alliances or new forms of cooperation.
No it wouldn't. EEA membership does not prevent any other trade deals nor other forms of cooperation. It also looses all the political rubbish that came with EU membership. It is about trade and the Single Market, nothing more.
The EEA is based on regulatory harmonisation where the EU institutions control the regulations, so it's an illusion to say that it it is "without all the political stuff".
Imagine if every EU member but one decided to go for the EEA option. They would all be left having to implement regulations determined by the sole remaining EU state.
Most EU regulatory harmonisation is around ISO standards, and IIRC EFTA countries maintain their independent representation at the ISO*.
* Switzerland certainly does, and I assume that Norway and Iceland do too.
It's the politically contentious cutting-edge regulation like MiFID or GPRS that you should focus on.
The argument that the EU is downstream of international organsiations so therefore there is nothing wrong with being obliged to follow EU law is really weak. Anyone who believes it should be arguing in favour of bypassing the EU altogether.
Questions. My assumption is that once 54 letters went in Boris's days are numbered and everyone knows it. The only issue being when.
1) Is this correct 2) If correct, what reason is there for Tory MPs to prolong their (and our) agony for months, knowing the Boris cause is hopeless -'if were done when tis done' etc 3) Is there a cunning plan and if so what.
I think the reason many Tory MPs don't quite know whether or not Johnson should go is down to previous electoral successes.
One may well counter, as headers occasionally do on this site, that Johnson really had nothing to do with all these electoral victories, and simply happened to be in the right place at the right time for the voters, riding a wave that was already there, and lucky in his opponents, who everyone knew to be ghastly all along.
Even if we completely agree with this point, it is undeniable that Johnson has been in the right place at the right time once too many for it to have been a mere coincidence. He has up until now been a lucky politician.
He also has had more comebacks than Jason Vorhees. His fortunes could be represented on a graph as a Sine wave, where most politicians could be summed up in a single parabola.
These may not be noble reasons, but they are, I suspect, at least among the reasons Tory MPs are wavering. I think they are probably wrong but I understand their reticence, if only in a self-interested sort of way.
I think they are wrong because the material reality counts a little more when you are the head of the government - Cost of Living, as everyone is saying.
To repeat again, there's no equivalence in the foreclosing of options between Leavers and Remainers, and to do so is to rewrite history. May conducted the most decisive foreclosing of options near the very beginning by ruling out free movement, and Johnson solidified this foreclosing of options even more outspokenly. The only conceivable fault on the Labour side was Corbyn then being much less keen or able to marshal more moderate options on Europe into a coherent plan, than the hardliners who gradually took over the Conservative Party.
Boris got a deal which was acceptable to Parliament so he didn't foreclose any potential compromises, he got one that even Keir Starmer voted for.
Mr. Pete, one does wonder what was going through Labour's collective head on that.
Did they think if May got ousted the Conservatives would do anything but move in a more sceptical direction?
May's deal was the most pro-EU one they were going to get.
They thought they could overturn the result of the referendum
They were hoping the Tories would come to their senses and support a softer Brexit of the kind now being advocated by noted Remoaner Daniel Hannan. Unfortunately the Tories whipped their MPs to vote those options down, replaced May with psychopathic liar Boris Johnson, and came up with a plan even dafter than May's, which they are now trying to unpick. But yes, clearly all of this is the fault of the Labour Party.
Dan Hannan always advocated the sort of soft Brexit I wanted. He has not changed his view on that.
But yes it is amusing and a little sad that it was the actions of the irreconciled Remain fanatics that allowed the narrative, and the type of Brexit, to be driven by the hard Brexiteers.
Were they primarily or even largely responsible for where we are now? No.
Did they help contribute to it and could they have helped to prevent it if they had not been so hell bent on reversing the referendum? Undoubtedly yes.
The type of Brexit we ended up with was born of hardliners on both sides. They both made sure there could be no compromise.
The Labour Party voted for compromise, the Tories whipped their MPs to oppose it. Those are the facts.
No the Labour Party did not vote for compromise.
Looking at the breakdowns for the indicative proposals see if you can spot which one the Labour MPs preferred
Proposal H - EFTA and EEA only 4 Labour MPs supported it. If they all had it would have passed. Proposal L - Revoke article 50 - 111 Labour MPs supported it. Proposal M - Rerun the referendum - 198 Labour MPs supported it.
Of the other 5 proposals 2 were effectively No Deal and 3 demanded we stayed in the Customs Union which was impossible without us remaining as full members of the EU.
So much for Labour supporting compromise.
This is such a dishonest post, sorry. I cannot let it stand without correcting the record.
The purpose of negotiating a customs union with the EU was to protect free trade the Irish border. You will note that Johnson's deal only achieved this goal by erecting trade barriers in the Irish Sea, which he is now trying to dismantle. In other words, a worthy goal that the government has failed to properly deliver.
For the first round of indicative votes:
Almost all Labour MPs voted for Ken Clarke's amendment K to negotiate a customs union as part of any deal. It was defeated by the Tories voting overwhelmingly against, with only a handful of Tories supporting it.
Almost all Labour MPs voted for Nick Boles's Common Market 2.0, ammendment D, which proposed EEA/Efta membership and a comprehensive customs arrangement. It was defeated by the Tories. Only a handful of Tory MPs supported it.
Almost all Labour MPs voted for the Labour Party's own compromise calling for close economic alignment with the EU, ammendment K. Voted down by the Tories.
The revocation amendment was supported by a minority of Labour MPs and some Tory MPs but in any case was only in case of no deal to avoid a catastrophic economic impact.
The confirmatory public vote wasn't a rerun of the referendum - it simply said the public should have a say on any Brexit deal that was negotiated. A reasonable way of breaking the parliamentary deadlock.
George Eustice's EEA/Efta deal (amendment H) received little support from any party as without anything to say on a customs union it had no solution to the Irish border. Only 65 MPs voted for it.
Yes, Labour voted for compromise. The Tories voted against.
Wrong. You are arguing from a point of profound ignorance.
The Customs Union proposals were complete non starters. Membership of the Customs Union requires membership of the EU. There are strange little exceptions for some of the tiny principalities like Monaco but they were never on offer to the UK.
Nick Boles, Ken Clarkes and the Labour proposals all included Customs Union Membership. The Labour proposal was explicitly The Customs Union since it included the UK having a say in EU third party trade deals. Even though this was impossible.
These proposals were just as dishonest as you are now being in trying to misrepresent them.
Your party voted for chaos because they refused to accept the referendum result and that is exactly what they got.
Wrong. You can be in a customs union with the EU without being in the EU, like Turkey. Is this perfect? No. That's why we shouldn't have left. Not all the proposals called explicitly for a customs union, they were calling for a customs arrangement of some kind to deal with the Irish border question. Otherwise, how is that problem solved? Not by the current deal, which the government is currently tearing up. What solution do you have? What compromise did Tory MPs vote for? None. Labour MPs voted for every compromise on offer, except for the one that failed to deliver a solution to the (still) main outstanding problem.
I already addressed that. Stop creating straw men.
And the Labour proposal was specifically for membership of The Customs Union because they said they wanted to have say over EU trade deals. They were either profoundly ignorant or profoundly dishonest.
And you are telling outright lies. Labour did not vote for every compromise on offer. The most obvious compromise was the EFTA/EEA membership and only 4 Labour MPs supported that.
Dragging in how the Tories voted is immaterial because I have not been supporting their stance either. They ere just as bad. I was specifically calling you out for your utter drivel about Labour supporting compromise. They didn't. They only supported proposals that were either impossible or which negated the referendum result.
It is clear from your opening paragraph that you also would rather have reversed the referendum result which is why you deserve nothing from scorn for your dishonesty.
It feels like you're the one being dishonest though. You enumerated the Labour votes on some of the indicative votes, but dismissed the customs union one as "impossible". Now we see it wasn't "impossible" but merely undesirable in your opinion.
No, as set out they were impossible. Membership of the Customs Union requires full EU membership. The Labour proposal particularly was clearly for membership of The Customs Union not just 'a' customs union as they argued for UK input to EU third party trade agreements.
Labour's proposal was for *a* customs union not membership of *the* customs union.
The only customs union that would allow the UK to have a say on EU third party trade deals (which was explict in their proposal) would be 'The' Customs Union. It was typical political dishonesty to try and dress it up any other way. Something you are repeating now.
Or the UK and EU could have negotiated a new customs union between the UK and EU that gave the UK some say. That should have been possible given that we always hold all the cards in these negotiations.
We never held all the cards. I deal with realities, not pipe dreams. You are more interested in defending your beloved party than in finding an actual solution to these issues.
I have literally provided a solution: Efta plus a customs arrangement similar to Turkey's to allow for frictionless trade GB/NI/EU. This is the compromise that Labour voted for. It isn't perfect but it protects the GFA, protects trade and honours the referendum. What is your solution? And what compromise did the Tories vote for?
Its odd how you view only getting what you want as a compromise.
From the meaningful votes the "compromises" that significant numbers of Tories backed were No Deal, and the option nicknamed 'managed no deal'.
In the end we got the compromise of a new deal, which Parliament was able to accept, so all's well that ends well.
I didn't want to leave. So leaving without screwing over Ireland or our exporters seemed a good compromise to me. No deal isn't a compromise, it is a form of Brexit so severe that all Brexiteers assured us during the referendum campaign that it would never happen. And I would note that the deal we have got has placed the GFA in peril and the government that negotiated it now wants to tear it up, so if it's a compromise it's not a great one.
No deal is a compromise just as much as your proposal is. Its saying that we wanted a deal, but we recognise that we haven't been able to reach an acceptable agreement with the EU, so we will have to compromise that we will leave without one which isn't what we wanted but respecting the EU's difference of opinion with us.
The fact that you don't like it, doesn't make it not a compromise. I didn't like your proposal so, swings and roundabouts.
A compromise is a solution that lies between two extremes, not one that is more extreme even than one of the starting points of the debate (since Leave always said we would of course only leave with a deal). Since Leave won narrowly by 52 to 48% a reasonable compromise would have been a soft Brexit that took us out of the EU political structures while preserving economic ties and protecting the GFA. What we have now only partially preserves ecomic ties and puts the GFA in danger. It is not a compromise.
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
The EEA was created as a temporary alternative for countries that weren't yet politically willing to join the EU in full, but the ultimate goal (even if it takes decades) was still the same.
I really don't see the attraction of leaving our former status in favour of the EEA as it would prevent us having different sectoral policies and limit our ability to champion new alliances or new forms of cooperation.
No it wouldn't. EEA membership does not prevent any other trade deals nor other forms of cooperation. It also looses all the political rubbish that came with EU membership. It is about trade and the Single Market, nothing more.
The EEA is based on regulatory harmonisation where the EU institutions control the regulations, so it's an illusion to say that it it is "without all the political stuff".
Imagine if every EU member but one decided to go for the EEA option. They would all be left having to implement regulations determined by the sole remaining EU state.
Not at all. Because at that point all the other members would be part of EFTA so wouldn't need the EEA for trade except with that one remaining state. And given that any EFTA member can opt out of chapters they don't agree with in the EEA agreement it renders the whole thing pointless. It would just be EFTA plus one country not in EFTA.
And vast areas of EU competence are not covered by the EEA agreement. Hence the reason countries like Norway and Iceland are happy to stay outside.
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
It is clear. And always was. You want to be in the Single Market, you have to accept Freedom of Movement. The four freedoms are indivisible. The EU Commission was always explicit on this point, and never budged
Except in Mrs May's backstop. Which was therefore a considerable lost opportunity.
Was it? I’m a boffin on EU affairs compared to 99.3% of the population but by the time we got to the Arguments Over The Backstop I confess my eyes glazed over and I missed details. Tho that seems like quite a big detail
ANYWAY it is a criminal indictment of our politics that we, as a nation, did not sit down, and have not sat down, and discussed all these options, from the hardest Brexit to EEA/EFTA
We’re like someone who got divorced but paid no heed to our own situation after the divorce and so we’ve ended up sleeping in the car. All sides are to blame for this,. The Hard Brexiteers who told lies because they worried the voters would say Remain if they thought about it, the Remainers who tried to overturn the referendum when they could have been doing exactly THIS: arguing passionately for EFTA/EEA (and surely winning the day), and of course all the lying governments that denied us prior plebiscites on the EU
But mistakes can be rectified. We need a national conversation now as to what we do. Boris and Starmer both need to go, before we can do this
Yes, the EU justified it as a "temporary measure", presumably like the temporary ceasefire between North and South Korea signed in 1953. It really gave us exactly what I think the majority wanted, away from all that ridiculous politics nonsense in the EU, a control on freedom of movement and free trade. Why SKS did not see this and get Labour to vote for it en masse is yet another question mark on his judgment.
He wanted to Remain, in spite of the referendum result. He had no interest in any flavour of Leave, all of which were anathemae to him.
Mr. Pete, one does wonder what was going through Labour's collective head on that.
Did they think if May got ousted the Conservatives would do anything but move in a more sceptical direction?
May's deal was the most pro-EU one they were going to get.
They thought they could overturn the result of the referendum
They were hoping the Tories would come to their senses and support a softer Brexit of the kind now being advocated by noted Remoaner Daniel Hannan. Unfortunately the Tories whipped their MPs to vote those options down, replaced May with psychopathic liar Boris Johnson, and came up with a plan even dafter than May's, which they are now trying to unpick. But yes, clearly all of this is the fault of the Labour Party.
Dan Hannan always advocated the sort of soft Brexit I wanted. He has not changed his view on that.
But yes it is amusing and a little sad that it was the actions of the irreconciled Remain fanatics that allowed the narrative, and the type of Brexit, to be driven by the hard Brexiteers.
Were they primarily or even largely responsible for where we are now? No.
Did they help contribute to it and could they have helped to prevent it if they had not been so hell bent on reversing the referendum? Undoubtedly yes.
The type of Brexit we ended up with was born of hardliners on both sides. They both made sure there could be no compromise.
The Labour Party voted for compromise, the Tories whipped their MPs to oppose it. Those are the facts.
No the Labour Party did not vote for compromise.
Looking at the breakdowns for the indicative proposals see if you can spot which one the Labour MPs preferred
Proposal H - EFTA and EEA only 4 Labour MPs supported it. If they all had it would have passed. Proposal L - Revoke article 50 - 111 Labour MPs supported it. Proposal M - Rerun the referendum - 198 Labour MPs supported it.
Of the other 5 proposals 2 were effectively No Deal and 3 demanded we stayed in the Customs Union which was impossible without us remaining as full members of the EU.
So much for Labour supporting compromise.
This is such a dishonest post, sorry. I cannot let it stand without correcting the record.
The purpose of negotiating a customs union with the EU was to protect free trade the Irish border. You will note that Johnson's deal only achieved this goal by erecting trade barriers in the Irish Sea, which he is now trying to dismantle. In other words, a worthy goal that the government has failed to properly deliver.
For the first round of indicative votes:
Almost all Labour MPs voted for Ken Clarke's amendment K to negotiate a customs union as part of any deal. It was defeated by the Tories voting overwhelmingly against, with only a handful of Tories supporting it.
Almost all Labour MPs voted for Nick Boles's Common Market 2.0, ammendment D, which proposed EEA/Efta membership and a comprehensive customs arrangement. It was defeated by the Tories. Only a handful of Tory MPs supported it.
Almost all Labour MPs voted for the Labour Party's own compromise calling for close economic alignment with the EU, ammendment K. Voted down by the Tories.
The revocation amendment was supported by a minority of Labour MPs and some Tory MPs but in any case was only in case of no deal to avoid a catastrophic economic impact.
The confirmatory public vote wasn't a rerun of the referendum - it simply said the public should have a say on any Brexit deal that was negotiated. A reasonable way of breaking the parliamentary deadlock.
George Eustice's EEA/Efta deal (amendment H) received little support from any party as without anything to say on a customs union it had no solution to the Irish border. Only 65 MPs voted for it.
Yes, Labour voted for compromise. The Tories voted against.
Wrong. You are arguing from a point of profound ignorance.
The Customs Union proposals were complete non starters. Membership of the Customs Union requires membership of the EU. There are strange little exceptions for some of the tiny principalities like Monaco but they were never on offer to the UK.
Nick Boles, Ken Clarkes and the Labour proposals all included Customs Union Membership. The Labour proposal was explicitly The Customs Union since it included the UK having a say in EU third party trade deals. Even though this was impossible.
These proposals were just as dishonest as you are now being in trying to misrepresent them.
Your party voted for chaos because they refused to accept the referendum result and that is exactly what they got.
Wrong. You can be in a customs union with the EU without being in the EU, like Turkey. Is this perfect? No. That's why we shouldn't have left. Not all the proposals called explicitly for a customs union, they were calling for a customs arrangement of some kind to deal with the Irish border question. Otherwise, how is that problem solved? Not by the current deal, which the government is currently tearing up. What solution do you have? What compromise did Tory MPs vote for? None. Labour MPs voted for every compromise on offer, except for the one that failed to deliver a solution to the (still) main outstanding problem.
I already addressed that. Stop creating straw men.
And the Labour proposal was specifically for membership of The Customs Union because they said they wanted to have say over EU trade deals. They were either profoundly ignorant or profoundly dishonest.
And you are telling outright lies. Labour did not vote for every compromise on offer. The most obvious compromise was the EFTA/EEA membership and only 4 Labour MPs supported that.
Dragging in how the Tories voted is immaterial because I have not been supporting their stance either. They ere just as bad. I was specifically calling you out for your utter drivel about Labour supporting compromise. They didn't. They only supported proposals that were either impossible or which negated the referendum result.
It is clear from your opening paragraph that you also would rather have reversed the referendum result which is why you deserve nothing from scorn for your dishonesty.
It feels like you're the one being dishonest though. You enumerated the Labour votes on some of the indicative votes, but dismissed the customs union one as "impossible". Now we see it wasn't "impossible" but merely undesirable in your opinion.
No, as set out they were impossible. Membership of the Customs Union requires full EU membership. The Labour proposal particularly was clearly for membership of The Customs Union not just 'a' customs union as they argued for UK input to EU third party trade agreements.
Labour's proposal was for *a* customs union not membership of *the* customs union.
The only customs union that would allow the UK to have a say on EU third party trade deals (which was explict in their proposal) would be 'The' Customs Union. It was typical political dishonesty to try and dress it up any other way. Something you are repeating now.
Or the UK and EU could have negotiated a new customs union between the UK and EU that gave the UK some say. That should have been possible given that we always hold all the cards in these negotiations.
We never held all the cards. I deal with realities, not pipe dreams. You are more interested in defending your beloved party than in finding an actual solution to these issues.
I have literally provided a solution: Efta plus a customs arrangement similar to Turkey's to allow for frictionless trade GB/NI/EU. This is the compromise that Labour voted for. It isn't perfect but it protects the GFA, protects trade and honours the referendum. What is your solution? And what compromise did the Tories vote for?
Its odd how you view only getting what you want as a compromise.
From the meaningful votes the "compromises" that significant numbers of Tories backed were No Deal, and the option nicknamed 'managed no deal'.
In the end we got the compromise of a new deal, which Parliament was able to accept, so all's well that ends well.
I didn't want to leave. So leaving without screwing over Ireland or our exporters seemed a good compromise to me. No deal isn't a compromise, it is a form of Brexit so severe that all Brexiteers assured us during the referendum campaign that it would never happen. And I would note that the deal we have got has placed the GFA in peril and the government that negotiated it now wants to tear it up, so if it's a compromise it's not a great one.
No deal is a compromise just as much as your proposal is. Its saying that we wanted a deal, but we recognise that we haven't been able to reach an acceptable agreement with the EU, so we will have to compromise that we will leave without one which isn't what we wanted but respecting the EU's difference of opinion with us.
The fact that you don't like it, doesn't make it not a compromise. I didn't like your proposal so, swings and roundabouts.
A compromise is a solution that lies between two extremes, not one that is more extreme even than one of the starting points of the debate (since Leave always said we would of course only leave with a deal). Since Leave won narrowly by 52 to 48% a reasonable compromise would have been a soft Brexit that took us out of the EU political structures while preserving economic ties and protecting the GFA. What we have now only partially preserves ecomic ties and puts the GFA in danger. It is not a compromise.
A compromise is a resolution that means both sides make concessions. No deal is a compromise because we thought we could get all we wanted, but we'd have compromised by accepting that we couldn't and they would have accepted they couldn't get all they wanted either, and the talks would have come to an end.
What we have now is an agreement, it absolutely is a compromise, even if you don't like it. The whole point of Brexit though is we've taken back control now, so if you don't like it, or elements of it, then its democratic to seek to evolve or change the agreement over time.
To repeat again, there's no equivalence in the foreclosing of options between Leavers and Remainers, and to do so is to rewrite history. May conducted the most decisive foreclosing of options near the very beginning by ruling out free movement, and Johnson solidified this foreclosing of options even more outspokenly. The only conceivable fault on the Labour side was Corbyn then being much less keen or able to marshal more moderate options on Europe into a coherent plan, than the hardliners who gradually took over the Conservative Party.
Boris got a deal which was acceptable to Parliament so he didn't foreclose any potential compromises, he got one that even Keir Starmer voted for.
It foreclosed almost everything. Starmer voted for it because he was terrified, and compared to an absention this was probably a political mistake.
Price looks really good, but 3.24 lb and 9.7 hour battery; I'll stick with my more expensive and more solid MacBook Air at 2.7 lb and 15 hours. But horses for courses.
Once you Mac, you don't go back.
One of the two computer servicing, advice etc firms in this small town HATES Mac! Really hates. Won't touch them.
Questions. My assumption is that once 54 letters went in Boris's days are numbered and everyone knows it. The only issue being when.
1) Is this correct 2) If correct, what reason is there for Tory MPs to prolong their (and our) agony for months, knowing the Boris cause is hopeless -'if were done when tis done' etc 3) Is there a cunning plan and if so what.
1) I think yes. The only thing which can save him is winning an election. 2) There isn't a reason because there is no organised opposition in the Tory Party. Nor any successor to coalesce around. 3) See above
I would like Rishi to resign and (somehow) trigger a leadership contest, which Penny wins. A fabulous choreography of events, leading to a PM we can be proud of. #pm4pm
I'm on her at 60s - so not unhappy with the hype - but I'm intrigued by your sudden enthusiasm for her. Why aren't you getting behind Patel?
I quite like Patel myself but she's very much a known (and not especially well liked in many quarters) quantity. I think Mordaunt is less tainted, and a better Commons performer, but there's something else indefinable that has caught my imagination. Did you know, she's also Irish (Southern Irish) so I almost feel she could smooth those waters a bit too.
I'm going to stop being positive about her here, as I will damage her by her being my favourite for the job. At the moment it's remarkable jusy how many PBers have time for her, from TSE and Stuartinromford, to BigG.
Well the reasons I backed her as my dark horse a while back was she's a Leaver with name recognition who has the sort of look and feel to appeal to the grassroots, whilst at the same time she's stayed out of the Boris cesspit, plus she didn't run last time so she's unexposed. The current 9 looks a bit short though. 2nd fav now. Not sure about that.
To repeat again, there's no equivalence in the foreclosing of options between Leavers and Remainers, and to do so is to rewrite history. May conducted the most decisive foreclosing of options near the very beginning by ruling out free movement, and Johnson solidified this foreclosing of options even more outspokenly. The only conceivable fault on the Labour side was Corbyn then being much less keen or able to marshal more moderate options on Europe into a coherent plan, than the hardliners who gradually took over the Conservative Party.
Boris got a deal which was acceptable to Parliament so he didn't foreclose any potential compromises, he got one that even Keir Starmer voted for.
It foreclosed almost everything. Starmer voted for it because he was terrified, and compared to an absention this was probably a political mistake.
It doesn't foreclose anything, we've taken back control, that is Brexit.
If you want to join the EEA or EFTA, that option isn't foreclosed, you can like Mr Tyndall make the argument for that and seek to get representatives who are in favour of that into Parliament.
The whole point of taking back control is that we get to decide our own future democratically, nothing is foreclosed or set in stone. No Parliament can bind its successors.
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
The EEA was created as a temporary alternative for countries that weren't yet politically willing to join the EU in full, but the ultimate goal (even if it takes decades) was still the same.
I really don't see the attraction of leaving our former status in favour of the EEA as it would prevent us having different sectoral policies and limit our ability to champion new alliances or new forms of cooperation.
No it wouldn't. EEA membership does not prevent any other trade deals nor other forms of cooperation. It also looses all the political rubbish that came with EU membership. It is about trade and the Single Market, nothing more.
The EEA is based on regulatory harmonisation where the EU institutions control the regulations, so it's an illusion to say that it it is "without all the political stuff".
Imagine if every EU member but one decided to go for the EEA option. They would all be left having to implement regulations determined by the sole remaining EU state.
Most EU regulatory harmonisation is around ISO standards, and IIRC EFTA countries maintain their independent representation at the ISO*.
* Switzerland certainly does, and I assume that Norway and Iceland do too.
It's the politically contentious cutting-edge regulation like MiFID or GPRS that you should focus on.
The argument that the EU is downstream of international organsiations so therefore there is nothing wrong with being obliged to follow EU law is really weak. Anyone who believes it should be arguing in favour of bypassing the EU altogether.
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
The EEA was created as a temporary alternative for countries that weren't yet politically willing to join the EU in full, but the ultimate goal (even if it takes decades) was still the same.
I really don't see the attraction of leaving our former status in favour of the EEA as it would prevent us having different sectoral policies and limit our ability to champion new alliances or new forms of cooperation.
No it wouldn't. EEA membership does not prevent any other trade deals nor other forms of cooperation. It also looses all the political rubbish that came with EU membership. It is about trade and the Single Market, nothing more.
The EEA is based on regulatory harmonisation where the EU institutions control the regulations, so it's an illusion to say that it it is "without all the political stuff".
Imagine if every EU member but one decided to go for the EEA option. They would all be left having to implement regulations determined by the sole remaining EU state.
Not at all. Because at that point all the other members would be part of EFTA so wouldn't need the EEA for trade except with that one remaining state. And given that any EFTA member can opt out of chapters they don't agree with in the EEA agreement it renders the whole thing pointless. It would just be EFTA plus one country not in EFTA.
And vast areas of EU competence are not covered by the EEA agreement. Hence the reason countries like Norway and Iceland are happy to stay outside.
The purpose of the EEA is to ensure harmonised regulations. If you can live without that and aren't worried about non-tariff barriers then there is no reason to want to be in it.
Price looks really good, but 3.24 lb and 9.7 hour battery; I'll stick with my more expensive and more solid MacBook Air at 2.7 lb and 15 hours. But horses for courses.
Once you Mac, you don't go back.
I did. Hated my Mac
Can't bear Macs. No idea why people say they are easy to use. I find them a bloody nightmare.
My wife has one. Loves it. I've just asked her why.
She said it's easy to use and intuitive and - crucially - it never goes wrong. She would not go away from a mac now. The other laptops we have had have always involved support and buggering about by IT guys. The mac is simple, it never goes wrong and, she says, no-one can bugger about with it.
Mr. Pete, one does wonder what was going through Labour's collective head on that.
Did they think if May got ousted the Conservatives would do anything but move in a more sceptical direction?
May's deal was the most pro-EU one they were going to get.
They thought they could overturn the result of the referendum
They were hoping the Tories would come to their senses and support a softer Brexit of the kind now being advocated by noted Remoaner Daniel Hannan. Unfortunately the Tories whipped their MPs to vote those options down, replaced May with psychopathic liar Boris Johnson, and came up with a plan even dafter than May's, which they are now trying to unpick. But yes, clearly all of this is the fault of the Labour Party.
Dan Hannan always advocated the sort of soft Brexit I wanted. He has not changed his view on that.
But yes it is amusing and a little sad that it was the actions of the irreconciled Remain fanatics that allowed the narrative, and the type of Brexit, to be driven by the hard Brexiteers.
Were they primarily or even largely responsible for where we are now? No.
Did they help contribute to it and could they have helped to prevent it if they had not been so hell bent on reversing the referendum? Undoubtedly yes.
The type of Brexit we ended up with was born of hardliners on both sides. They both made sure there could be no compromise.
The Labour Party voted for compromise, the Tories whipped their MPs to oppose it. Those are the facts.
No the Labour Party did not vote for compromise.
Looking at the breakdowns for the indicative proposals see if you can spot which one the Labour MPs preferred
Proposal H - EFTA and EEA only 4 Labour MPs supported it. If they all had it would have passed. Proposal L - Revoke article 50 - 111 Labour MPs supported it. Proposal M - Rerun the referendum - 198 Labour MPs supported it.
Of the other 5 proposals 2 were effectively No Deal and 3 demanded we stayed in the Customs Union which was impossible without us remaining as full members of the EU.
So much for Labour supporting compromise.
This is such a dishonest post, sorry. I cannot let it stand without correcting the record.
The purpose of negotiating a customs union with the EU was to protect free trade the Irish border. You will note that Johnson's deal only achieved this goal by erecting trade barriers in the Irish Sea, which he is now trying to dismantle. In other words, a worthy goal that the government has failed to properly deliver.
For the first round of indicative votes:
Almost all Labour MPs voted for Ken Clarke's amendment K to negotiate a customs union as part of any deal. It was defeated by the Tories voting overwhelmingly against, with only a handful of Tories supporting it.
Almost all Labour MPs voted for Nick Boles's Common Market 2.0, ammendment D, which proposed EEA/Efta membership and a comprehensive customs arrangement. It was defeated by the Tories. Only a handful of Tory MPs supported it.
Almost all Labour MPs voted for the Labour Party's own compromise calling for close economic alignment with the EU, ammendment K. Voted down by the Tories.
The revocation amendment was supported by a minority of Labour MPs and some Tory MPs but in any case was only in case of no deal to avoid a catastrophic economic impact.
The confirmatory public vote wasn't a rerun of the referendum - it simply said the public should have a say on any Brexit deal that was negotiated. A reasonable way of breaking the parliamentary deadlock.
George Eustice's EEA/Efta deal (amendment H) received little support from any party as without anything to say on a customs union it had no solution to the Irish border. Only 65 MPs voted for it.
Yes, Labour voted for compromise. The Tories voted against.
Wrong. You are arguing from a point of profound ignorance.
The Customs Union proposals were complete non starters. Membership of the Customs Union requires membership of the EU. There are strange little exceptions for some of the tiny principalities like Monaco but they were never on offer to the UK.
Nick Boles, Ken Clarkes and the Labour proposals all included Customs Union Membership. The Labour proposal was explicitly The Customs Union since it included the UK having a say in EU third party trade deals. Even though this was impossible.
These proposals were just as dishonest as you are now being in trying to misrepresent them.
Your party voted for chaos because they refused to accept the referendum result and that is exactly what they got.
Wrong. You can be in a customs union with the EU without being in the EU, like Turkey. Is this perfect? No. That's why we shouldn't have left. Not all the proposals called explicitly for a customs union, they were calling for a customs arrangement of some kind to deal with the Irish border question. Otherwise, how is that problem solved? Not by the current deal, which the government is currently tearing up. What solution do you have? What compromise did Tory MPs vote for? None. Labour MPs voted for every compromise on offer, except for the one that failed to deliver a solution to the (still) main outstanding problem.
I already addressed that. Stop creating straw men.
And the Labour proposal was specifically for membership of The Customs Union because they said they wanted to have say over EU trade deals. They were either profoundly ignorant or profoundly dishonest.
And you are telling outright lies. Labour did not vote for every compromise on offer. The most obvious compromise was the EFTA/EEA membership and only 4 Labour MPs supported that.
Dragging in how the Tories voted is immaterial because I have not been supporting their stance either. They ere just as bad. I was specifically calling you out for your utter drivel about Labour supporting compromise. They didn't. They only supported proposals that were either impossible or which negated the referendum result.
It is clear from your opening paragraph that you also would rather have reversed the referendum result which is why you deserve nothing from scorn for your dishonesty.
It feels like you're the one being dishonest though. You enumerated the Labour votes on some of the indicative votes, but dismissed the customs union one as "impossible". Now we see it wasn't "impossible" but merely undesirable in your opinion.
No, as set out they were impossible. Membership of the Customs Union requires full EU membership. The Labour proposal particularly was clearly for membership of The Customs Union not just 'a' customs union as they argued for UK input to EU third party trade agreements.
Labour's proposal was for *a* customs union not membership of *the* customs union.
The only customs union that would allow the UK to have a say on EU third party trade deals (which was explict in their proposal) would be 'The' Customs Union. It was typical political dishonesty to try and dress it up any other way. Something you are repeating now.
Or the UK and EU could have negotiated a new customs union between the UK and EU that gave the UK some say. That should have been possible given that we always hold all the cards in these negotiations.
We never held all the cards. I deal with realities, not pipe dreams. You are more interested in defending your beloved party than in finding an actual solution to these issues.
I have literally provided a solution: Efta plus a customs arrangement similar to Turkey's to allow for frictionless trade GB/NI/EU. This is the compromise that Labour voted for. It isn't perfect but it protects the GFA, protects trade and honours the referendum. What is your solution? And what compromise did the Tories vote for?
Its odd how you view only getting what you want as a compromise.
From the meaningful votes the "compromises" that significant numbers of Tories backed were No Deal, and the option nicknamed 'managed no deal'.
In the end we got the compromise of a new deal, which Parliament was able to accept, so all's well that ends well.
I didn't want to leave. So leaving without screwing over Ireland or our exporters seemed a good compromise to me. No deal isn't a compromise, it is a form of Brexit so severe that all Brexiteers assured us during the referendum campaign that it would never happen. And I would note that the deal we have got has placed the GFA in peril and the government that negotiated it now wants to tear it up, so if it's a compromise it's not a great one.
No deal is a compromise just as much as your proposal is. Its saying that we wanted a deal, but we recognise that we haven't been able to reach an acceptable agreement with the EU, so we will have to compromise that we will leave without one which isn't what we wanted but respecting the EU's difference of opinion with us.
The fact that you don't like it, doesn't make it not a compromise. I didn't like your proposal so, swings and roundabouts.
A compromise is a solution that lies between two extremes, not one that is more extreme even than one of the starting points of the debate (since Leave always said we would of course only leave with a deal). Since Leave won narrowly by 52 to 48% a reasonable compromise would have been a soft Brexit that took us out of the EU political structures while preserving economic ties and protecting the GFA. What we have now only partially preserves ecomic ties and puts the GFA in danger. It is not a compromise.
A compromise is a resolution that means both sides make concessions. No deal is a compromise because we thought we could get all we wanted, but we'd have compromised by accepting that we couldn't and they would have accepted they couldn't get all they wanted either, and the talks would have come to an end.
What we have now is an agreement, it absolutely is a compromise, even if you don't like it. The whole point of Brexit though is we've taken back control now, so if you don't like it, or elements of it, then its democratic to seek to evolve or change the agreement over time.
Agreed. My hope is that over time we repair some of the damage done to our prosperity by evolving to a closer economic relationship and eventually we rejoin so we can play our part as a leading European power. It will take time and will sadly amount to a pointless round trip absorbing much political energy that would have been more usefully employed in solving our many manifest problems.
I wrote earlier that Keir Starmer had made an error talking about the NHS when he was centre stage and all the cameras were pointing at the badly wounded Boris. Well I just got a phone call from a photographer friend to tell me about his experience at A+E yesterday.
To cut a long story short he arrived at A+E at 12.00 noon with a hand the size of a rugby ball and they saw him at 11 PM. He was livid and has just done the best evisceration of Johnson and his government I've so far heard. He's funny and articulate anyway but this should have been recorded. As he said the only part of his body he needs is his trigger finger so I'll spare you the details of what he wanted to do with it.
I now understand why Starmer centred on the NHS. They must all be hearing similar stories all day long. It's the NHS and things like it that are the reason Johnson is so shit. His partying and lying are just a symptom
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
It is clear. And always was. You want to be in the Single Market, you have to accept Freedom of Movement. The four freedoms are indivisible. The EU Commission was always explicit on this point, and never budged
Yes.
The reality of island of Ireland politics + the Brexit vote is why both sides should make this a special case.
The Brexit vote swung the way it did because of FoM. Neither side campaigned in Ref2016 on the basis that exiting the EU was impossible because of Ireland - merely that it was a problem to resolve. Events have shown it's insoluble both practically and politically.
Therefore both sides should give way. The UK should give way on SM membership (via EEA or Swiss arrangement) and, uniquely, the EU should give way on FoM.
Peace in Ireland matters more than either of these things.
SM benefits without FoM. Not sure what we're giving away there.
Democracy.
The Parliament we elect wouldn't set our regulations, we'd have to follow the regulations they pass instead, but without our own elected representatives having a say in the regulations being written.
Hardly the end of democracy to voluntarily join a trading bloc.
As this thread reveals (again) there is no version of Brexit that isn't shit.
The only version of Brexit that didn't completely fuck us up was no Brexit.
That is why it is not done, and will be revisited by every Government for the rest of our lives...
There was no version of Remain that wasn't shit either.
Yep. That's how I saw it. A shitty stick with shit at both ends. That's the referendum that Cameron gave us. I came down pragmatically on the remain side but with no enthusiasm at all. I wouldn't vote to go back in.
As this thread reveals (again) there is no version of Brexit that isn't shit.
The only version of Brexit that didn't completely fuck us up was no Brexit.
That is why it is not done, and will be revisited by every Government for the rest of our lives...
Except the most shit form of Brexit was not having it at all.
To quote the great Oscar Wilde,
"We are all In the gutter but some of us are looking at the stars"
I just cannot comprehend @Scott_xP utter believe brexit will go on for the rest of his life and if he is as miserable as this every day I would respectively suggest he needs another hobby
Questions. My assumption is that once 54 letters went in Boris's days are numbered and everyone knows it. The only issue being when.
1) Is this correct 2) If correct, what reason is there for Tory MPs to prolong their (and our) agony for months, knowing the Boris cause is hopeless -'if were done when tis done' etc 3) Is there a cunning plan and if so what.
1) I think yes. The only thing which can save him is winning an election. 2) There isn't a reason because there is no organised opposition in the Tory Party. Nor any successor to coalesce around. 3) See above
I would like Rishi to resign and (somehow) trigger a leadership contest, which Penny wins. A fabulous choreography of events, leading to a PM we can be proud of. #pm4pm
I'm on her at 60s - so not unhappy with the hype - but I'm intrigued by your sudden enthusiasm for her. Why aren't you getting behind Patel?
I quite like Patel myself but she's very much a known (and not especially well liked in many quarters) quantity. I think Mordaunt is less tainted, and a better Commons performer, but there's something else indefinable that has caught my imagination. Did you know, she's also Irish (Southern Irish) so I almost feel she could smooth those waters a bit too.
I'm going to stop being positive about her here, as I will damage her by her being my favourite for the job. At the moment it's remarkable jusy how many PBers have time for her, from TSE and Stuartinromford, to BigG.
Well the reasons I backed her as my dark horse a while back was she's a Leaver with name recognition who has the sort of look and feel to appeal to the grassroots, whilst at the same time she's stayed out of the Boris cesspit, plus she didn't run last time so she's unexposed. The current 9 looks a bit short though. 2nd fav now. Not sure about that.
Some of her constituents, especially those I've come across, really rate her. Equally, some, particularly those who don't like her particular brand of Toryism, do not! As readers will guess, I don't like (!) her politics, but she's been very helpful to me.
To repeat again, there's no equivalence in the foreclosing of options between Leavers and Remainers, and to do so is to rewrite history. May conducted the most decisive foreclosing of options near the very beginning by ruling out free movement, and Johnson solidified this foreclosing of options even more outspokenly. The only conceivable fault on the Labour side was Corbyn then being much less keen or able to marshal more moderate options on Europe into a coherent plan, than the hardliners who gradually took over the Conservative Party.
Boris got a deal which was acceptable to Parliament so he didn't foreclose any potential compromises, he got one that even Keir Starmer voted for.
It foreclosed almost everything. Starmer voted for it because he was terrified, and compared to an absention this was probably a political mistake.
It doesn't foreclose anything, we've taken back control, that is Brexit.
If you want to join the EEA or EFTA, that option isn't foreclosed, you can like Mr Tyndall make the argument for that and seek to get representatives who are in favour of that into Parliament.
The whole point of taking back control is that we get to decide our own future democratically, nothing is foreclosed or set in stone. No Parliament can bind its successors.
We've done a deal that rules out certain types of relationship, commonly described as foreclosing. To reopen them the deal would have to be terminated, and the EU accept a closer relationship. Daniel Hannan, Vote Leave supremo, described this threadbare and economically damaging deal as "brilliant", but still claims to be in favour of a softer Brexit. Which is it, and on what planet does all this nonsense from the people who dreamt up our move have any coherence ?
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
It is clear. And always was. You want to be in the Single Market, you have to accept Freedom of Movement. The four freedoms are indivisible. The EU Commission was always explicit on this point, and never budged
Yes.
The reality of island of Ireland politics + the Brexit vote is why both sides should make this a special case.
The Brexit vote swung the way it did because of FoM. Neither side campaigned in Ref2016 on the basis that exiting the EU was impossible because of Ireland - merely that it was a problem to resolve. Events have shown it's insoluble both practically and politically.
Therefore both sides should give way. The UK should give way on SM membership (via EEA or Swiss arrangement) and, uniquely, the EU should give way on FoM.
Peace in Ireland matters more than either of these things.
SM benefits without FoM. Not sure what we're giving away there.
Democracy.
The Parliament we elect wouldn't set our regulations, we'd have to follow the regulations they pass instead, but without our own elected representatives having a say in the regulations being written.
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
The EEA was created as a temporary alternative for countries that weren't yet politically willing to join the EU in full, but the ultimate goal (even if it takes decades) was still the same.
I really don't see the attraction of leaving our former status in favour of the EEA as it would prevent us having different sectoral policies and limit our ability to champion new alliances or new forms of cooperation.
Richard is proposing joining EFTA, not the EEA.
I believe he's using EFTA as a synonym for EFTA/EEA. Joining EFTA on its own wouldn't change our current relationship with the EU.
No, he really isn't.
He's proposing we join EFTA, but only EFTA.
Hopefully Richard can clarify, but his posts in this thread are clearly advocating the EEA, not just EFTA.
As this thread reveals (again) there is no version of Brexit that isn't shit.
The only version of Brexit that didn't completely fuck us up was no Brexit.
That is why it is not done, and will be revisited by every Government for the rest of our lives...
There was no version of Remain that wasn't shit either.
Yep. That's how I saw it. A shitty stick with shit at both ends. That's the referendum that Cameron gave us. I came down pragmatically on the remain side but with no enthusiasm at all. I wouldn't vote to go back in.
I would. I still hope to see us back before I'm 'called"
And I'm not all that good, health wise, these days.
Price looks really good, but 3.24 lb and 9.7 hour battery; I'll stick with my more expensive and more solid MacBook Air at 2.7 lb and 15 hours. But horses for courses.
Once you Mac, you don't go back.
One of the two computer servicing, advice etc firms in this small town HATES Mac! Really hates. Won't touch them.
Yes. And this is what piques my interest.
The IT guys despise Apple, yet folk like us who want things to be simple and what works are very pleased with the products.
After much head-scratching I think the reasons for the IT dislike come down to: 1) they make less money fiddling about with their customers products (because they are simple and don't go wrong) and 2) they think punters are mugs for paying over the odds (I think they are wrong because they don't factor in the quality and reliability).
As this thread reveals (again) there is no version of Brexit that isn't shit.
The only version of Brexit that didn't completely fuck us up was no Brexit.
That is why it is not done, and will be revisited by every Government for the rest of our lives...
There was no version of Remain that wasn't shit either.
Yep. That's how I saw it. A shitty stick with shit at both ends. That's the referendum that Cameron gave us. I came down pragmatically on the remain side but with no enthusiasm at all. I wouldn't vote to go back in.
Cameron isn't the most to blame. Major should have given us a referendum over Maastricht. Blair should have given us a referendum over the euro - and the Constitution. Brown should have given us a referendum over Lisbon.
By the time Cameron came in, there was only the nuclear button left for the British people to push. It's true that he should have designed a better referendum, but it's not his fault that he had to have one on the ultimate question.
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
It is clear. And always was. You want to be in the Single Market, you have to accept Freedom of Movement. The four freedoms are indivisible. The EU Commission was always explicit on this point, and never budged
Yes.
The reality of island of Ireland politics + the Brexit vote is why both sides should make this a special case.
The Brexit vote swung the way it did because of FoM. Neither side campaigned in Ref2016 on the basis that exiting the EU was impossible because of Ireland - merely that it was a problem to resolve. Events have shown it's insoluble both practically and politically.
Therefore both sides should give way. The UK should give way on SM membership (via EEA or Swiss arrangement) and, uniquely, the EU should give way on FoM.
Peace in Ireland matters more than either of these things.
SM benefits without FoM. Not sure what we're giving away there.
Democracy.
The Parliament we elect wouldn't set our regulations, we'd have to follow the regulations they pass instead, but without our own elected representatives having a say in the regulations being written.
Hardly the end of democracy to voluntarily join a trading bloc.
It is when you don't have a say in the rules of the trading bloc.
As this thread reveals (again) there is no version of Brexit that isn't shit.
The only version of Brexit that didn't completely fuck us up was no Brexit.
That is why it is not done, and will be revisited by every Government for the rest of our lives...
There was no version of Remain that wasn't shit either.
Yep. That's how I saw it. A shitty stick with shit at both ends. That's the referendum that Cameron gave us. I came down pragmatically on the remain side but with no enthusiasm at all. I wouldn't vote to go back in.
Cameron isn't the most to blame. Major should have given us a referendum over Maastricht. Blair should have given us a referendum over the euro - and the Constitution. Brown should have given us a referendum over Lisbon.
By the time Cameron came in, there was only the nuclear button left for the British people to push. It's true that he should have designed a better referendum, but it's not his fault that he had to have one on the ultimate question.
Well I don't accept that we needed a referendum and I'm not keen on referenda anyway. We had a pretty good deal with the rebate and without having to ditch the pound.
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
The EEA was created as a temporary alternative for countries that weren't yet politically willing to join the EU in full, but the ultimate goal (even if it takes decades) was still the same.
I really don't see the attraction of leaving our former status in favour of the EEA as it would prevent us having different sectoral policies and limit our ability to champion new alliances or new forms of cooperation.
No it wouldn't. EEA membership does not prevent any other trade deals nor other forms of cooperation. It also looses all the political rubbish that came with EU membership. It is about trade and the Single Market, nothing more.
The EEA is based on regulatory harmonisation where the EU institutions control the regulations, so it's an illusion to say that it it is "without all the political stuff".
Imagine if every EU member but one decided to go for the EEA option. They would all be left having to implement regulations determined by the sole remaining EU state.
Not at all. Because at that point all the other members would be part of EFTA so wouldn't need the EEA for trade except with that one remaining state. And given that any EFTA member can opt out of chapters they don't agree with in the EEA agreement it renders the whole thing pointless. It would just be EFTA plus one country not in EFTA.
And vast areas of EU competence are not covered by the EEA agreement. Hence the reason countries like Norway and Iceland are happy to stay outside.
The purpose of the EEA is to ensure harmonised regulations. If you can live without that and aren't worried about non-tariff barriers then there is no reason to want to be in it.
Harmonised regulations in very specific and limited areas related to trade between members. I find it hard to believe that anyone could really object to that.
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
It is clear. And always was. You want to be in the Single Market, you have to accept Freedom of Movement. The four freedoms are indivisible. The EU Commission was always explicit on this point, and never budged
Yes.
The reality of island of Ireland politics + the Brexit vote is why both sides should make this a special case.
The Brexit vote swung the way it did because of FoM. Neither side campaigned in Ref2016 on the basis that exiting the EU was impossible because of Ireland - merely that it was a problem to resolve. Events have shown it's insoluble both practically and politically.
Therefore both sides should give way. The UK should give way on SM membership (via EEA or Swiss arrangement) and, uniquely, the EU should give way on FoM.
Peace in Ireland matters more than either of these things.
SM benefits without FoM. Not sure what we're giving away there.
Democracy.
The Parliament we elect wouldn't set our regulations, we'd have to follow the regulations they pass instead, but without our own elected representatives having a say in the regulations being written.
Hardly the end of democracy to voluntarily join a trading bloc.
It is when you don't have a say in the rules of the trading bloc.
..which it what happens most significantly when you leave it, but can't change the facts of your trading geography.
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
It is clear. And always was. You want to be in the Single Market, you have to accept Freedom of Movement. The four freedoms are indivisible. The EU Commission was always explicit on this point, and never budged
Yes.
The reality of island of Ireland politics + the Brexit vote is why both sides should make this a special case.
The Brexit vote swung the way it did because of FoM. Neither side campaigned in Ref2016 on the basis that exiting the EU was impossible because of Ireland - merely that it was a problem to resolve. Events have shown it's insoluble both practically and politically.
Therefore both sides should give way. The UK should give way on SM membership (via EEA or Swiss arrangement) and, uniquely, the EU should give way on FoM.
Peace in Ireland matters more than either of these things.
SM benefits without FoM. Not sure what we're giving away there.
Democracy.
The Parliament we elect wouldn't set our regulations, we'd have to follow the regulations they pass instead, but without our own elected representatives having a say in the regulations being written.
Hardly the end of democracy to voluntarily join a trading bloc.
It is when you don't have a say in the rules of the trading bloc.
Precisely, if we joined the bloc we'd have MEPs, so a say in the rules.
Being aligned as proposed but without joining the bloc, we'd have been bound by new regulations like GDPR without even getting a say in them. That is undemocratic.
Price looks really good, but 3.24 lb and 9.7 hour battery; I'll stick with my more expensive and more solid MacBook Air at 2.7 lb and 15 hours. But horses for courses.
Once you Mac, you don't go back.
One of the two computer servicing, advice etc firms in this small town HATES Mac! Really hates. Won't touch them.
Yes. And this is what piques my interest.
The IT guys despise Apple, yet folk like us who want things to be simple and what works are very pleased with the products.
After much head-scratching I think the reasons for the IT dislike come down to: 1) they make less money fiddling about with their customers products (because they are simple and don't go wrong) and 2) they think punters are mugs for paying over the odds (I think they are wrong because they don't factor in the quality and reliability).
The chap I was discussing this with considers them vastly over priced. I quote ' If they put as much money in quality control as they do marketing and, believe or not, packaging they would be a much better company.' Not sure I agree about quality control.
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
It is clear. And always was. You want to be in the Single Market, you have to accept Freedom of Movement. The four freedoms are indivisible. The EU Commission was always explicit on this point, and never budged
Yes.
The reality of island of Ireland politics + the Brexit vote is why both sides should make this a special case.
The Brexit vote swung the way it did because of FoM. Neither side campaigned in Ref2016 on the basis that exiting the EU was impossible because of Ireland - merely that it was a problem to resolve. Events have shown it's insoluble both practically and politically.
Therefore both sides should give way. The UK should give way on SM membership (via EEA or Swiss arrangement) and, uniquely, the EU should give way on FoM.
Peace in Ireland matters more than either of these things.
SM benefits without FoM. Not sure what we're giving away there.
Democracy.
The Parliament we elect wouldn't set our regulations, we'd have to follow the regulations they pass instead, but without our own elected representatives having a say in the regulations being written.
Hardly the end of democracy to voluntarily join a trading bloc.
It is when you don't have a say in the rules of the trading bloc.
..which it what happens most significantly when you leave it, but can't change the facts of your trading geography.
Our trading geography is the whole of planet Earth.
As it is for every other nation on the planet. Except maybe North Korea.
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
It is clear. And always was. You want to be in the Single Market, you have to accept Freedom of Movement. The four freedoms are indivisible. The EU Commission was always explicit on this point, and never budged
Yes.
The reality of island of Ireland politics + the Brexit vote is why both sides should make this a special case.
The Brexit vote swung the way it did because of FoM. Neither side campaigned in Ref2016 on the basis that exiting the EU was impossible because of Ireland - merely that it was a problem to resolve. Events have shown it's insoluble both practically and politically.
Therefore both sides should give way. The UK should give way on SM membership (via EEA or Swiss arrangement) and, uniquely, the EU should give way on FoM.
Peace in Ireland matters more than either of these things.
SM benefits without FoM. Not sure what we're giving away there.
Democracy.
The Parliament we elect wouldn't set our regulations, we'd have to follow the regulations they pass instead, but without our own elected representatives having a say in the regulations being written.
Hardly the end of democracy to voluntarily join a trading bloc.
It is when you don't have a say in the rules of the trading bloc.
..which it what happens most significantly when you leave it, but can't change the facts of your trading geography.
Our trading geography is the whole of planet Earth.
As it is for every other nation on the planet. Except maybe North Korea.
Our most enduring trading relationship has been with our near neighbours, for a thousand years, and for obvious reasons.
Questions. My assumption is that once 54 letters went in Boris's days are numbered and everyone knows it. The only issue being when.
1) Is this correct 2) If correct, what reason is there for Tory MPs to prolong their (and our) agony for months, knowing the Boris cause is hopeless -'if were done when tis done' etc 3) Is there a cunning plan and if so what.
1) I think yes. The only thing which can save him is winning an election. 2) There isn't a reason because there is no organised opposition in the Tory Party. Nor any successor to coalesce around. 3) See above
I would like Rishi to resign and (somehow) trigger a leadership contest, which Penny wins. A fabulous choreography of events, leading to a PM we can be proud of. #pm4pm
I'm on her at 60s - so not unhappy with the hype - but I'm intrigued by your sudden enthusiasm for her. Why aren't you getting behind Patel?
I quite like Patel myself but she's very much a known (and not especially well liked in many quarters) quantity. I think Mordaunt is less tainted, and a better Commons performer, but there's something else indefinable that has caught my imagination. Did you know, she's also Irish (Southern Irish) so I almost feel she could smooth those waters a bit too.
I'm going to stop being positive about her here, as I will damage her by her being my favourite for the job. At the moment it's remarkable jusy how many PBers have time for her, from TSE and Stuartinromford, to BigG.
Well the reasons I backed her as my dark horse a while back was she's a Leaver with name recognition who has the sort of look and feel to appeal to the grassroots, whilst at the same time she's stayed out of the Boris cesspit, plus she didn't run last time so she's unexposed. The current 9 looks a bit short though. 2nd fav now. Not sure about that.
I got 42 (next PM) and 33 (next CP leader) - but just for small stakes. You did well to get 60 - I think i backed her before you did.
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
It is clear. And always was. You want to be in the Single Market, you have to accept Freedom of Movement. The four freedoms are indivisible. The EU Commission was always explicit on this point, and never budged
Yes.
The reality of island of Ireland politics + the Brexit vote is why both sides should make this a special case.
The Brexit vote swung the way it did because of FoM. Neither side campaigned in Ref2016 on the basis that exiting the EU was impossible because of Ireland - merely that it was a problem to resolve. Events have shown it's insoluble both practically and politically.
Therefore both sides should give way. The UK should give way on SM membership (via EEA or Swiss arrangement) and, uniquely, the EU should give way on FoM.
Peace in Ireland matters more than either of these things.
SM benefits without FoM. Not sure what we're giving away there.
Democracy.
The Parliament we elect wouldn't set our regulations, we'd have to follow the regulations they pass instead, but without our own elected representatives having a say in the regulations being written.
Hardly the end of democracy to voluntarily join a trading bloc.
It is when you don't have a say in the rules of the trading bloc.
..which it what happens most significantly when you leave it, but can't change the facts of your trading geography.
Our trading geography is the whole of planet Earth.
As it is for every other nation on the planet. Except maybe North Korea.
Our most enduring trading relationship has been with our neighbours, for a thousand years.
Those neighbours already formed a minority of our trade, despite us having been in a trade bloc with them distorting our trade, and we have the TCA trade and cooperation agreement with them.
As this thread reveals (again) there is no version of Brexit that isn't shit.
The only version of Brexit that didn't completely fuck us up was no Brexit.
That is why it is not done, and will be revisited by every Government for the rest of our lives...
Thing is that Brexit doesn’t have to be shit.
First thing they need is a Tory government (not a Labour one as Tories are more likely to bring along Brexiters) where the split of ideologies is forgotten - so not having a cabinet stuffed full of leavers but a good mix of able people regardless of where they stood.
Then the remainders need to say “we wouldn’t have started here but that’s where we are so let’s work to make Brexit a success” and the leavers have to say “there is no pure Brexit that works so we need to compromise”.
Once everyone has started being grown up about it they then need to stop idiots from trying to get all the “benefits of Brexit” such as trade deals rushed through to try and make a point. They need to explain clearly that people aren’t going to see real benefits of Brexit for maybe ten years as we need to do it right not do it quickly.
The last point seems to have been the biggest cock up with Brexit where people seemed to want everything from day one which isn’t possible - everything possible should have been phased over agreed periods of time in conjunction with the EU rather than both sides pulling down the shutters immediately.
So Leavers need to be more realistic about how the first years go and remainders need to realise that Brexit isn’t really anywhere near done so the real benefits won’t be seen for a long time and instead of fighting a lost battle they can help with their superior intellect (ahem…) and not try and reverse everything but help make it work if they truly want what’s best for Britain.
The USA didn’t suddenly become what it is now after leaving the Empire - in effect it was its own Brexit, it took time to establish its direction and its attributes. I’m not saying we won’t see benefits for 100 years but it’s got to be allowed time and if only one side want it to succeed then it’s not going to be as good for the country as if everyone buys in.
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
It is clear. And always was. You want to be in the Single Market, you have to accept Freedom of Movement. The four freedoms are indivisible. The EU Commission was always explicit on this point, and never budged
Yes.
The reality of island of Ireland politics + the Brexit vote is why both sides should make this a special case.
The Brexit vote swung the way it did because of FoM. Neither side campaigned in Ref2016 on the basis that exiting the EU was impossible because of Ireland - merely that it was a problem to resolve. Events have shown it's insoluble both practically and politically.
Therefore both sides should give way. The UK should give way on SM membership (via EEA or Swiss arrangement) and, uniquely, the EU should give way on FoM.
Peace in Ireland matters more than either of these things.
SM benefits without FoM. Not sure what we're giving away there.
Democracy.
The Parliament we elect wouldn't set our regulations, we'd have to follow the regulations they pass instead, but without our own elected representatives having a say in the regulations being written.
Hardly the end of democracy to voluntarily join a trading bloc.
It is when you don't have a say in the rules of the trading bloc.
..which it what happens most significantly when you leave it, but can't change the facts of your trading geography.
Our trading geography is the whole of planet Earth.
As it is for every other nation on the planet. Except maybe North Korea.
Our most enduring trading relationship has been with our neighbours, for a thousand years.
Those neighbours already formed a minority of our trade, despite us having been in a trade bloc with them distorting our trade, and we have the TCA trade and cooperation agreement with them.
If you include EEA countries, it’s a majority. We’ve had this argument before.
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
It is clear. And always was. You want to be in the Single Market, you have to accept Freedom of Movement. The four freedoms are indivisible. The EU Commission was always explicit on this point, and never budged
Yes.
The reality of island of Ireland politics + the Brexit vote is why both sides should make this a special case.
The Brexit vote swung the way it did because of FoM. Neither side campaigned in Ref2016 on the basis that exiting the EU was impossible because of Ireland - merely that it was a problem to resolve. Events have shown it's insoluble both practically and politically.
Therefore both sides should give way. The UK should give way on SM membership (via EEA or Swiss arrangement) and, uniquely, the EU should give way on FoM.
Peace in Ireland matters more than either of these things.
SM benefits without FoM. Not sure what we're giving away there.
Democracy.
The Parliament we elect wouldn't set our regulations, we'd have to follow the regulations they pass instead, but without our own elected representatives having a say in the regulations being written.
Hardly the end of democracy to voluntarily join a trading bloc.
It is when you don't have a say in the rules of the trading bloc.
Precisely, if we joined the bloc we'd have MEPs, so a say in the rules.
Being aligned as proposed but without joining the bloc, we'd have been bound by new regulations like GDPR without even getting a say in them. That is undemocratic.
Nope because as I already explained the EFTA members of the EEA take part in all levels of development of new regulation including proposals and the only thing they do not take part in is the final vote. But unlike EU members if they don't agree in a mild way then they can adjust the regulations under their own Parliamentary process - alignment rather than conformance - and if they don't agree strongly then they can opt out. The only way for an EU member to opt out, given that most of the decisions are by QMV, is to leave entirely.
Mr. Pete, one does wonder what was going through Labour's collective head on that.
Did they think if May got ousted the Conservatives would do anything but move in a more sceptical direction?
May's deal was the most pro-EU one they were going to get.
They thought they could overturn the result of the referendum
They were hoping the Tories would come to their senses and support a softer Brexit of the kind now being advocated by noted Remoaner Daniel Hannan. Unfortunately the Tories whipped their MPs to vote those options down, replaced May with psychopathic liar Boris Johnson, and came up with a plan even dafter than May's, which they are now trying to unpick. But yes, clearly all of this is the fault of the Labour Party.
Dan Hannan always advocated the sort of soft Brexit I wanted. He has not changed his view on that.
But yes it is amusing and a little sad that it was the actions of the irreconciled Remain fanatics that allowed the narrative, and the type of Brexit, to be driven by the hard Brexiteers.
Were they primarily or even largely responsible for where we are now? No.
Did they help contribute to it and could they have helped to prevent it if they had not been so hell bent on reversing the referendum? Undoubtedly yes.
The type of Brexit we ended up with was born of hardliners on both sides. They both made sure there could be no compromise.
The Labour Party voted for compromise, the Tories whipped their MPs to oppose it. Those are the facts.
No the Labour Party did not vote for compromise.
Looking at the breakdowns for the indicative proposals see if you can spot which one the Labour MPs preferred
Proposal H - EFTA and EEA only 4 Labour MPs supported it. If they all had it would have passed. Proposal L - Revoke article 50 - 111 Labour MPs supported it. Proposal M - Rerun the referendum - 198 Labour MPs supported it.
Of the other 5 proposals 2 were effectively No Deal and 3 demanded we stayed in the Customs Union which was impossible without us remaining as full members of the EU.
So much for Labour supporting compromise.
This is such a dishonest post, sorry. I cannot let it stand without correcting the record.
The purpose of negotiating a customs union with the EU was to protect free trade the Irish border. You will note that Johnson's deal only achieved this goal by erecting trade barriers in the Irish Sea, which he is now trying to dismantle. In other words, a worthy goal that the government has failed to properly deliver.
For the first round of indicative votes:
Almost all Labour MPs voted for Ken Clarke's amendment K to negotiate a customs union as part of any deal. It was defeated by the Tories voting overwhelmingly against, with only a handful of Tories supporting it.
Almost all Labour MPs voted for Nick Boles's Common Market 2.0, ammendment D, which proposed EEA/Efta membership and a comprehensive customs arrangement. It was defeated by the Tories. Only a handful of Tory MPs supported it.
Almost all Labour MPs voted for the Labour Party's own compromise calling for close economic alignment with the EU, ammendment K. Voted down by the Tories.
The revocation amendment was supported by a minority of Labour MPs and some Tory MPs but in any case was only in case of no deal to avoid a catastrophic economic impact.
The confirmatory public vote wasn't a rerun of the referendum - it simply said the public should have a say on any Brexit deal that was negotiated. A reasonable way of breaking the parliamentary deadlock.
George Eustice's EEA/Efta deal (amendment H) received little support from any party as without anything to say on a customs union it had no solution to the Irish border. Only 65 MPs voted for it.
Yes, Labour voted for compromise. The Tories voted against.
Wrong. You are arguing from a point of profound ignorance.
The Customs Union proposals were complete non starters. Membership of the Customs Union requires membership of the EU. There are strange little exceptions for some of the tiny principalities like Monaco but they were never on offer to the UK.
Nick Boles, Ken Clarkes and the Labour proposals all included Customs Union Membership. The Labour proposal was explicitly The Customs Union since it included the UK having a say in EU third party trade deals. Even though this was impossible.
These proposals were just as dishonest as you are now being in trying to misrepresent them.
Your party voted for chaos because they refused to accept the referendum result and that is exactly what they got.
Wrong. You can be in a customs union with the EU without being in the EU, like Turkey. Is this perfect? No. That's why we shouldn't have left. Not all the proposals called explicitly for a customs union, they were calling for a customs arrangement of some kind to deal with the Irish border question. Otherwise, how is that problem solved? Not by the current deal, which the government is currently tearing up. What solution do you have? What compromise did Tory MPs vote for? None. Labour MPs voted for every compromise on offer, except for the one that failed to deliver a solution to the (still) main outstanding problem.
I already addressed that. Stop creating straw men.
And the Labour proposal was specifically for membership of The Customs Union because they said they wanted to have say over EU trade deals. They were either profoundly ignorant or profoundly dishonest.
And you are telling outright lies. Labour did not vote for every compromise on offer. The most obvious compromise was the EFTA/EEA membership and only 4 Labour MPs supported that.
Dragging in how the Tories voted is immaterial because I have not been supporting their stance either. They ere just as bad. I was specifically calling you out for your utter drivel about Labour supporting compromise. They didn't. They only supported proposals that were either impossible or which negated the referendum result.
It is clear from your opening paragraph that you also would rather have reversed the referendum result which is why you deserve nothing from scorn for your dishonesty.
It feels like you're the one being dishonest though. You enumerated the Labour votes on some of the indicative votes, but dismissed the customs union one as "impossible". Now we see it wasn't "impossible" but merely undesirable in your opinion.
No, as set out they were impossible. Membership of the Customs Union requires full EU membership. The Labour proposal particularly was clearly for membership of The Customs Union not just 'a' customs union as they argued for UK input to EU third party trade agreements.
Labour's proposal was for *a* customs union not membership of *the* customs union.
The only customs union that would allow the UK to have a say on EU third party trade deals (which was explict in their proposal) would be 'The' Customs Union. It was typical political dishonesty to try and dress it up any other way. Something you are repeating now.
Or the UK and EU could have negotiated a new customs union between the UK and EU that gave the UK some say. That should have been possible given that we always hold all the cards in these negotiations.
We never held all the cards. I deal with realities, not pipe dreams. You are more interested in defending your beloved party than in finding an actual solution to these issues.
I have literally provided a solution: Efta plus a customs arrangement similar to Turkey's to allow for frictionless trade GB/NI/EU. This is the compromise that Labour voted for. It isn't perfect but it protects the GFA, protects trade and honours the referendum. What is your solution? And what compromise did the Tories vote for?
Its odd how you view only getting what you want as a compromise.
From the meaningful votes the "compromises" that significant numbers of Tories backed were No Deal, and the option nicknamed 'managed no deal'.
In the end we got the compromise of a new deal, which Parliament was able to accept, so all's well that ends well.
What I don’t get is this obsession with protecting the GFA vs protecting the *purpose* of the GFA
Questions. My assumption is that once 54 letters went in Boris's days are numbered and everyone knows it. The only issue being when.
1) Is this correct 2) If correct, what reason is there for Tory MPs to prolong their (and our) agony for months, knowing the Boris cause is hopeless -'if were done when tis done' etc 3) Is there a cunning plan and if so what.
1) I think yes. The only thing which can save him is winning an election. 2) There isn't a reason because there is no organised opposition in the Tory Party. Nor any successor to coalesce around. 3) See above
I would like Rishi to resign and (somehow) trigger a leadership contest, which Penny wins. A fabulous choreography of events, leading to a PM we can be proud of. #pm4pm
I'm on her at 60s - so not unhappy with the hype - but I'm intrigued by your sudden enthusiasm for her. Why aren't you getting behind Patel?
I quite like Patel myself but she's very much a known (and not especially well liked in many quarters) quantity. I think Mordaunt is less tainted, and a better Commons performer, but there's something else indefinable that has caught my imagination. Did you know, she's also Irish (Southern Irish) so I almost feel she could smooth those waters a bit too.
I'm going to stop being positive about her here, as I will damage her by her being my favourite for the job. At the moment it's remarkable jusy how many PBers have time for her, from TSE and Stuartinromford, to BigG.
Well the reasons I backed her as my dark horse a while back was she's a Leaver with name recognition who has the sort of look and feel to appeal to the grassroots, whilst at the same time she's stayed out of the Boris cesspit, plus she didn't run last time so she's unexposed. The current 9 looks a bit short though. 2nd fav now. Not sure about that.
I got 42 (next PM) and 33 (next CP leader) - but just for small stakes. You did well to get 60 - I think i backed her before you did.
I think I backed her first but only told the blog when it already looked a bit shrewd. ☺
As this seems to be where one declares Mac fandom, so I do declare. And have done so since 1990 when I needed a computer that could do vector graphics integrated with word processing. There has been no Seitensprung.
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
It is clear. And always was. You want to be in the Single Market, you have to accept Freedom of Movement. The four freedoms are indivisible. The EU Commission was always explicit on this point, and never budged
Yes.
The reality of island of Ireland politics + the Brexit vote is why both sides should make this a special case.
The Brexit vote swung the way it did because of FoM. Neither side campaigned in Ref2016 on the basis that exiting the EU was impossible because of Ireland - merely that it was a problem to resolve. Events have shown it's insoluble both practically and politically.
Therefore both sides should give way. The UK should give way on SM membership (via EEA or Swiss arrangement) and, uniquely, the EU should give way on FoM.
Peace in Ireland matters more than either of these things.
SM benefits without FoM. Not sure what we're giving away there.
Democracy.
The Parliament we elect wouldn't set our regulations, we'd have to follow the regulations they pass instead, but without our own elected representatives having a say in the regulations being written.
Hardly the end of democracy to voluntarily join a trading bloc.
It is when you don't have a say in the rules of the trading bloc.
..which it what happens most significantly when you leave it, but can't change the facts of your trading geography.
Our trading geography is the whole of planet Earth.
As it is for every other nation on the planet. Except maybe North Korea.
Our most enduring trading relationship has been with our neighbours, for a thousand years.
Those neighbours already formed a minority of our trade, despite us having been in a trade bloc with them distorting our trade, and we have the TCA trade and cooperation agreement with them.
If you include EEA countries, it’s a majority. We’ve had this argument before.
Except you shouldn't include EEA nations because we didn't have a customs agreement with them before, only a trade agreement. We don't have a customs agreement with them now, only a trade agreement.
If you're bemoaning customs as the problem, then the EEA nations aren't in the customs union, so they don't count.
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
It is clear. And always was. You want to be in the Single Market, you have to accept Freedom of Movement. The four freedoms are indivisible. The EU Commission was always explicit on this point, and never budged
Yes.
The reality of island of Ireland politics + the Brexit vote is why both sides should make this a special case.
The Brexit vote swung the way it did because of FoM. Neither side campaigned in Ref2016 on the basis that exiting the EU was impossible because of Ireland - merely that it was a problem to resolve. Events have shown it's insoluble both practically and politically.
Therefore both sides should give way. The UK should give way on SM membership (via EEA or Swiss arrangement) and, uniquely, the EU should give way on FoM.
Peace in Ireland matters more than either of these things.
SM benefits without FoM. Not sure what we're giving away there.
Democracy.
The Parliament we elect wouldn't set our regulations, we'd have to follow the regulations they pass instead, but without our own elected representatives having a say in the regulations being written.
Hardly the end of democracy to voluntarily join a trading bloc.
It is when you don't have a say in the rules of the trading bloc.
Precisely, if we joined the bloc we'd have MEPs, so a say in the rules.
Being aligned as proposed but without joining the bloc, we'd have been bound by new regulations like GDPR without even getting a say in them. That is undemocratic.
Nope because as I already explained the EFTA members of the EEA take part in all levels of development of new regulation including proposals and the only thing they do not take part in is the final vote. But unlike EU members if they don't agree in a mild way then they can adjust the regulations under their own Parliamentary process - alignment rather than conformance - and if they don't agree strongly then they can opt out. The only way for an EU member to opt out, given that most of the decisions are by QMV, is to leave entirely.
And yet Theresa May, and then Boris Johnson even more strongly, ruled all this out by ruling out free movement. Not Remainers, Labour, the Lib Dems, or anyone else.
As this seems to be where one declares Mac fandom, so I do declare. And have done so since 1990 when I needed a computer that could do vector graphics integrated with word processing. There has been no Seitensprung.
I use a PC at work and a Mac at home. Have done since 1986.
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
It is clear. And always was. You want to be in the Single Market, you have to accept Freedom of Movement. The four freedoms are indivisible. The EU Commission was always explicit on this point, and never budged
Yes.
The reality of island of Ireland politics + the Brexit vote is why both sides should make this a special case.
The Brexit vote swung the way it did because of FoM. Neither side campaigned in Ref2016 on the basis that exiting the EU was impossible because of Ireland - merely that it was a problem to resolve. Events have shown it's insoluble both practically and politically.
Therefore both sides should give way. The UK should give way on SM membership (via EEA or Swiss arrangement) and, uniquely, the EU should give way on FoM.
Peace in Ireland matters more than either of these things.
SM benefits without FoM. Not sure what we're giving away there.
Democracy.
The Parliament we elect wouldn't set our regulations, we'd have to follow the regulations they pass instead, but without our own elected representatives having a say in the regulations being written.
Hardly the end of democracy to voluntarily join a trading bloc.
It is when you don't have a say in the rules of the trading bloc.
Precisely, if we joined the bloc we'd have MEPs, so a say in the rules.
Being aligned as proposed but without joining the bloc, we'd have been bound by new regulations like GDPR without even getting a say in them. That is undemocratic.
Nope because as I already explained the EFTA members of the EEA take part in all levels of development of new regulation including proposals and the only thing they do not take part in is the final vote. But unlike EU members if they don't agree in a mild way then they can adjust the regulations under their own Parliamentary process - alignment rather than conformance - and if they don't agree strongly then they can opt out. The only way for an EU member to opt out, given that most of the decisions are by QMV, is to leave entirely.
And if say Norway wanted to "opt out" of the GDPR then what would they have to opt out from? And if a present Norway government wanted to pass something like the GDPR but a future elected government wanted to "opt out" could they rip that up, or would it be established law and the only way they could leave it would be to leave?
Though you haven't answered my question. Since we have a trade agreement already, and since you don't want customs, what are the major benefits we would gain from replacing the TCA with EFTA or EEA?
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
It is clear. And always was. You want to be in the Single Market, you have to accept Freedom of Movement. The four freedoms are indivisible. The EU Commission was always explicit on this point, and never budged
Yes.
The reality of island of Ireland politics + the Brexit vote is why both sides should make this a special case.
The Brexit vote swung the way it did because of FoM. Neither side campaigned in Ref2016 on the basis that exiting the EU was impossible because of Ireland - merely that it was a problem to resolve. Events have shown it's insoluble both practically and politically.
Therefore both sides should give way. The UK should give way on SM membership (via EEA or Swiss arrangement) and, uniquely, the EU should give way on FoM.
Peace in Ireland matters more than either of these things.
SM benefits without FoM. Not sure what we're giving away there.
Democracy.
The Parliament we elect wouldn't set our regulations, we'd have to follow the regulations they pass instead, but without our own elected representatives having a say in the regulations being written.
Hardly the end of democracy to voluntarily join a trading bloc.
It is when you don't have a say in the rules of the trading bloc.
..which it what happens most significantly when you leave it, but can't change the facts of your trading geography.
Our trading geography is the whole of planet Earth.
As it is for every other nation on the planet. Except maybe North Korea.
Our most enduring trading relationship has been with our neighbours, for a thousand years.
Those neighbours already formed a minority of our trade, despite us having been in a trade bloc with them distorting our trade, and we have the TCA trade and cooperation agreement with them.
If you include EEA countries, it’s a majority. We’ve had this argument before.
Except you shouldn't include EEA nations because we didn't have a customs agreement with them before, only a trade agreement. We don't have a customs agreement with them now, only a trade agreement.
If you're bemoaning customs as the problem, then the EEA nations aren't in the customs union, so they don't count.
I’m not bemoaning customs, and neither was this specific thread to which you responded.
The reality is that a majority of UK trade is with EEA, and moreover that’s been remarkably consistent for a long time.
Questions. My assumption is that once 54 letters went in Boris's days are numbered and everyone knows it. The only issue being when.
1) Is this correct 2) If correct, what reason is there for Tory MPs to prolong their (and our) agony for months, knowing the Boris cause is hopeless -'if were done when tis done' etc 3) Is there a cunning plan and if so what.
1) I think yes. The only thing which can save him is winning an election. 2) There isn't a reason because there is no organised opposition in the Tory Party. Nor any successor to coalesce around. 3) See above
I would like Rishi to resign and (somehow) trigger a leadership contest, which Penny wins. A fabulous choreography of events, leading to a PM we can be proud of. #pm4pm
I'm on her at 60s - so not unhappy with the hype - but I'm intrigued by your sudden enthusiasm for her. Why aren't you getting behind Patel?
I quite like Patel myself but she's very much a known (and not especially well liked in many quarters) quantity. I think Mordaunt is less tainted, and a better Commons performer, but there's something else indefinable that has caught my imagination. Did you know, she's also Irish (Southern Irish) so I almost feel she could smooth those waters a bit too.
I'm going to stop being positive about her here, as I will damage her by her being my favourite for the job. At the moment it's remarkable jusy how many PBers have time for her, from TSE and Stuartinromford, to BigG.
Well the reasons I backed her as my dark horse a while back was she's a Leaver with name recognition who has the sort of look and feel to appeal to the grassroots, whilst at the same time she's stayed out of the Boris cesspit, plus she didn't run last time so she's unexposed. The current 9 looks a bit short though. 2nd fav now. Not sure about that.
I got 42 (next PM) and 33 (next CP leader) - but just for small stakes. You did well to get 60 - I think i backed her before you did.
Unless Mordaunt is promoted to the Cabinet shortly, it is hard to take her seriously as next Prime Minister (a mere three months as Defence Secretary is not enough) but she might seem plausible as next Leader, if you think Boris will lead the party into the next election and lose.
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
It is clear. And always was. You want to be in the Single Market, you have to accept Freedom of Movement. The four freedoms are indivisible. The EU Commission was always explicit on this point, and never budged
Yes.
The reality of island of Ireland politics + the Brexit vote is why both sides should make this a special case.
The Brexit vote swung the way it did because of FoM. Neither side campaigned in Ref2016 on the basis that exiting the EU was impossible because of Ireland - merely that it was a problem to resolve. Events have shown it's insoluble both practically and politically.
Therefore both sides should give way. The UK should give way on SM membership (via EEA or Swiss arrangement) and, uniquely, the EU should give way on FoM.
Peace in Ireland matters more than either of these things.
SM benefits without FoM. Not sure what we're giving away there.
Democracy.
The Parliament we elect wouldn't set our regulations, we'd have to follow the regulations they pass instead, but without our own elected representatives having a say in the regulations being written.
Hardly the end of democracy to voluntarily join a trading bloc.
It is when you don't have a say in the rules of the trading bloc.
But our elected government would be making that choice. Which could be reversed by a subsequent one or even the same one subsequently.
As this seems to be where one declares Mac fandom, so I do declare. And have done so since 1990 when I needed a computer that could do vector graphics integrated with word processing. There has been no Seitensprung.
I use a PC at work and a Mac at home. Have done since 1986.
I read PB on a Windows VM, on a Mac
Why? Why cobble your lovely Mac with a ghastly Windows OS? I can assure you that PB is perfectly fine on a Mac.
Price looks really good, but 3.24 lb and 9.7 hour battery; I'll stick with my more expensive and more solid MacBook Air at 2.7 lb and 15 hours. But horses for courses.
Once you Mac, you don't go back.
I did. Hated my Mac
Can't bear Macs. No idea why people say they are easy to use. I find them a bloody nightmare.
My wife has one. Loves it. I've just asked her why.
She said it's easy to use and intuitive and - crucially - it never goes wrong. She would not go away from a mac now. The other laptops we have had have always involved support and buggering about by IT guys. The mac is simple, it never goes wrong and, she says, no-one can bugger about with it.
Macs were a bit better than windows back in the day of Mac OS. Now windows works fine and Macs run Unix and that whole argument is dead. It's the patronising nannying brain dead ecosystem that drives me nuts. I have known first hand of two dreadful relationship breakdowns because of over helpful sharing of messages between apple devices. A friend lost a new iPhone the other day. If that was a proper phone you'd go to device finder and log in and pinpoint it to the nearest cm, with apple It's Have you downloaded the special app and set up a unique password? Patronising over complicated shit.
Picking up from the last thread, is EFTA freedom of movement capitalised?
By that I mean the issue with EU Freedom of Movement was it required that EU citizens have the full rights of UK citizens (ie to move without work, full access to benefits from day 1 etc). If EFTA is just “freedom of movement” in the sense of no visa required then that shouldn’t be an issue at all
No, I am pretty sure FoM in EFTA means ALL the rights you get from FoM in the EU
We could easily solve this problem and join EFTA tomorrow (if we are content to follow most EU single market rules when selling to the EU) if we made our own welfare system contributory. But we are too lame to do that
Not quite although I do see where you are coming from.
There are two separate but linked organisations connected to the EU.
EFTA consists of 4 members which are not members of the EU. 3 of those members are also members of the EEA which is the EU/EFTA Agreement. (Switzerland is not). EU freedom of movement does not apply to EFTA members as such. However it does apply to EEA members as they are part of the Single Market so Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are all covered by the EU FoM rules as they are part of the EEA. Weirdly because of its size Liechtenstein has some exemptions from the FoM rules as they are too small and there is a fear they would be overwhelmed.
So joining EFTA does not confer EU FoM. But it also does not put us in the Single Market. For that we would need to join the EEA via EFTA and would therefore be covered by FoM.
I hope that is clear as mud
Edit: Of course it is all further complicated by both Schengen and the fact that Switzerland has separate treaties with the EU as a non EEA member of EFTA.
It is clear. And always was. You want to be in the Single Market, you have to accept Freedom of Movement. The four freedoms are indivisible. The EU Commission was always explicit on this point, and never budged
Yes.
The reality of island of Ireland politics + the Brexit vote is why both sides should make this a special case.
The Brexit vote swung the way it did because of FoM. Neither side campaigned in Ref2016 on the basis that exiting the EU was impossible because of Ireland - merely that it was a problem to resolve. Events have shown it's insoluble both practically and politically.
Therefore both sides should give way. The UK should give way on SM membership (via EEA or Swiss arrangement) and, uniquely, the EU should give way on FoM.
Peace in Ireland matters more than either of these things.
SM benefits without FoM. Not sure what we're giving away there.
Democracy.
The Parliament we elect wouldn't set our regulations, we'd have to follow the regulations they pass instead, but without our own elected representatives having a say in the regulations being written.
Hardly the end of democracy to voluntarily join a trading bloc.
It is when you don't have a say in the rules of the trading bloc.
..which it what happens most significantly when you leave it, but can't change the facts of your trading geography.
Our trading geography is the whole of planet Earth.
As it is for every other nation on the planet. Except maybe North Korea.
Our most enduring trading relationship has been with our neighbours, for a thousand years.
Those neighbours already formed a minority of our trade, despite us having been in a trade bloc with them distorting our trade, and we have the TCA trade and cooperation agreement with them.
If you include EEA countries, it’s a majority. We’ve had this argument before.
Except you shouldn't include EEA nations because we didn't have a customs agreement with them before, only a trade agreement. We don't have a customs agreement with them now, only a trade agreement.
If you're bemoaning customs as the problem, then the EEA nations aren't in the customs union, so they don't count.
I’m not bemoaning customs, and neither was this specific thread to which you responded.
The reality is that a majority of UK trade is with EEA, and moreover that’s been remarkably consistent for a long time.
It was actually what many people have been discussing. And as I said, we've gone from having a trade agreement with EEA nations, to having a new trade agreement with them. What's inferior there? The significant change is with EU nations where we've gone from being in the customs union, to out of it.
Plus its not remarkable, the nations forming the EEA have been the main part of the developed world, but that is increasingly not the case. The EEA is not going to be the developed world of the future, and technology is only making long distance international trade easier not harder, which is why both EU and EEA trade has been a shrinking proportion long since before the Brexit referendum.
A few years ago EU trade was a majority of our trade, now its a minority but scrapes a majority if you add in the nations not in the customs union. Within a few years even EEA trade will be a minority too.
As this seems to be where one declares Mac fandom, so I do declare. And have done so since 1990 when I needed a computer that could do vector graphics integrated with word processing. There has been no Seitensprung.
He’s right to major on the NHS, but he’s bloody hopeless in his attacks.
Here’s hoping he is forced to resign for having the wrong shade of curry, or whatever it was.
I didn't see PMQs but it sounds as if Sir Keir had a Kinnock Westland moment. Now, that probably won't matter with all this current stuff, but what should worry Labour is that the Tories get a new leader who is able to run absolute rings around Sir Keir. If that happened the narrative could change dramatically. In fact, if the Tories think Sir Keir is a debating dud they might be more tempted to get a new leader simply to exploit that.
As this seems to be where one declares Mac fandom, so I do declare. And have done so since 1990 when I needed a computer that could do vector graphics integrated with word processing. There has been no Seitensprung.
Different thing then, you are a badge fan.
Perhaps I am. But if you accept the ecosystem it's just fine, and in 32 years I've never needed technical help to sort something out.
Price looks really good, but 3.24 lb and 9.7 hour battery; I'll stick with my more expensive and more solid MacBook Air at 2.7 lb and 15 hours. But horses for courses.
Once you Mac, you don't go back.
I did. Hated my Mac
Can't bear Macs. No idea why people say they are easy to use. I find them a bloody nightmare.
My wife has one. Loves it. I've just asked her why.
She said it's easy to use and intuitive and - crucially - it never goes wrong. She would not go away from a mac now. The other laptops we have had have always involved support and buggering about by IT guys. The mac is simple, it never goes wrong and, she says, no-one can bugger about with it.
Macs were a bit better than windows back in the day of Mac OS. Now windows works fine and Macs run Unix and that whole argument is dead. It's the patronising nannying brain dead ecosystem that drives me nuts. I have known first hand of two dreadful relationship breakdowns because of over helpful sharing of messages between apple devices. A friend lost a new iPhone the other day. If that was a proper phone you'd go to device finder and log in and pinpoint it to the nearest cm, with apple It's Have you downloaded the special app and set up a unique password? Patronising over complicated shit.
Theresa May’s deal was what happens when you rule out FOM and you want to protect the economy and preserve the integrity of the UK.
Boris’s deal was was what happens when you rule out FOM and you are willing to deprioritise the economy and the UK integrity’s in exchange for maximal sovereignty.
The problem is that Boris (and Brexitism generally) lied that any trade-offs were necessary. In turn it means that the government is unable to effectively tackle the economy because it involves dealing with facts as they are rather than what you’ve pretended them to be.
This unhappy situation will continue for a while. To resolve it, a politician has to be willing to tell the truth but the public also has to be receptive to hearing it.
I am also in the market for a new laptop and have read this thread with interest. What I am really looking for is a split screen which would allow me to see the court and also bring documents up. I have tried 2 screens but not got that to work satisfactorily when out and about. Can anyone give a recomendation for a good quality, reasonably fast lap top that is not too heavy but which offers this? I like a large screen and that would obviously be even more important if it was split.
Riding a horse through Northern Sicily is verging on as good as it gets. Only problem is temps are about 10C above expectations and only way to get 5 to 6 hour day in is breakfast at 5 in saddle at 6. This does mean all done by lunchtime though.
What we need is a referendum, to finish this argument once and for all
You are arguing for a second vote...
Traitor!!!
It was a joke
However, on reflection, I wonder if a referendum is the only way of solving this. It is the referendum that, perhaps, we should have had as part of a two-stage process in the first place - Remain or Leave for the first vote, then, if Leave, what kind of Leave
Imagine if Cameron had offered this. He didn’t because he was too scared he’d get “Leave” in the first vote, if people knew they had the backstop of choosing Hard or Soft Brexit after that. What a twat he was. A monumental failure of statecraft
Anyway, it’s time to have that referendum. Hard or Soft Brexit. Labour could do it. But to do it they’d have to face down nutters like you and say Sorry, Rejoin will not be an option
I might actually vote for a Labour party that had the wisdom and maturity to offer this.
Comments
No border, no alignment, but no checks is the right solution. Allow NI to serve in a quantum state of Schrodinger's Brexit, where they are in the Single Market so trading with Ireland freely, and in the UK, so trading with the UK freely.
Yes that breaches the "integrity" of the UK's market, and the "integrity" of the Single Market, but peace in Northern Ireland wasn't won by a rigid adherence to the "integrity" of the rules or one side takes all.
I'm going to stop being positive about her here, as I will damage her by her being my favourite for the job. At the moment it's remarkable jusy how many PBers have time for her, from TSE and Stuartinromford, to BigG.
1. While Boris focuses on tactics - one day at a time - Starmer focuses on strategy - to win the next GE.
2. Starmer decided not to intrude on the enemy's own grief after the confidence vote - don't interrupt etc.
3. Everybody knows the NHS is really struggling, and Boris's boosterism about it flies in the face of people's own experience - a head of steam that will build before the next GE, as there isn't time to resolve the waiting lists etc. (I suspect the anecdote about someone dying while waiting an hour for an ambulance, greeted in silence by the HoC, cut through - it sounded powerful when replayed on R4).
4. Finally, Starmer may be keeping something in reserve until he is cleared (assuming he is) by the Durham police - once/if that happens, he'll home in on the contrast.
So, in conclusion - yes, not a great performance by SKS. But I'll bet it was well considered, even if not well delivered.
Didn't we have this argument a few weeks ago, and you were very dismissive of the EEA?
Or am I just very confused?
Personally: I would be happy with a EEA arrangement if and only if it allowed the government to discriminate in favour of its own citizens, in areas such as benefits. Switzerland, which does have FoM, has such a provision. So, while everyone is required to purchase health insurance in Switzerland, the most affordable plans are only available to those who are citizens.
The only version of Brexit that didn't completely fuck us up was no Brexit.
That is why it is not done, and will be revisited by every Government for the rest of our lives...
The fact that you don't like it, doesn't make it not a compromise. I didn't like your proposal so, swings and roundabouts.
One of my favourite YouTube videos — a journey on the Docklands Light Railway in 1988.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP1DADTYq98
Imagine if every EU member but one decided to go for the EEA option. They would all be left having to implement regulations determined by the sole remaining EU state.
So what would we gain from EFTA or EEA membership that we don't have with the TCA?
I am sure you knew I am a radical advocate of FoM, far more than the most liberal of EU fanatics as I would extend it far beyond just the EU. It is impractical of course and would never be accepted but we all have our unicorns.
* Switzerland certainly does, and I assume that Norway and Iceland do too.
The Parliament we elect wouldn't set our regulations, we'd have to follow the regulations they pass instead, but without our own elected representatives having a say in the regulations being written.
Angela Eagle and Ian Blackford did well, and the Durham guy (Paul Howell, Sedgefield) was not bad. The most interesting answer was probably Boris denying the story from the last thread (or the one before) that he had not consulted First Treasury Counsel about NIP.
Saying most are, so we don't need elections, is like saying most people are law abiding, so we don't need the police or the courts or jails.
The argument that the EU is downstream of international organsiations so therefore there is nothing wrong with being obliged to follow EU law is really weak. Anyone who believes it should be arguing in favour of bypassing the EU altogether.
Traitor!!!
One may well counter, as headers occasionally do on this site, that Johnson really had nothing to do with all these electoral victories, and simply happened to be in the right place at the right time for the voters, riding a wave that was already there, and lucky in his opponents, who everyone knew to be ghastly all along.
Even if we completely agree with this point, it is undeniable that Johnson has been in the right place at the right time once too many for it to have been a mere coincidence. He has up until now been a lucky politician.
He also has had more comebacks than Jason Vorhees. His fortunes could be represented on a graph as a Sine wave, where most politicians could be summed up in a single parabola.
These may not be noble reasons, but they are, I suspect, at least among the reasons Tory MPs are wavering. I think they are probably wrong but I understand their reticence, if only in a self-interested sort of way.
I think they are wrong because the material reality counts a little more when you are the head of the government - Cost of Living, as everyone is saying.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61736373
And vast areas of EU competence are not covered by the EEA agreement. Hence the reason countries like Norway and Iceland are happy to stay outside.
What we have now is an agreement, it absolutely is a compromise, even if you don't like it. The whole point of Brexit though is we've taken back control now, so if you don't like it, or elements of it, then its democratic to seek to evolve or change the agreement over time.
To quote the great Oscar Wilde,
"We are all In the gutter but some of us are looking at the stars"
If you want to join the EEA or EFTA, that option isn't foreclosed, you can like Mr Tyndall make the argument for that and seek to get representatives who are in favour of that into Parliament.
The whole point of taking back control is that we get to decide our own future democratically, nothing is foreclosed or set in stone. No Parliament can bind its successors.
She said it's easy to use and intuitive and - crucially - it never goes wrong. She would not go away from a mac now. The other laptops we have had have always involved support and buggering about by IT guys. The mac is simple, it never goes wrong and, she says, no-one can bugger about with it.
To cut a long story short he arrived at A+E at 12.00 noon with a hand the size of a rugby ball and they saw him at 11 PM. He was livid and has just done the best evisceration of Johnson and his government I've so far heard. He's funny and articulate anyway but this should have been recorded. As he said the only part of his body he needs is his trigger finger so I'll spare you the details of what he wanted to do with it.
I now understand why Starmer centred on the NHS. They must all be hearing similar stories all day long. It's the NHS and things like it that are the reason Johnson is so shit. His partying and lying are just a symptom
As readers will guess, I don't like (!) her politics, but she's been very helpful to me.
And I'm not all that good, health wise, these days.
The IT guys despise Apple, yet folk like us who want things to be simple and what works are very pleased with the products.
After much head-scratching I think the reasons for the IT dislike come down to: 1) they make less money fiddling about with their customers products (because they are simple and don't go wrong) and 2) they think punters are mugs for paying over the odds (I think they are wrong because they don't factor in the quality and reliability).
By the time Cameron came in, there was only the nuclear button left for the British people to push. It's true that he should have designed a better referendum, but it's not his fault that he had to have one on the ultimate question.
Being aligned as proposed but without joining the bloc, we'd have been bound by new regulations like GDPR without even getting a say in them. That is undemocratic.
Not sure I agree about quality control.
As it is for every other nation on the planet. Except maybe North Korea.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB999509692624276117
First thing they need is a Tory government (not a Labour one as Tories are more likely to bring along Brexiters) where the split of ideologies is forgotten - so not having a cabinet stuffed full of leavers but a good mix of able people regardless of where they stood.
Then the remainders need to say “we wouldn’t have started here but that’s where we are so let’s work to make Brexit a success” and the leavers have to say “there is no pure Brexit that works so we need to compromise”.
Once everyone has started being grown up about it they then need to stop idiots from trying to get all the “benefits of Brexit” such as trade deals rushed through to try and make a point. They need to explain clearly that people aren’t going to see real benefits of Brexit for maybe ten years as we need to do it right not do it quickly.
The last point seems to have been the biggest cock up with Brexit where people seemed to want everything from day one which isn’t possible - everything possible should have been phased over agreed periods of time in conjunction with the EU rather than both sides pulling down the shutters immediately.
So Leavers need to be more realistic about how the first years go and remainders need to realise that Brexit isn’t really anywhere near done so the real benefits won’t be seen for a long time and instead of fighting a lost battle they can help with their superior intellect (ahem…) and not try and reverse everything but help make it work if they truly want what’s best for Britain.
The USA didn’t suddenly become what it is now after leaving the Empire - in effect it was its own Brexit, it took time to establish its direction and its attributes. I’m not saying we won’t see benefits for 100 years but it’s got to be allowed time and if only one side want it to succeed then it’s not going to be as good for the country as if everyone buys in.
We’ve had this argument before.
President Xi has unwittingly sown the seeds of rebellion
BY AUSTIN WILLIAMS"
https://unherd.com/2022/06/zero-covid-has-radicalised-shanghai/
He’s right to major on the NHS, but he’s bloody hopeless in his attacks.
Here’s hoping he is forced to resign for having the wrong shade of curry, or whatever it was.
If you're bemoaning customs as the problem, then the EEA nations aren't in the customs union, so they don't count.
I read PB on a Windows VM, on a Mac
Though you haven't answered my question. Since we have a trade agreement already, and since you don't want customs, what are the major benefits we would gain from replacing the TCA with EFTA or EEA?
Just got back fron the Sainsbury Petrol Station outside Cheltenham where i filled up at 1.70 pr litre.
Felt like winning the lottery.
The reality is that a majority of UK trade is with EEA, and moreover that’s been remarkably consistent for a long time.
Plus its not remarkable, the nations forming the EEA have been the main part of the developed world, but that is increasingly not the case. The EEA is not going to be the developed world of the future, and technology is only making long distance international trade easier not harder, which is why both EU and EEA trade has been a shrinking proportion long since before the Brexit referendum.
A few years ago EU trade was a majority of our trade, now its a minority but scrapes a majority if you add in the nations not in the customs union. Within a few years even EEA trade will be a minority too.
An interesting piece of tech I had not heard of before: large increases in petrol engine efficiency by replacing the spark plugs with a new gizmo:
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/06/pulsed-plasma-ignition-that-boosts-fuel-efficiency-has-passed-testing/
Boris’s deal was was what happens when you rule out FOM and you are willing to deprioritise the economy and the UK integrity’s in exchange for maximal sovereignty.
The problem is that Boris (and Brexitism generally) lied that any trade-offs were necessary. In turn it means that the government is unable to effectively tackle the economy because it involves dealing with facts as they are rather than what you’ve pretended them to be.
This unhappy situation will continue for a while. To resolve it, a politician has to be willing to tell the truth but the public also has to be receptive to hearing it.
Can anyone give a recomendation for a good quality, reasonably fast lap top that is not too heavy but which offers this? I like a large screen and that would obviously be even more important if it was split.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-taxes-pmqs-tory-mps-live-2sgm8vbgv
However, on reflection, I wonder if a referendum is the only way of solving this. It is the referendum that, perhaps, we should have had as part of a two-stage process in the first place - Remain or Leave for the first vote, then, if Leave, what kind of Leave
Imagine if Cameron had offered this. He didn’t because he was too scared he’d get “Leave” in the first vote, if people knew they had the backstop of choosing Hard or Soft Brexit after that. What a twat he was. A monumental failure of statecraft
Anyway, it’s time to have that referendum. Hard or Soft Brexit. Labour could do it. But to do it they’d have to face down nutters like you and say Sorry, Rejoin will not be an option
I might actually vote for a Labour party that had the wisdom and maturity to offer this.