Very interesting PMQs IMO. Series of co-ordinated(?) questions about Trump meeting. Suggests there is little support for rolling over to kiss the Orange ass.
In order of likelihood:
(1) We do a very basic trade deal before GE2020 (2) US proposes something more ambitious - and we talk - but it gets bogged down in negotiations because it's clearly skewed against UK interests. No agreement by GE2020. (3) Trump goes on twitter/TV to tell May to go f*ck herself (4) Democrats do very well in the 2018 mid-terms and instigate a go-slow (5) We agree a very good comprehensive goods/services UK-US trade deal before GE2020
Even more likely is that the US proposes a trade deal ludicrously biased in their favour including secret US tribunals, acceptance of lower US food standards, US copyright law and anything else rejected by the EU, with exceptions for anything the US deems relevant to its own national security (such as where flags are made) and our lot swallow it because they seriously believe in fair markets, free competition and the tooth fairy.
Very interesting PMQs IMO. Series of co-ordinated(?) questions about Trump meeting. Suggests there is little support for rolling over to kiss the Orange ass.
In order of likelihood:
(1) We do a very basic trade deal before GE2020 (2) US proposes something more ambitious - and we talk - but it gets bogged down in negotiations because it's clearly skewed against UK interests. No agreement by GE2020. (3) Trump goes on twitter/TV to tell May to go f*ck herself (4) Democrats do very well in the 2018 mid-terms and instigate a go-slow (5) We agree a very good comprehensive goods/services UK-US trade deal before GE2020
Even more likely is that the US proposes a trade deal ludicrously biased in their favour including secret US tribunals, acceptance of lower US food standards, US copyright law and anything else rejected by the EU, with exceptions for anything the US deems relevant to its own national security (such as where flags are made) and our lot swallow it because they seriously believe in fair markets, free competition and the tooth fairy.
Well, that sounds very dramatic. I think it's more likely to be a modest extension to our existing agreements under the old GATT accords, rather than a one-sided TTIP II.
Politicians sometimes get stick, and usually unfairly, for not offering condolences. It's quite a trick to get criticised for wrongly offering condolences. I presume that Corbyn might now need to apologise to the officer and family concerned, but can he do so without screwing it up?
@faisalislam: One MP tells me he has gone back over all the Bill Cash Maastricht procedural amendments, and will now deploy same tactics on A50 Bill...
Yes, this is precisely why the government was desperate to keep parliament out of the loop - the ensuing shenanigans will be a nightmare. IDS's bluster about the legal ruling yesterday was widely and rightly mocked, but as a Maastricht rebel himself he'll know what's now in store. Fear probably did that.
Politicians sometimes get stick, and usually unfairly, for not offering condolences. It's quite a trick to get criticised for wrongly offering condolences. I presume that Corbyn might now need to apologise to the officer and family concerned, but can he do so without screwing it up?
Very interesting PMQs IMO. Series of co-ordinated(?) questions about Trump meeting. Suggests there is little support for rolling over to kiss the Orange ass.
In order of likelihood:
(1) We do a very basic trade deal before GE2020 (2) US proposes something more ambitious - and we talk - but it gets bogged down in negotiations because it's clearly skewed against UK interests. No agreement by GE2020. (3) Trump goes on twitter/TV to tell May to go f*ck herself (4) Democrats do very well in the 2018 mid-terms and instigate a go-slow (5) We agree a very good comprehensive goods/services UK-US trade deal before GE2020
I think the main attraction of US - UK trade deal is not that it will increase our exports or reduce our total level of imports but that it will allow us to play of EU exporters against US exporters. The EU may be a bit more willing to offer us a good deal if they know that, for instance, their farmers will lose their UK export market to the US.
That would mean Britain accepting US food standards rather than EU standards, and we probably would not be able to go back. Where standards are not an issue, we buy American already -- though obviously logistics play a part too.
@faisalislam: One MP tells me he has gone back over all the Bill Cash Maastricht procedural amendments, and will now deploy same tactics on A50 Bill...
Yes, this is precisely why the government was desperate to keep parliament out of the loop - the ensuing shenanigans will be a nightmare. IDS's bluster about the legal ruling yesterday was widely and rightly mocked, but as a Maastricht rebel himself he'll know what's now in store. Fear probably did that.
I must admit that even though I want Brexit to happen as quickly and painlessly as possible, I'd get some schadenfreude from Major's bastards getting a dose of their own medicine.
@faisalislam: One MP tells me he has gone back over all the Bill Cash Maastricht procedural amendments, and will now deploy same tactics on A50 Bill...
Yes, this is precisely why the government was desperate to keep parliament out of the loop - the ensuing shenanigans will be a nightmare. IDS's bluster about the legal ruling yesterday was widely and rightly mocked, but as a Maastricht rebel himself he'll know what's now in store. Fear probably did that.
Did I (mis)hear Tezza say that parliament had already voted for A50 to be triggered in March?
How does a poll of 204 have a "95% confidence level" ?
also, it says on page 1 "This paper does not represent the collective views of Labour Leave, but only the views of the author." but doesn't say who the author is.
Politicians sometimes get stick, and usually unfairly, for not offering condolences. It's quite a trick to get criticised for wrongly offering condolences. I presume that Corbyn might now need to apologise to the officer and family concerned, but can he do so without screwing it up?
Is it physically possible for Corbyn to get worse - in a sensible universe? Clearly he could try and bite the Queen's head off during the State Opening, but apart from that.
There's always room for improvement.
The moment you idiotproof something, they create a better form of idiot. Likewise, just when you think Corbyn's incompetence has plateaued, there's another fall.
And the best thing is that this was a totally unforced error. It wasn't a response; it was not him thinking on his feet.
Corbyn this morning: Hmmm. So the government has lost a major constitutional case on leaving the EU, and May will be embarrassed and under pressure. What can I do? Ah, got it, this will take the pressure off her...
If there was one Labour MP who I was sure was well briefed on the IRA, it was Jeremy Corbyn
Never attribute to incompetence that which is adequately explained by rat-fuckery. He's getting stitched up by his team.
An initially appealing thesis, except that the culprit would be bloody obvious. Corbyn, like all LOTOs and PMs, prepares for PMQs with a group of aides tossing him ideas and questions. So if say, Seamus Milne suggested, deviously, "Hey Jez, offer condolences for that dead cop in Ulster" , it would be bloody obvious who had ratfucked Corbs and Seamus would get sacked.
It also seems unlikely that someone would sneakily have grabbed Corbyn and whispered to him "offer condolences" etc etc, and again Corbyn would know who it was anyway. End of career for guilty party.
The only explanations that make sense are that Corbyn came up with this idea by himself, because he got confused and thought the guy was dead (having heard the word "shot"?), or his entire team was similarly confused, along with their leader.
I like the second best.
I suspect the first he heard of it was when May offered her condolences and he felt obliged to follow as is the custom. He just wrongly assumed the fellow was dead.
Very interesting PMQs IMO. Series of co-ordinated(?) questions about Trump meeting. Suggests there is little support for rolling over to kiss the Orange ass.
In order of likelihood:
(1) We do a very basic trade deal before GE2020 (2) US proposes something more ambitious - and we talk - but it gets bogged down in negotiations because it's clearly skewed against UK interests. No agreement by GE2020. (3) Trump goes on twitter/TV to tell May to go f*ck herself (4) Democrats do very well in the 2018 mid-terms and instigate a go-slow (5) We agree a very good comprehensive goods/services UK-US trade deal before GE2020
Even more likely is that the US proposes a trade deal ludicrously biased in their favour including secret US tribunals, acceptance of lower US food standards, US copyright law and anything else rejected by the EU, with exceptions for anything the US deems relevant to its own national security (such as where flags are made) and our lot swallow it because they seriously believe in fair markets, free competition and the tooth fairy.
If there was one Labour MP who I was sure was well briefed on the IRA, it was Jeremy Corbyn
Never attribute to incompetence that which is adequately explained by rat-fuckery. He's getting stitched up by his team.
An initially appealing thesis, except that the culprit would be bloody obvious. Corbyn, like all LOTOs and PMs, prepares for PMQs with a group of aides tossing him ideas and questions. So if say, Seamus Milne suggested, deviously, "Hey Jez, offer condolences for that dead cop in Ulster" , it would be bloody obvious who had ratfucked Corbs and Seamus would get sacked.
It also seems unlikely that someone would sneakily have grabbed Corbyn and whispered to him "offer condolences" etc etc, and again Corbyn would know who it was anyway. End of career for guilty party.
The only explanations that make sense are that Corbyn came up with this idea by himself, because he got confused and thought the guy was dead (having heard the word "shot"?), or his entire team was similarly confused, along with their leader.
I like the second best.
I suspect the first he heard of it was when May offered her condolences and he felt obliged to follow as is the custom. He just wrongly assumed the fellow was dead.
Plus poor Nepalese Speaker - didn't get so much as a how d'you do from Jezza.
Is it physically possible for Corbyn to get worse - in a sensible universe? Clearly he could try and bite the Queen's head off during the State Opening, but apart from that.
George Galloway has yet to be welcomed back into the Labour Party. Corbyn will probably do that just in time to draw media fire away from a government scandal.
Very interesting PMQs IMO. Series of co-ordinated(?) questions about Trump meeting. Suggests there is little support for rolling over to kiss the Orange ass.
In order of likelihood:
(1) We do a very basic trade deal before GE2020 (2) US proposes something more ambitious - and we talk - but it gets bogged down in negotiations because it's clearly skewed against UK interests. No agreement by GE2020. (3) Trump goes on twitter/TV to tell May to go f*ck herself (4) Democrats do very well in the 2018 mid-terms and instigate a go-slow (5) We agree a very good comprehensive goods/services UK-US trade deal before GE2020
Even more likely is that the US proposes a trade deal ludicrously biased in their favour including secret US tribunals, acceptance of lower US food standards, US copyright law and anything else rejected by the EU, with exceptions for anything the US deems relevant to its own national security (such as where flags are made) and our lot swallow it because they seriously believe in fair markets, free competition and the tooth fairy.
Well, that sounds very dramatic. I think it's more likely to be a modest extension to our existing agreements under the old GATT accords, rather than a one-sided TTIP II.
The establishment does have form for wanting binding agreements that are to our disadvantage. Sometimes they are just wrong and have to be restrained by the finest Chancellor of our times, such as when Gordon Brown stopped Blair signing up for the Euro; sometimes they naively believe others will reciprocate, such as when Blair gave up part of the rebate; and sometimes politicians think short term harm will lead to long term benefits, such as when Mrs Thatcher wanted to join the forerunners of the Euro.
Which of Boris, Liam Fox or David Davis is the equal of Thatcher, Blair or Brown?
No one who hasn't written a thriller can understand the fiendish, eye-bleeding difficulty and tedium of finding a title for your thriller.
I beg to differ. I was in several bands in my utterly misspent youth. Coming up with a thriller title is a quotidian task compared to conjuring up a name for your band.
I came up with a great title for my (as yet unfinished and in reality barely started) alternative history thriller, only to find that it was in fact the name of a band. Might still use it though.
@Number10cat: Too busy to tweet today - Theresa's just asked me to write a white paper at short notice...
Is this going to be published along with the A50 bill, or is it something further down the line? If it's the former, I can't see it being that heavy on the details!
No one who hasn't written a thriller can understand the fiendish, eye-bleeding difficulty and tedium of finding a title for your thriller.
I beg to differ. I was in several bands in my utterly misspent youth. Coming up with a thriller title is a quotidian task compared to conjuring up a name for your band.
I came up with a great title for my (as yet unfinished and in reality barely started) alternative history thriller, only to find that it was in fact the name of a band. Might still use it though.
Is it physically possible for Corbyn to get worse - in a sensible universe? Clearly he could try and bite the Queen's head off during the State Opening, but apart from that.
George Galloway has yet to be welcomed back into the Labour Party. Corbyn will probably do that just in time to draw media fire away from a government scandal.
There's the merger with Sinn Fein to schedule as well
Is this going to be published along with the A50 bill, or is it something further down the line? If it's the former, I can't see it being that heavy on the details!
Very interesting PMQs IMO. Series of co-ordinated(?) questions about Trump meeting. Suggests there is little support for rolling over to kiss the Orange ass.
In order of likelihood:
(1) We do a very basic trade deal before GE2020 (2) US proposes something more ambitious - and we talk - but it gets bogged down in negotiations because it's clearly skewed against UK interests. No agreement by GE2020. (3) Trump goes on twitter/TV to tell May to go f*ck herself (4) Democrats do very well in the 2018 mid-terms and instigate a go-slow (5) We agree a very good comprehensive goods/services UK-US trade deal before GE2020
Even more likely is that the US proposes a trade deal ludicrously biased in their favour including secret US tribunals, acceptance of lower US food standards, US copyright law and anything else rejected by the EU, with exceptions for anything the US deems relevant to its own national security (such as where flags are made) and our lot swallow it because they seriously believe in fair markets, free competition and the tooth fairy.
That is (2)
The fundamental flaw with the idea of doing a "quick" trade deal with anyone, is Tezza's desire (together with every commentator who has bothered to comment on it) for a transitional period, supposedly to give people a chance to adapt to the new conditions.
A50 gives us two years to establish a basis for leaving, what residual memberships if any we want to maintain, payments, etc. That is far removed from a trade deal. I don't believe there is the capacity, or ability, or intention on any side to negotiate a trade deal with the EU at the same time as negotiating an exit from the EU.
So an exit first = two years, and then a transitional period wherein we negotiate what we want thereafter.
But it is folly to think that any kind of trade deal can be negotiated with any third country while we are still in that transitional period. No one will know what the final outcome of the final trade deal with the EU will be and hence no one in their right mind (including us) will be in a position to negotiate a new deal with a third country.
@owenjbennett: In 1987 Corbyn stood for a minute silence for 8 IRA gunmen. Today, he didn't know if a NI police officer was alive or dead after being shot.
Politics has always been a "rough trade" as John Major once said.
On reflection, I'd rather have the sound than silence. For too long, too many people had no voice at all. Now, technology has given more people a voice than ever before and democracy, perversely, benefits if more voices are heard.
Yes, it's discordant and at times dangerous but I'd rather hear the anger than silence. If you can hear and feel the anger, you can try to understand it and deal with it. You may not be able to reason with it but perhaps as the angry hear other voices, they might reason with it themselves.
In my experience - and I've been doing it for 50 years now! - politics isn't really a rough trade in *personal* interaction unless you cooperate in making it so. George Gallloway once called me a murderer (for voting for Iraq, so actually an arguable political point), and someone once threatened by phone to kill me if I voted to ban fox-hunting (I did and he didn't, so meh), but after that I'm down to people saying "nah, sod off" and stuff like that. And there isn't any sort of neighbourhood that I've not canvassed, often on my own - Glasgow tenements, semi-derelict buildings, dark alleys, whatever. The thing is that I always start the conversation politely, and if someone's said they're sorry to bother you it's difficult to respond by swearing at them, even if you're a bit drunk. No PB reader should be put off from politics by thinking that they'll runinto constant abuse.
The advent of social media circumvents that, since people aren't responding to any conversational approach but just venting about public figures who they're probably not met. Equally, it doesn't matter very much that some stranger doesn't like you - I've never lost any sleep over someone anonymous on PB calling me a traitor or whatever. The one area where it does matter is when social media abuse spills into direct contact and/or encourages personal aggression and violence (as in the Gina case), and I agree that's a modern, genuine problem.
Good analysis Nick.
Off Topic, what's the feeling in Broxtowe to Anna Soubry's Brexit position? She seem's to be positioning herself to inherit the Ken Clarke mantle within the Tory party, which (at least locally) hasn't done him any harm.
Ken though has a long, long history with his constituency. He represents a by-gone era of his party when they were in favour of Europe and joining common market and so on. Ted Heath etc etc. His vote must be so personal by now that his views on Brexit are neither here nor there.
Will anyone else be given that leeway?
Anyway:
Remain 57% in Rushcliffe; 45% in Broxtowe.
Ken Clarke was a Whip during the passage of the 1972 European Communities Act.
Very interesting PMQs IMO. Series of co-ordinated(?) questions about Trump meeting. Suggests there is little support for rolling over to kiss the Orange ass.
In order of likelihood:
(1) We do a very basic trade deal before GE2020 (2) US proposes something more ambitious - and we talk - but it gets bogged down in negotiations because it's clearly skewed against UK interests. No agreement by GE2020. (3) Trump goes on twitter/TV to tell May to go f*ck herself (4) Democrats do very well in the 2018 mid-terms and instigate a go-slow (5) We agree a very good comprehensive goods/services UK-US trade deal before GE2020
Even more likely is that the US proposes a trade deal ludicrously biased in their favour including secret US tribunals, acceptance of lower US food standards, US copyright law and anything else rejected by the EU, with exceptions for anything the US deems relevant to its own national security (such as where flags are made) and our lot swallow it because they seriously believe in fair markets, free competition and the tooth fairy.
Well, that sounds very dramatic. I think it's more likely to be a modest extension to our existing agreements under the old GATT accords, rather than a one-sided TTIP II.
The establishment does have form for wanting binding agreements that are to our disadvantage. Sometimes they are just wrong and have to be restrained by the finest Chancellor of our times, such as when Gordon Brown stopped Blair signing up for the Euro; sometimes they naively believe others will reciprocate, such as when Blair gave up part of the rebate; and sometimes politicians think short term harm will lead to long term benefits, such as when Mrs Thatcher wanted to join the forerunners of the Euro.
Which of Boris, Liam Fox or David Davis is the equal of Thatcher, Blair or Brown?
You're trolling me, right? Johnson and Davis have nothing to do with trade; the PM specifically emasculated the FCO to that end. Fox is more of a worry. I thought he was a shit minister before, and the fact that he supported Brexit hasn't changed my opinion.
I'm happy to wait for events to unfold; it's better for my blood pressure and the world is far too whacky for mere intelligence to be of any use in predicting what's likely to happen.
Is this going to be published along with the A50 bill, or is it something further down the line? If it's the former, I can't see it being that heavy on the details!
Both due to be published tomorrow
OK, which suggests some element of planning, unless you can really put together a policy document in under 24 hours
Very interesting PMQs IMO. Series of co-ordinated(?) questions about Trump meeting. Suggests there is little support for rolling over to kiss the Orange ass.
In order of likelihood:
(1) We do a very basic trade deal before GE2020 (2) US proposes something more ambitious - and we talk - but it gets bogged down in negotiations because it's clearly skewed against UK interests. No agreement by GE2020. (3) Trump goes on twitter/TV to tell May to go f*ck herself (4) Democrats do very well in the 2018 mid-terms and instigate a go-slow (5) We agree a very good comprehensive goods/services UK-US trade deal before GE2020
Even more likely is that the US proposes a trade deal ludicrously biased in their favour including secret US tribunals, acceptance of lower US food standards, US copyright law and anything else rejected by the EU, with exceptions for anything the US deems relevant to its own national security (such as where flags are made) and our lot swallow it because they seriously believe in fair markets, free competition and the tooth fairy.
That is (2)
The fundamental flaw with the idea of doing a "quick" trade deal with anyone, is Tezza's desire (together with every commentator who has bothered to comment on it) for a transitional period, supposedly to give people a chance to adapt to the new conditions.
A50 gives us two years to establish a basis for leaving, what residual memberships if any we want to maintain, payments, etc. That is far removed from a trade deal. I don't believe there is the capacity, or ability, or intention on any side to negotiate a trade deal with the EU at the same time as negotiating an exit from the EU.
So an exit first = two years, and then a transitional period wherein we negotiate what we want thereafter.
But it is folly to think that any kind of trade deal can be negotiated with any third country while we are still in that transitional period. No one will know what the final outcome of the final trade deal with the EU will be and hence no one in their right mind (including us) will be in a position to negotiate a new deal with a third country.
Can countries only negotiate one trade deal at a time? I suppose they are quite unwieldy so that is typically the case.
Is this going to be published along with the A50 bill, or is it something further down the line? If it's the former, I can't see it being that heavy on the details!
Both due to be published tomorrow
OK, which suggests some element of planning, unless you can really put together a policy document in under 24 hours
The White Paper will just be a rehash of her recent speech on Brexit, very easy to do quickly. It will contain no new information.
Very interesting PMQs IMO. Series of co-ordinated(?) questions about Trump meeting. Suggests there is little support for rolling over to kiss the Orange ass.
In order of likelihood:
(1) We do a very basic trade deal before GE2020 (2) US proposes something more ambitious - and we talk - but it gets bogged down in negotiations because it's clearly skewed against UK interests. No agreement by GE2020. (3) Trump goes on twitter/TV to tell May to go f*ck herself (4) Democrats do very well in the 2018 mid-terms and instigate a go-slow (5) We agree a very good comprehensive goods/services UK-US trade deal before GE2020
Even more likely is that the US proposes a trade deal ludicrously biased in their favour including secret US tribunals, acceptance of lower US food standards, US copyright law and anything else rejected by the EU, with exceptions for anything the US deems relevant to its own national security (such as where flags are made) and our lot swallow it because they seriously believe in fair markets, free competition and the tooth fairy.
That is (2)
The fundamental flaw with the idea of doing a "quick" trade deal with anyone, is Tezza's desire (together with every commentator who has bothered to comment on it) for a transitional period, supposedly to give people a chance to adapt to the new conditions.
A50 gives us two years to establish a basis for leaving, what residual memberships if any we want to maintain, payments, etc. That is far removed from a trade deal. I don't believe there is the capacity, or ability, or intention on any side to negotiate a trade deal with the EU at the same time as negotiating an exit from the EU.
So an exit first = two years, and then a transitional period wherein we negotiate what we want thereafter.
But it is folly to think that any kind of trade deal can be negotiated with any third country while we are still in that transitional period. No one will know what the final outcome of the final trade deal with the EU will be and hence no one in their right mind (including us) will be in a position to negotiate a new deal with a third country.
Can countries only negotiate one trade deal at a time? I suppose they are quite unwieldy so that is typically the case.
I'm sure they can negotiate many, but put yourself in the EU's shoes (look away now PB Leavers).
Suppose the EU has a common external tariff on widgets. On account of the UK's transitional deal we remain inside the EU's customs union.
Would you want the UK to negotiate a trade deal to import widgets tariff-free into the UK and then be able to re-export them, also tariff-free, to the EU?
No one who hasn't written a thriller can understand the fiendish, eye-bleeding difficulty and tedium of finding a title for your thriller.
I beg to differ. I was in several bands in my utterly misspent youth. Coming up with a thriller title is a quotidian task compared to conjuring up a name for your band.
I came up with a great title for my (as yet unfinished and in reality barely started) alternative history thriller, only to find that it was in fact the name of a band. Might still use it though.
'The Beatles'?
Less well known. Barely known in their own garage, I suspect. I only found them because I was googling the title to see if anything came up.
I'm sure they can negotiate many, but put yourself in the EU's shoes (look away now PB Leavers).
Suppose the EU has a common external tariff on widgets. On account of the UK's transitional deal we remain inside the EU's customs union.
Would you want the UK to negotiate a trade deal to import widgets tariff-free into the UK and then be able to re-export them, also tariff-free, to the EU?
I agree the position on the customs union would have to be clear.
Very interesting PMQs IMO. Series of co-ordinated(?) questions about Trump meeting. Suggests there is little support for rolling over to kiss the Orange ass.
In order of likelihood:
(1) We do a very basic trade deal before GE2020 (2) US proposes something more ambitious - and we talk - but it gets bogged down in negotiations because it's clearly skewed against UK interests. No agreement by GE2020. (3) Trump goes on twitter/TV to tell May to go f*ck herself (4) Democrats do very well in the 2018 mid-terms and instigate a go-slow (5) We agree a very good comprehensive goods/services UK-US trade deal before GE2020
Even more likely is that the US proposes a trade deal ludicrously biased in their favour including secret US tribunals, acceptance of lower US food standards, US copyright law and anything else rejected by the EU, with exceptions for anything the US deems relevant to its own national security (such as where flags are made) and our lot swallow it because they seriously believe in fair markets, free competition and the tooth fairy.
That is (2)
The fundamental flaw with the idea of doing a "quick" trade deal with anyone, is Tezza's desire (together with every commentator who has bothered to comment on it) for a transitional period, supposedly to give people a chance to adapt to the new conditions.
A50 gives us two years to establish a basis for leaving, what residual memberships if any we want to maintain, payments, etc. That is far removed from a trade deal. I don't believe there is the capacity, or ability, or intention on any side to negotiate a trade deal with the EU at the same time as negotiating an exit from the EU.
So an exit first = two years, and then a transitional period wherein we negotiate what we want thereafter.
But it is folly to think that any kind of trade deal can be negotiated with any third country while we are still in that transitional period. No one will know what the final outcome of the final trade deal with the EU will be and hence no one in their right mind (including us) will be in a position to negotiate a new deal with a third country.
I don't see why US negotiations ("informal", of course) can't proceed in tandem.
They can be formalised within 12 months of us formally leaving the EU. When they take effect may be linked to the transitional deal with the EU, or may not.
Is this going to be published along with the A50 bill, or is it something further down the line? If it's the former, I can't see it being that heavy on the details!
Both due to be published tomorrow
OK, which suggests some element of planning, unless you can really put together a policy document in under 24 hours
The White Paper will just be a rehash of her recent speech on Brexit, very easy to do quickly. It will contain no new information.
What's the point then? Presumably her backbenchers won't accept that?
The alternative view is she has a plan much more detailed than what was in the speech and plans to just realease that?
If the White Paper really is being published tomorrow as well as the Bill, then why didn't May just say so when Corbyn asked?
Or was she just enjoying his flailing around?
We'll see if Scott's correct and it's essentially a transcript of May's LH speech. I'd be very pleased if it were more comprehensive and that May has discovered a taste for the Machiavellian .
Very interesting PMQs IMO. Series of co-ordinated(?) questions about Trump meeting. Suggests there is little support for rolling over to kiss the Orange ass.
In order of likelihood:
(1) We do a very basic trade deal before GE2020 (2) US proposes something more ambitious - and we talk - but it gets bogged down in negotiations because it's clearly skewed against UK interests. No agreement by GE2020. (3) Trump goes on twitter/TV to tell May to go f*ck herself (4) Democrats do very well in the 2018 mid-terms and instigate a go-slow (5) We agree a very good comprehensive goods/services UK-US trade deal before GE2020
Even more likely is that the US proposes a trade deal ludicrously biased in their favour including secret US tribunals, acceptance of lower US food standards, US copyright law and anything else rejected by the EU, with exceptions for anything the US deems relevant to its own national security (such as where flags are made) and our lot swallow it because they seriously believe in fair markets, free competition and the tooth fairy.
Well, that sounds very dramatic. I think it's more likely to be a modest extension to our existing agreements under the old GATT accords, rather than a one-sided TTIP II.
The establishment does have form for wanting binding agreements that are to our disadvantage. Sometimes they are just wrong and have to be restrained by the finest Chancellor of our times, such as when Gordon Brown stopped Blair signing up for the Euro; sometimes they naively believe others will reciprocate, such as when Blair gave up part of the rebate; and sometimes politicians think short term harm will lead to long term benefits, such as when Mrs Thatcher wanted to join the forerunners of the Euro.
Which of Boris, Liam Fox or David Davis is the equal of Thatcher, Blair or Brown?
You're trolling me, right? Johnson and Davis have nothing to do with trade; the PM specifically emasculated the FCO to that end. Fox is more of a worry. I thought he was a shit minister before, and the fact that he supported Brexit hasn't changed my opinion.
I'm happy to wait for events to unfold; it's better for my blood pressure and the world is far too whacky for mere intelligence to be of any use in predicting what's likely to happen.
Davis does the renegotiation strategy and power repatriation planning Fox does the global trade deal scoping and prepping Boris scopes the post Brexit global UK foreign policy goals
Very interesting PMQs IMO. Series of co-ordinated(?) questions about Trump meeting. Suggests there is little support for rolling over to kiss the Orange ass.
In order of likelihood:
(1) We do a very basod comprehensive goods/services UK-US trade deal before GE2020
Even more likely is that the US proposes a trade deal ludicrously biased in their favour including secret US tribunals, acceptance of lower US food standards, US copyright law and anything else rejected by the EU, with exceptions for anything the US deems relevant to its own national security (such as where flags are made) and our lot swallow it because they seriously believe in fair markets, free competition and the tooth fairy.
That is (2)
The fundamental flaw with the idea of doing a "quick" trade deal with anyone, is Tezza's desire (together with every commentator who has bothered to comment on it) for a transitional period, supposedly to give people a chance to adapt to the new conditions.
A50 gives us two years to establish a basis for leaving, what residual memberships if any we want to maintain, payments, etc. That is far removed from a trade deal. I don't believe there is the capacity, or ability, or intention on any side to negotiate a trade deal with the EU at the same time as negotiating an exit from the EU.
So an exit first = two years, and then a transitional period wherein we negotiate what we want thereafter.
But it is folly to think that any kind of trade deal can be negotiated with any third country while we are still in that transitional period. No one will know what the final outcome of the final trade deal with the EU will be and hence no one in their right mind (including us) will be in a position to negotiate a new deal with a third country.
I don't see why US negotiations ("informal", of course) can't proceed in tandem.
They can be formalised within 12 months of us formally leaving the EU. When they take effect may be linked to the transitional deal with the EU, or may not.
As per my example to @RobD they can't be formalised until after any transitional period, of course depending upon what transitional period is achieved. Tezza has said she wants a transitional period and so it is unlikely that any trade deal with a third country could take effect before that expires.
And as for "informal" trade negotiations, well I'm no negotiator (neither is anyone else, in particular in government), but that doesn't smell right to me.
@owenjbennett: In 1987 Corbyn stood for a minute silence for 8 IRA gunmen. Today, he didn't know if a NI police officer was alive or dead after being shot.
I think that's a fair enough point. If he cared enough, he would know
Swivel-eyed, anti-European Atlanticist Liam Fox, a man with next to no deal-making experience, negotiating with Donald Trump and co to get a quick trade agreement with the US that is supposed to make up for some of the advantages we lose by quitting the Single Market. What could possibly go wrong?
More seriously, the US has been negotiating trade deals for years and is used to getting its way. The UK has not been and is not. If there is one thing to take our time over it is sitting down with the Trump administration. A quick fix for short-term political gain would be a dereliction of responsibility.
Very interesting PMQs IMO. Series of co-ordinated(?) questions about Trump meeting. Suggests there is little support for rolling over to kiss the Orange ass.
In order of likelihood:
(1) We do a very basic trade deal before GE2020 (2) US proposes something more ambitious - and we talk - but it gets bogged down in negotiations because it's clearly skewed against UK interests. No agreement by GE2020. (3) Trump goes on twitter/TV to tell May to go f*ck herself (4) Democrats do very well in the 2018 mid-terms and instigate a go-slow (5) We agree a very good comprehensive goods/services UK-US trade deal before GE2020
Even more likely is that the US proposes a trade deal ludicrously biased in their favour including secret US tribunals, acceptance of lower US food standards, US copyright law and anything else rejected by the EU, with exceptions for anything the US deems relevant to its own national security (such as where flags are made) and our lot swallow it because they seriously believe in fair markets, free competition and the tooth fairy.
Well, that sounds very dramatic. I think it's more likely to be a modest extension to our existing agreements under the old GATT accords, rather than a one-sided TTIP II.
The establishment does have form for wanting binding agreements that are to our disadvantage. Sometimes they are just wrong and have to be restrained by the finest Chancellor of our times, such as when Gordon Brown stopped Blair signing up for the Euro; sometimes they naively believe others will reciprocate, such as when Blair gave up part of the rebate; and sometimes politicians think short term harm will lead to long term benefits, such as when Mrs Thatcher wanted to join the forerunners of the Euro.
Which of Boris, Liam Fox or David Davis is the equal of Thatcher, Blair or Brown?
The local drug dealer is the equal of Blair and Brown.
Swivel-eyed, anti-European Atlanticist Liam Fox, a man with next to no deal-making experience, negotiating with Donald Trump and co to get a quick trade agreement with the US that is supposed to make up for some of the advantages we lose by quitting the Single Market. What could possibly go wrong?
More seriously, the US has been negotiating trade deals for years and is used to getting its way. The UK has not been and is not. If there is one thing to take our time over it is sitting down with the Trump administration. A quick fix for short-term political gain would be a dereliction of responsibility.
On the issue of haste this is a rare occasion when I agree with you.
The parliamentary arithmetic looks very similar but there was a powerful, well-organised and well-disciplined Labour Party back then, all singing from the same hymn sheet, that was able to lead rebels from other parties, the Government was tired and unpopular, and there was a determined Tory blocking minority of 15-20 willing to bring it down over it.
Today, opposition is much more fragmented, inconsistent and poorly coordinated, they can't all agree on what they want, they are facing an energised Government with broad public support and have to answer to the result of a national plebiscite within their own constituencies.
Amendments to A50 bill will need all of Labour+SNP+LDs+Tory rebels+Green+SDLP+PC to unite as one to bring it about and actively vote against May in unison.
Swivel-eyed, anti-European Atlanticist Liam Fox, a man with next to no deal-making experience, negotiating with Donald Trump and co to get a quick trade agreement with the US that is supposed to make up for some of the advantages we lose by quitting the Single Market. What could possibly go wrong?
More seriously, the US has been negotiating trade deals for years and is used to getting its way. The UK has not been and is not. If there is one thing to take our time over it is sitting down with the Trump administration. A quick fix for short-term political gain would be a dereliction of responsibility.
On the issue of haste this is a rare occasion when I agree with you.
Swivel-eyed, anti-European Atlanticist Liam Fox, a man with next to no deal-making experience, negotiating with Donald Trump and co to get a quick trade agreement with the US that is supposed to make up for some of the advantages we lose by quitting the Single Market. What could possibly go wrong?
More seriously, the US has been negotiating trade deals for years and is used to getting its way. The UK has not been and is not. If there is one thing to take our time over it is sitting down with the Trump administration. A quick fix for short-term political gain would be a dereliction of responsibility.
Interesting piece in yesterday's Evening Standard - the US will almost certainly demand that we open ourselves up to their food exports (that's what they do). The result will be great swathes of British agriculture destroyed when they fail to compete will GM crops and bleached chicken flesh.
Swivel-eyed, anti-European Atlanticist Liam Fox, a man with next to no deal-making experience, negotiating with Donald Trump and co to get a quick trade agreement with the US that is supposed to make up for some of the advantages we lose by quitting the Single Market. What could possibly go wrong?
More seriously, the US has been negotiating trade deals for years and is used to getting its way. The UK has not been and is not. If there is one thing to take our time over it is sitting down with the Trump administration. A quick fix for short-term political gain would be a dereliction of responsibility.
Interesting piece in yesterday's Evening Standard - the US will almost certainly demand that we open ourselves up to their food exports (that's what they do). The result will be great swathes of British agriculture destroyed when they fail to compete will GM crops and bleached chicken flesh.
If people keep on mentioning bleached chicken flesh I am going to start getting an appetite for it! That's how it works isn't it?
Swivel-eyed, anti-European Atlanticist Liam Fox, a man with next to no deal-making experience, negotiating with Donald Trump and co to get a quick trade agreement with the US that is supposed to make up for some of the advantages we lose by quitting the Single Market. What could possibly go wrong?
More seriously, the US has been negotiating trade deals for years and is used to getting its way. The UK has not been and is not. If there is one thing to take our time over it is sitting down with the Trump administration. A quick fix for short-term political gain would be a dereliction of responsibility.
Interesting piece in yesterday's Evening Standard - the US will almost certainly demand that we open ourselves up to their food exports (that's what they do). The result will be great swathes of British agriculture destroyed when they fail to compete will GM crops and bleached chicken flesh.
Isn't the EU the only reason we can't grow GM crops? Not sure about bleached chicken though (yum)
Swivel-eyed, anti-European Atlanticist Liam Fox, a man with next to no deal-making experience, negotiating with Donald Trump and co to get a quick trade agreement with the US that is supposed to make up for some of the advantages we lose by quitting the Single Market. What could possibly go wrong?
More seriously, the US has been negotiating trade deals for years and is used to getting its way. The UK has not been and is not. If there is one thing to take our time over it is sitting down with the Trump administration. A quick fix for short-term political gain would be a dereliction of responsibility.
Interesting piece in yesterday's Evening Standard - the US will almost certainly demand that we open ourselves up to their food exports (that's what they do). The result will be great swathes of British agriculture destroyed when they fail to compete will GM crops and bleached chicken flesh.
If people keep on mentioning bleached chicken flesh I am going to start getting an appetite for it! That's how it works isn't it?
This is the language of the new reality: 'bleached chicken flesh' replaces 'straight cucumber'.
Swivel-eyed, anti-European Atlanticist Liam Fox, a man with next to no deal-making experience, negotiating with Donald Trump and co to get a quick trade agreement with the US that is supposed to make up for some of the advantages we lose by quitting the Single Market. What could possibly go wrong?
More seriously, the US has been negotiating trade deals for years and is used to getting its way. The UK has not been and is not. If there is one thing to take our time over it is sitting down with the Trump administration. A quick fix for short-term political gain would be a dereliction of responsibility.
Interesting piece in yesterday's Evening Standard - the US will almost certainly demand that we open ourselves up to their food exports (that's what they do). The result will be great swathes of British agriculture destroyed when they fail to compete will GM crops and bleached chicken flesh.
Isn't the EU the only reason we can't grow GM crops? Not sure about bleached chicken though (yum)
Ask arch-europhile William Hague (circa 1999) about GM crops.
Swivel-eyed, anti-European Atlanticist Liam Fox, a man with next to no deal-making experience, negotiating with Donald Trump and co to get a quick trade agreement with the US that is supposed to make up for some of the advantages we lose by quitting the Single Market. What could possibly go wrong?
More seriously, the US has been negotiating trade deals for years and is used to getting its way. The UK has not been and is not. If there is one thing to take our time over it is sitting down with the Trump administration. A quick fix for short-term political gain would be a dereliction of responsibility.
Interesting piece in yesterday's Evening Standard - the US will almost certainly demand that we open ourselves up to their food exports (that's what they do). The result will be great swathes of British agriculture destroyed when they fail to compete will GM crops and bleached chicken flesh.
Isn't the EU the only reason we can't grow GM crops? Not sure about bleached chicken though (yum)
Ask arch-europhile William Hague (circa 1999) about GM crops.
Swivel-eyed, anti-European Atlanticist Liam Fox, a man with next to no deal-making experience, negotiating with Donald Trump and co to get a quick trade agreement with the US that is supposed to make up for some of the advantages we lose by quitting the Single Market. What could possibly go wrong?
More seriously, the US has been negotiating trade deals for years and is used to getting its way. The UK has not been and is not. If there is one thing to take our time over it is sitting down with the Trump administration. A quick fix for short-term political gain would be a dereliction of responsibility.
Interesting piece in yesterday's Evening Standard - the US will almost certainly demand that we open ourselves up to their food exports (that's what they do). The result will be great swathes of British agriculture destroyed when they fail to compete will GM crops and bleached chicken flesh.
Isn't the EU the only reason we can't grow GM crops? Not sure about bleached chicken though (yum)
Ask arch-europhile William Hague (circa 1999) about GM crops.
Swivel-eyed, anti-European Atlanticist Liam Fox, a man with next to no deal-making experience, negotiating with Donald Trump and co to get a quick trade agreement with the US that is supposed to make up for some of the advantages we lose by quitting the Single Market. What could possibly go wrong?
More seriously, the US has been negotiating trade deals for years and is used to getting its way. The UK has not been and is not. If there is one thing to take our time over it is sitting down with the Trump administration. A quick fix for short-term political gain would be a dereliction of responsibility.
Interesting piece in yesterday's Evening Standard - the US will almost certainly demand that we open ourselves up to their food exports (that's what they do). The result will be great swathes of British agriculture destroyed when they fail to compete will GM crops and bleached chicken flesh.
Isn't the EU the only reason we can't grow GM crops? Not sure about bleached chicken though (yum)
Ask arch-europhile William Hague (circa 1999) about GM crops.
Swivel-eyed, anti-European Atlanticist Liam Fox, a man with next to no deal-making experience, negotiating with Donald Trump and co to get a quick trade agreement with the US that is supposed to make up for some of the advantages we lose by quitting the Single Market. What could possibly go wrong?
More seriously, the US has been negotiating trade deals for years and is used to getting its way. The UK has not been and is not. If there is one thing to take our time over it is sitting down with the Trump administration. A quick fix for short-term political gain would be a dereliction of responsibility.
Interesting piece in yesterday's Evening Standard - the US will almost certainly demand that we open ourselves up to their food exports (that's what they do). The result will be great swathes of British agriculture destroyed when they fail to compete will GM crops and bleached chicken flesh.
Isn't the EU the only reason we can't grow GM crops? Not sure about bleached chicken though (yum)
Ask arch-europhile William Hague (circa 1999) about GM crops.
Are you not looking forward to cheaper high-fructose corn syrup and aerosol cheese?
The whole point about 'taking back sovereignty' is that we can decide what we want to put in our bodies, rather than have someone else take away our options.
If you are too stupid to make you own decisions on these matters, don't assume everyone else it.
Swivel-eyed, anti-European Atlanticist Liam Fox, a man with next to no deal-making experience, negotiating with Donald Trump and co to get a quick trade agreement with the US that is supposed to make up for some of the advantages we lose by quitting the Single Market. What could possibly go wrong?
More seriously, the US has been negotiating trade deals for years and is used to getting its way. The UK has not been and is not. If there is one thing to take our time over it is sitting down with the Trump administration. A quick fix for short-term political gain would be a dereliction of responsibility.
Interesting piece in yesterday's Evening Standard - the US will almost certainly demand that we open ourselves up to their food exports (that's what they do). The result will be great swathes of British agriculture destroyed when they fail to compete will GM crops and bleached chicken flesh.
If people keep on mentioning bleached chicken flesh I am going to start getting an appetite for it! That's how it works isn't it?
You do realise you're drinking "chlorine-drenched" tap water every day, right . I love the way people have seized on this as a cause celebre. If we signed a perfect FTA with the US, I wouldn't eat their food (well, maybe their beef) because I care about food miles. Chlorine is just a chemical. It's not evil. Hormone and antibiotic regimes are more problematic. I'm sure some will worry about GM crops, but it's not something that concerns me.
Free trade comes, ironically, with a price tag. That means more competition for many sectors of our economy, particularly agriculture. We should really welcome that. People are very discriminating about food, and I fancy our farmers would rise to the challenge.
Swivel-eyed, anti-European Atlanticist Liam Fox, a man with next to no deal-making experience, negotiating with Donald Trump and co to get a quick trade agreement with the US that is supposed to make up for some of the advantages we lose by quitting the Single Market. What could possibly go wrong?
More seriously, the US has been negotiating trade deals for years and is used to getting its way. The UK has not been and is not. If there is one thing to take our time over it is sitting down with the Trump administration. A quick fix for short-term political gain would be a dereliction of responsibility.
Interesting piece in yesterday's Evening Standard - the US will almost certainly demand that we open ourselves up to their food exports (that's what they do). The result will be great swathes of British agriculture destroyed when they fail to compete will GM crops and bleached chicken flesh.
Isn't the EU the only reason we can't grow GM crops? Not sure about bleached chicken though (yum)
Ask arch-europhile William Hague (circa 1999) about GM crops.
Swivel-eyed, anti-European Atlanticist Liam Fox, a man with next to no deal-making experience, negotiating with Donald Trump and co to get a quick trade agreement with the US that is supposed to make up for some of the advantages we lose by quitting the Single Market. What could possibly go wrong?
More seriously, the US has been negotiating trade deals for years and is used to getting its way. The UK has not been and is not. If there is one thing to take our time over it is sitting down with the Trump administration. A quick fix for short-term political gain would be a dereliction of responsibility.
Interesting piece in yesterday's Evening Standard - the US will almost certainly demand that we open ourselves up to their food exports (that's what they do). The result will be great swathes of British agriculture destroyed when they fail to compete will GM crops and bleached chicken flesh.
If people keep on mentioning bleached chicken flesh I am going to start getting an appetite for it! That's how it works isn't it?
You do realise you're drinking "chlorine-drenched" tap water every day, right . I love the way people have seized on this as a cause celebre. If we signed a perfect FTA with the US, I wouldn't eat their food (well, maybe their beef) because I care about food miles. Chlorine is just a chemical. It's not evil. Hormone and antibiotic regimes are more problematic. I'm sure some will worry about GM crops, but it's not something that concerns me.
Free trade comes, ironically, with a price tag. That means more competition for many sectors of our economy, particularly agriculture. We should really welcome that. People are very discriminating about food, and I fancy our farmers would rise to the challenge.
Swivel-eyed, anti-European Atlanticist Liam Fox, a man with next to no deal-making experience, negotiating with Donald Trump and co to get a quick trade agreement with the US that is supposed to make up for some of the advantages we lose by quitting the Single Market. What could possibly go wrong?
More seriously, the US has been negotiating trade deals for years and is used to getting its way. The UK has not been and is not. If there is one thing to take our time over it is sitting down with the Trump administration. A quick fix for short-term political gain would be a dereliction of responsibility.
Interesting piece in yesterday's Evening Standard - the US will almost certainly demand that we open ourselves up to their food exports (that's what they do). The result will be great swathes of British agriculture destroyed when they fail to compete will GM crops and bleached chicken flesh.
Isn't the EU the only reason we can't grow GM crops? Not sure about bleached chicken though (yum)
Ask arch-europhile William Hague (circa 1999) about GM crops.
Are you not looking forward to cheaper high-fructose corn syrup and aerosol cheese?
The whole point about 'taking back sovereignty' is that we can decide what we want to put in our bodies, rather than have someone else take away our options.
If you are too stupid to make you own decisions on these matters, don't assume everyone else it.
With a socialised healthcare system these choices do not only affect the people who make them.
If the White Paper really is being published tomorrow as well as the Bill, then why didn't May just say so when Corbyn asked?
Or was she just enjoying his flailing around?
We'll see if Scott's correct and it's essentially a transcript of May's LH speech. I'd be very pleased if it were more comprehensive and that May has discovered a taste for the Machiavellian .
I'd be inclined to make the White Paper a transcript of her previous speech, but add a 5,000 page addendum of EU micro-managing legislation, titled "The Sort of Shit We'll Be Waving Goodbye..."
Swivel-eyed, anti-European Atlanticist Liam Fox, a man with next to no deal-making experience, negotiating with Donald Trump and co to get a quick trade agreement with the US that is supposed to make up for some of the advantages we lose by quitting the Single Market. What could possibly go wrong?
More seriously, the US has been negotiating trade deals for years and is used to getting its way. The UK has not been and is not. If there is one thing to take our time over it is sitting down with the Trump administration. A quick fix for short-term political gain would be a dereliction of responsibility.
Interesting piece in yesterday's Evening Standard - the US will almost certainly demand that we open ourselves up to their food exports (that's what they do). The result will be great swathes of British agriculture destroyed when they fail to compete will GM crops and bleached chicken flesh.
If people keep on mentioning bleached chicken flesh I am going to start getting an appetite for it! That's how it works isn't it?
You do realise you're drinking "chlorine-drenched" tap water every day, right . I love the way people have seized on this as a cause celebre. If we signed a perfect FTA with the US, I wouldn't eat their food (well, maybe their beef) because I care about food miles. Chlorine is just a chemical. It's not evil. Hormone and antibiotic regimes are more problematic. I'm sure some will worry about GM crops, but it's not something that concerns me.
Free trade comes, ironically, with a price tag. That means more competition for many sectors of our economy, particularly agriculture. We should really welcome that. People are very discriminating about food, and I fancy our farmers would rise to the challenge.
I was only joking!
I was exercising my first amendment right to have a rant .
Comments
The old jokes haven't gone away.
How does a poll of 204 have a "95% confidence level" ?
also, it says on page 1 "This paper does not represent the collective views of Labour Leave, but only the views of the author." but doesn't say who the author is.
John Mills?
He did it, no he did, she did it, no Jezza did it. Milne's media team spinning like tops to cover themselves or their master.
The moment you idiotproof something, they create a better form of idiot. Likewise, just when you think Corbyn's incompetence has plateaued, there's another fall.
And the best thing is that this was a totally unforced error. It wasn't a response; it was not him thinking on his feet.
If he and his team cannot even get that right ...
Corbyn this morning: Hmmm. So the government has lost a major constitutional case on leaving the EU, and May will be embarrassed and under pressure. What can I do? Ah, got it, this will take the pressure off her...
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2009/oct/15/thick-of-it-malcolm-tucker
Only he could fuck things up so well.
this voodoo Poll will make UKIPs performance look even worse that it actually will be.
"The old jokes haven't gone away."
Very good.
"Hah. She was bounced into it. It will just be a cut and paste of her speech."
Well done. The ability to poke fun at yourself is laudable.
Which of Boris, Liam Fox or David Davis is the equal of Thatcher, Blair or Brown?
A50 gives us two years to establish a basis for leaving, what residual memberships if any we want to maintain, payments, etc. That is far removed from a trade deal. I don't believe there is the capacity, or ability, or intention on any side to negotiate a trade deal with the EU at the same time as negotiating an exit from the EU.
So an exit first = two years, and then a transitional period wherein we negotiate what we want thereafter.
But it is folly to think that any kind of trade deal can be negotiated with any third country while we are still in that transitional period. No one will know what the final outcome of the final trade deal with the EU will be and hence no one in their right mind (including us) will be in a position to negotiate a new deal with a third country.
I'm happy to wait for events to unfold; it's better for my blood pressure and the world is far too whacky for mere intelligence to be of any use in predicting what's likely to happen.
Does anyone have any experience of Microsoft's Surface Hub? Someone's just spent ten minutes raving about it, and she isn't a techie ...
Suppose the EU has a common external tariff on widgets. On account of the UK's transitional deal we remain inside the EU's customs union.
Would you want the UK to negotiate a trade deal to import widgets tariff-free into the UK and then be able to re-export them, also tariff-free, to the EU?
Or was she just enjoying his flailing around?
They can be formalised within 12 months of us formally leaving the EU. When they take effect may be linked to the transitional deal with the EU, or may not.
The alternative view is she has a plan much more detailed than what was in the speech and plans to just realease that?
Fox does the global trade deal scoping and prepping
Boris scopes the post Brexit global UK foreign policy goals
Well, at least in theory.
https://twitter.com/gosbornegenius/status/824234688084668416
And as for "informal" trade negotiations, well I'm no negotiator (neither is anyone else, in particular in government), but that doesn't smell right to me.
More seriously, the US has been negotiating trade deals for years and is used to getting its way. The UK has not been and is not. If there is one thing to take our time over it is sitting down with the Trump administration. A quick fix for short-term political gain would be a dereliction of responsibility.
The parliamentary arithmetic looks very similar but there was a powerful, well-organised and well-disciplined Labour Party back then, all singing from the same hymn sheet, that was able to lead rebels from other parties, the Government was tired and unpopular, and there was a determined Tory blocking minority of 15-20 willing to bring it down over it.
Today, opposition is much more fragmented, inconsistent and poorly coordinated, they can't all agree on what they want, they are facing an energised Government with broad public support and have to answer to the result of a national plebiscite within their own constituencies.
Amendments to A50 bill will need all of Labour+SNP+LDs+Tory rebels+Green+SDLP+PC to unite as one to bring it about and actively vote against May in unison.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/281199.stm
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/824248892246097920
If you are too stupid to make you own decisions on these matters, don't assume everyone else it.
Free trade comes, ironically, with a price tag. That means more competition for many sectors of our economy, particularly agriculture. We should really welcome that. People are very discriminating about food, and I fancy our farmers would rise to the challenge.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/arlene-foster-cant-see-all-the-haters-when-i-got-my-love-glasses-on-35346556.html
IIRC Iris Robinson used to say that gays could be 'cured' through counseling or something like that.