The outlines of the UK-EU agreement are becoming clearer.
PART 1 The UK will leave the EU in Mar-2019. Thereafter no participation in European Parliament, no Commissioner and no votes in Council of Ministers. Some observer/ consultative role in the Council is likely.
From Mar-19 the UK will have repatriated powers on agriculture, fisheries (though see below) and regional policy. The UK will also be outside of the Charter of Fundamental Rights for UK law (but not ongoing EU law).
The UK will be outside the Common Foreign and Security Policy pillar. It will continue its relationship with EU via some special new body or new status with the existing EU foreign policy and security institutions.
From Mar-19 to Mar-21 OR Mar-22 the UK will be in the transitional phase. Formally this won't be Single Market and Customs Union membership but effectively it will be the same. This will be a bilateral and bespoke relationship as it doing it via EEA unnecessarily complicates it. These elements of the deal will be ajudicated by the ECJ for this period.
The one significant change on CU will be that the EU will give explicit recognition that the UK is allowed to negotiate trade deals with third parties during this period.
The Justice and Home Affairs pillar will probably be rolled over during this period. As will membership of Euratom, or a status near enough to it.
Freedom of movement will continue during this time, except the UK will have tougher powers on preventing entry/ deporting criminals and possibly more freedom in how it pays benefits.
The UK-Irish border will be as per today.
There may be a special joint tribunal set up to rule on early exit issues (e.g. any relating to fisheries).
The EU will agree to this transition for six reasons: > The EU does not want a chaotic transition or cliff edge; > The UK will also contribute funds at roughly the same level as today. This will be composed of lower contributions to the EU because we'll be outside the CAP and Regional Policy but some accounting for 'exit bill' items. So the EU will have some of their financial hole filled, and the UK will be able to sell it as another 2/3 years of routine membership fee (in net terms, the UK's gross contribution will be lower); > The UK will make behind the scenes assurances about security to the Eastern states; > Some in the EU also think it increases the chance of the UK never properly leaving; > The UK will extend the citizens' rights grace period currently being talked about to go to as far as Mar-19 to instead go to the end of this period; > Though the UK will formally have control of fisheries during this transitional period (and could alter fisheries policy) it will not do anything in this period to take back fishing quotas, as part of sweetening the deal.
PART 2 From Mar-21/22 the UK will fully leave and enter the new Free Trade Agreement phase, which will have been negotiated from Mar-19 to Mar-21/22 (some very broad goals may be discussed prior to Mar-19). This FTA may be called something else to show it is a special partnership.
It will feature: - No tarrifs or quotas on goods; - Free movement of capital as per today, but with some joint supervision for financial services. This joint supervision may be a part of or the basis for a new, wider international system of governance. The UK will probably not incorporate future integration (e.g. the Capital Markets Union). - No free movement of people, but some advantage in the UK immigration system for EU citizens and effectively free movement for some classes of people (e.g. academics, nuclear industry). These privileges will be reciprocated by the EU; - Most elements of services, particularly for network industries (aviation, energy). This will probably be on the basis of the UK having a bilateral relationship with single european sky, Euratom, etc. On these the UK may covered by future development of the market.
The UK will be outside the Common External Tariff and free to commence new third party trading relationships from this moment. Rules of origins restrictions will exist but these will be applied in as light a way as possible and make full use of extended accumulation.
The arrangements between the UK and Ireland will not be legally any different to those between the UK and the rest of the EU. But border restrictions will be even more sensitively applied. The UK will fund the required technological change for implementation. The special agreement between the EU and UK will include a role for the EU in monitoring the Good Friday Agreement though with no meaningful power of intervention.
The UK will be outside the single market, apart from a few selected services industries where the UK has a special ongoing relationship. The UK will have to abide by EU standards in all goods and services where selling into the single market.
In leaving the authority of the single market the UK will also be outside of the social chapter.
Gibraltar's access to the single market will not be identical but it will be content.
The EU will also ask for extensive assurances about the UK not undercutting regulatory or tax standards in general. The UK will agree some principles but these will set quite a low bar and not unduly restrict future UK government action.
The UK will continue financial contributions at a much lower rate for the first few years. These will be dressed up as transitional support out of solidarity but will really be the further elements of the agreed exit bill not paid for between Mar-19 and Mar-20/21.
After a few years the UK's payments will largely stop. A few payments may continue for specific programmes, e.g. Erasmus.
A phased and compensated reassignment of fishing quotas will be agreed.
The UK will be totally outside the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the ECJ, except where it is de facto abiding by single market rules in a few service industries, where the Charter will have little effect anyway.
The UK will continue to rollover most existing elements of the Justice and Home Affairs relationship but will the ongoing right to withdraw from specific provision in future (with due notice) and with a rebadged European Arrest Warrant which provides some more barriers to extradition than exist today but fewer than prior to the EAW.
A new tribunal will be set up to administer the agreement, if it has not already been set up for the earlier exit issues during the transitional phase. This will administer all elements of the exit agreement, including guaranteeing citizens rights and the UK's commitments on regulatory standards. It will include representatives from the UK and EU and potentially Canada (though any Canadian representation may need to balance English and French speakers!).
The UK and EU will further institutionalise their special partnership in foreign and security policy.
He sure as hell gave the impression that Labour would write off the debt. Though I'm not at all surprised that he had no idea how much the debt was, I think that the economic facts that Corbyn knows could be written on the back of a stamp.
He sure as hell gave the impression that Labour would write off the debt. Though I'm not at all surprised that he had no idea how much the debt was, I think that the economic facts that Corbyn knows could be written on the back of a stamp.
I fear us "his sums don't add up" brigade are missing the larger point: HOPE! OPTIMISM!! FUTURE!!! details are for dullards.....like Mrs May....
It seems perfectly reasonable, even to someone (such as myself) who is perfectly happy with a WTO Brexit. I am clear that legally there is no Brexit bill payable at all, but there is no reason we should not trade off payments against a deal we like, and hiding the payments as suggested seems like the obvious solution to that problem.
The main question/issue would be that the UK should NOT enter a transition period without an agreed high level agreement on the eventual ETA as part of the WA - otherwise the terms will just keep being rolled and we will never get to the end of the process.
I am also interested in the origin of this post, because if I am honest what you are suggesting seems far too reasonable for the EU to accept, but we live in hope.
Have to say if the Tories do manage to negotiate the agreement that you have outlined, it is going to make the Remainers a bit queasy - Brexit will not be a disaster at all.
The outlines of the UK-EU agreement are becoming clearer.
Good posts, but can I ask where you are getting this from? Is this your own analysis or something you have read?
Judging by how far-fetched some of it is I suspect he's posting directly from within DExEU.
We already know your vision is of a dismembered UK fully integrated into a European state.....you should stand for election on that basis...I'm sure you'll romp home.....
"After months of diplomatic tiptoeing, Germany’s patience has run out. On July 18th a Turkish court ordered that six human rights activists, including a German trainer who had been detained during a training workshop with Amnesty International, a human-rights group, should be officially arrested. Two days later Germany’s foreign minister, Sigmar Gabriel, cut loose. He warned his country’s nationals against travelling to Turkey, proposed rolling back European Union economic assistance and suggested his government might stop providing export credit guarantees to companies doing business in Turkey. “We cannot advise anyone to invest in a country where there is no longer legal certainty and even companies are being accused of supporting terrorists,” he said."
He sure as hell gave the impression that Labour would write off the debt. Though I'm not at all surprised that he had no idea how much the debt was, I think that the economic facts that Corbyn knows could be written on the back of a stamp.
I fear us "his sums don't add up" brigade are missing the larger point: HOPE! OPTIMISM!! FUTURE!!! details are for dullards.....like Mrs May....
I'm starting to think the Corbyn bubble might pop quite soon when his supporters realise he's not a secret Remainer and he can't or won't deliver the freebies.
"After months of diplomatic tiptoeing, Germany’s patience has run out. On July 18th a Turkish court ordered that six human rights activists, including a German trainer who had been detained during a training workshop with Amnesty International, a human-rights group, should be officially arrested. Two days later Germany’s foreign minister, Sigmar Gabriel, cut loose. He warned his country’s nationals against travelling to Turkey, proposed rolling back European Union economic assistance and suggested his government might stop providing export credit guarantees to companies doing business in Turkey. “We cannot advise anyone to invest in a country where there is no longer legal certainty and even companies are being accused of supporting terrorists,” he said."
I recently had a long indepth conversation with a Turkish academic who is still based there. I was concerned about the state of turkey before but after speaking with this individual i am even more worried.
Turkey lets refugees cross to Europe from Syria....
For all Cameron's failings one thing he did get massively right was aid to the countries surrounding Syria for refugees - in complete contrast to Merkel who history I suspect will judge very harshly.
It seems perfectly reasonable, even to someone (such as myself) who is perfectly happy with a WTO Brexit. I am clear that legally there is no Brexit bill payable at all, but there is no reason we should not trade off payments against a deal we like, and hiding the payments as suggested seems like the obvious solution to that problem.
The main question/issue would be that the UK should NOT enter a transition period without an agreed high level agreement on the eventual ETA as part of the WA - otherwise the terms will just keep being rolled and we will never get to the end of the process.
I am also interested in the origin of this post, because if I am honest what you are suggesting seems far too reasonable for the EU to accept, but we live in hope.
Have to say if the Tories do manage to negotiate the agreement that you have outlined, it is going to make the Remainers a bit queasy - Brexit will not be a disaster at all.
The outlines of the UK-EU agreement are becoming clearer.
Good posts, but can I ask where you are getting this from? Is this your own analysis or something you have read?
Personally I would be quite content with what you have outlined.
The problem with a "WTO exit" is that it results in us losing all the existing trade relationships the EU has. Don't forget that the EU has FTAs with about 30 countries and then other trading arrangements with another 30.
There are nine treaties between the EU and the US, for example, that govern issues such as how CE and FCC standards are interpreted, and govern double taxation. And then there are the deeper FTA agreements with Switzerland, Canada, South Korea, etc.
The fact that we have not even got a tariff schedule published (and that DfIT is messing around considering writing a new one), should tell you that the UK government is way behind the curve on getting out trade arrangements with the rest of the world sorted.
Turkey lets refugees cross to Europe from Syria....
For all Cameron's failings one thing he did get massively right was aid to the countries surrounding Syria for refugees - in complete contrast to Merkel who history I suspect will judge very harshly.
So we keep hearing from PB Tories, yet Dave is writing his memoires in a caravan while Merkel looks set for her 4th term...
The fact that we have not even got a tariff schedule published (and that DfIT is messing around considering writing a new one), should tell you that the UK government is way behind the curve on getting out trade arrangements with the rest of the world sorted.
The narrative will be very different next weekend when Liam Fox has returned from his 'trade talks' with the US.
It seems perfectly reasonable, even to someone (such as myself) who is perfectly happy with a WTO Brexit. I am clear that legally there is no Brexit bill payable at all, but there is no reason we should not trade off payments against a deal we like, and hiding the payments as suggested seems like the obvious solution to that problem.
The main question/issue would be that the UK should NOT enter a transition period without an agreed high level agreement on the eventual ETA as part of the WA - otherwise the terms will just keep being rolled and we will never get to the end of the process.
I am also interested in the origin of this post, because if I am honest what you are suggesting seems far too reasonable for the EU to accept, but we live in hope.
Have to say if the Tories do manage to negotiate the agreement that you have outlined, it is going to make the Remainers a bit queasy - Brexit will not be a disaster at all.
The outlines of the UK-EU agreement are becoming clearer.
Good posts, but can I ask where you are getting this from? Is this your own analysis or something you have read?
Personally I would be quite content with what you have outlined.
The problem with a "WTO exit" is that it results in us losing all the existing trade relationships the EU has. Don't forget that the EU has FTAs with about 30 countries and then other trading arrangements with another 30.
There are nine treaties between the EU and the US, for example, that govern issues such as how CE and FCC standards are interpreted, and govern double taxation. And then there are the deeper FTA agreements with Switzerland, Canada, South Korea, etc.
The fact that we have not even got a tariff schedule published (and that DfIT is messing around considering writing a new one), should tell you that the UK government is way behind the curve on getting out trade arrangements with the rest of the world sorted.
Whatever arrangement we have EU trade deals with other countries will no longer apply to the UK once we leave the EU. So it is not a specific WTO issue.
The fact that we have not even got a tariff schedule published (and that DfIT is messing around considering writing a new one), should tell you that the UK government is way behind the curve on getting out trade arrangements with the rest of the world sorted.
The narrative will be very different next weekend when Liam Fox has returned from his 'trade talks' with the US.
Fox and Trump will get us all sorted. No problem there...
Turkey lets refugees cross to Europe from Syria....
For all Cameron's failings one thing he did get massively right was aid to the countries surrounding Syria for refugees - in complete contrast to Merkel who history I suspect will judge very harshly.
So we keep hearing from PB Tories, yet Dave is writing his memoires in a caravan while Merkel looks set for her 4th term...
You think Merkel's refugee policy has been a success?
Turkey lets refugees cross to Europe from Syria....
For all Cameron's failings one thing he did get massively right was aid to the countries surrounding Syria for refugees - in complete contrast to Merkel who history I suspect will judge very harshly.
So we keep hearing from PB Tories, yet Dave is writing his memoires in a caravan while Merkel looks set for her 4th term...
You think Merkel's refugee policy has been a success?
Merkel rolled up her sleeves and did a deal with the largest country neighbouring Syria in the way that you advocate
It seems perfectly reasonable, even to someone (such as myself) who is perfectly happy with a WTO Brexit. I am clear that legally there is no Brexit bill payable at all, but there is no reason we should not trade off payments against a deal we like, and hiding the payments as suggested seems like the obvious solution to that problem.
The main question/issue would be that the UK should NOT enter a transition period without an agreed high level agreement on the eventual ETA as part of the WA - otherwise the terms will just keep being rolled and we will never get to the end of the process.
I am also interested in the origin of this post, because if I am honest what you are suggesting seems far too reasonable for the EU to accept, but we live in hope.
Have to say if the Tories do manage to negotiate the agreement that you have outlined, it is going to make the Remainers a bit queasy - Brexit will not be a disaster at all.
The outlines of the UK-EU agreement are becoming clearer.
Good posts, but can I ask where you are getting this from? Is this your own analysis or something you have read?
Personally I would be quite content with what you have outlined.
The problem with a "WTO exit" is that it results in us losing all the existing trade relationships the EU has. Don't forget that the EU has FTAs with about 30 countries and then other trading arrangements with another 30.
There are nine treaties between the EU and the US, for example, that govern issues such as how CE and FCC standards are interpreted, and govern double taxation. And then there are the deeper FTA agreements with Switzerland, Canada, South Korea, etc.
The fact that we have not even got a tariff schedule published (and that DfIT is messing around considering writing a new one), should tell you that the UK government is way behind the curve on getting out trade arrangements with the rest of the world sorted.
Whatever arrangement we have EU trade deals with other countries will no longer apply to the UK once we leave the EU. So it is not a specific WTO issue.
If we stay in the customs union during the transition period, then there is time to - as much as possible - replicate the existing arrangements.
Turkey lets refugees cross to Europe from Syria....
For all Cameron's failings one thing he did get massively right was aid to the countries surrounding Syria for refugees - in complete contrast to Merkel who history I suspect will judge very harshly.
So we keep hearing from PB Tories, yet Dave is writing his memoires in a caravan while Merkel looks set for her 4th term...
You think Merkel's refugee policy has been a success?
It's too early to tell I think. You won't like to hear this but it's very possible it could be seen as an enormous success in the long term.
To return to the original topic, I attended a meeting of 40+ Conservative "grassroots figures" covering the whole of Norfolk and Suffolk last week. There was no discussion of if or when Theresa May should resign. There was no speculation who her successor might be nor when he or she might take over. Clearly, Norfolk and Suffolk were overlooked in this polling so how representative was it?
I have said from the start we will just have status quo , except no vote and just have to follow what EU order and we will pay more for it.
Brexit is undeliverable as promised, which is what makes it interesting. They have to do something because there was a vote about it.
+1 Brexit in a nutshell!
No, I don't agree with that.
The Government promised only to implement the result of the referendum, which simply said 'Leave'. So as long as we leave, the Government has delivered. It could have signed Article 50 the day after the vote and then done nothing until the 2 years expired and it would have been keeping its promise. Of course it makes sense to try and negotiate a deal, but if it doesn't get one, we come out anyway and the promise has been kept.
Turkey lets refugees cross to Europe from Syria....
For all Cameron's failings one thing he did get massively right was aid to the countries surrounding Syria for refugees - in complete contrast to Merkel who history I suspect will judge very harshly.
So we keep hearing from PB Tories, yet Dave is writing his memoires in a caravan while Merkel looks set for her 4th term...
You think Merkel's refugee policy has been a success?
It's too early to tell I think. You won't like to hear this but it's very possible it could be seen as an enormous success in the long term.
If that were the case the numbers on the chart posted upthread would likely be very different.
Oh she's good. I am still nervous about the situation in Scotland but getting her to Westminster should be a priority.
It's really well-written and she has some good ideas.
But if I'd read that and not looked at the author name - I would never have guessed it came from a Conservative politician - and indeed much of it is a critique of what the Conservatives currently are.
Turkey lets refugees cross to Europe from Syria....
For all Cameron's failings one thing he did get massively right was aid to the countries surrounding Syria for refugees - in complete contrast to Merkel who history I suspect will judge very harshly.
So we keep hearing from PB Tories, yet Dave is writing his memoires in a caravan while Merkel looks set for her 4th term...
You think Merkel's refugee policy has been a success?
It's too early to tell I think. You won't like to hear this but it's very possible it could be seen as an enormous success in the long term.
If that were the case the numbers on the chart posted upthread would likely be very different.
I'm not sure which chart you mean - but when I say long-term I mean in like 30-40 years. Will those migrants integrate into the German economy, reduce their demographic problems etc.? It could be a modern day equivalent of the Marshall plan. It could be a disaster too although I hope not.
Oh she's good. I am still nervous about the situation in Scotland but getting her to Westminster should be a priority.
It's really well-written and she has some good ideas.
But if I'd read that and not looked at the author name - I would never have guessed it came from a Conservative politician - and indeed much of it is a critique of what the Conservatives currently are.
And none the worse for that. She recognises and is comfortable with regulation to protect the weak from market exploitation and she is far more upfront about it than most politicians of any stripe. She recognises that there are major issues of inequality and generational fairness and that governments need to grapple with these too. She is unashamedly capitalist but recognises the necessary limitations if a capitalist society is to deliver for all. And she does not pretend that there are simplistic solutions.
It is a form of Conservatism I personally would be extremely comfortable with. It is so superior to May's "vision" harping back to grammar schools and fox hunting that it is indeed surprising it is from the same party.
It seems perfectly reasonable, even to someone (such as myself) who is perfectly happy with a WTO Brexit. I am clear that legally there is no Brexit bill payable at all, but there is no reason we should not trade off payments against a deal we like, and hiding the payments as suggested seems like the obvious solution to that problem.
The main question/issue would be that the UK should NOT enter a transition period without an agreed high level agreement on the eventual ETA as part of the WA - otherwise the terms will just keep being rolled and we will never get to the end of the process.
I am also interested in the origin of this post, because if I am honest what you are suggesting seems far too reasonable for the EU to accept, but we live in hope.
Have to say if the Tories do manage to negotiate the agreement that you have outlined, it is going to make the Remainers a bit queasy - Brexit will not be a disaster at all.
The outlines of the UK-EU agreement are becoming clearer.
Good posts, but can I ask where you are getting this from? Is this your own analysis or something you have read?
Personally I would be quite content with what you have outlined.
The problem with a "WTO exit" is that it results in us losing all the existing trade relationships the EU has. Don't forget that the EU has FTAs with about 30 countries and then other trading arrangements with another 30.
There are nine treaties between the EU and the US, for example, that govern issues such as how CE and FCC standards are interpreted, and govern double taxation. And then there are the deeper FTA agreements with Switzerland, Canada, South Korea, etc.
The fact that we have not even got a tariff schedule published (and that DfIT is messing around considering writing a new one), should tell you that the UK government is way behind the curve on getting out trade arrangements with the rest of the world sorted.
Whatever arrangement we have EU trade deals with other countries will no longer apply to the UK once we leave the EU. So it is not a specific WTO issue.
If we stay in the customs union during the transition period, then there is time to - as much as possible - replicate the existing arrangements.
But do Leavers want to 'replicate the existing arrangements'? Didn't they believe it was the existing arrangements that were unacceptable?
It seems perfectly reasonable, even to someone (such as myself) who is perfectly happy with a WTO Brexit. I am clear that legally there is no Brexit bill payable at all, but there is no reason we should not trade off payments against a deal we like, and hiding the payments as suggested seems like the obvious solution to that problem.
The main question/issue would be that the UK should NOT enter a transition period without an agreed high level agreement on the eventual ETA as part of the WA - otherwise the terms will just keep being rolled and we will never get to the end of the process.
I am also interested in the origin of this post, because if I am honest what you are suggesting seems far too reasonable for the EU to accept, but we live in hope.
Have to say if the Tories do manage to negotiate the agreement that you have outlined, it is going to make the Remainers a bit queasy - Brexit will not be a disaster at all.
The outlines of the UK-EU agreement are becoming clearer.
Good posts, but can I ask where you are getting this from? Is this your own analysis or something you have read?
Personally I would be quite content with what you have outlined.
The problem with a "WTO exit" is that it results in us losing all the existing trade relationships the EU has. Don't forget that the EU has FTAs with about 30 countries and then other trading arrangements with another 30.
There are nine treaties between the EU and the US, for example, that govern issues such as how CE and FCC standards are interpreted, and govern double taxation. And then there are the deeper FTA agreements with Switzerland, Canada, South Korea, etc.
The fact that we have not even got a tariff schedule published (and that DfIT is messing around considering writing a new one), should tell you that the UK government is way behind the curve on getting out trade arrangements with the rest of the world sorted.
Whatever arrangement we have EU trade deals with other countries will no longer apply to the UK once we leave the EU. So it is not a specific WTO issue.
If we stay in the customs union during the transition period, then there is time to - as much as possible - replicate the existing arrangements.
But do Leavers want to 'replicate the existing arrangements'? Didn't they believe it was the existing arrangements that were unacceptable?
The arrangements were never the problem. It was the feelings they evoked that Brexiteers wanted to be rid of.
Oh she's good. I am still nervous about the situation in Scotland but getting her to Westminster should be a priority.
It's really well-written and she has some good ideas.
But if I'd read that and not looked at the author name - I would never have guessed it came from a Conservative politician - and indeed much of it is a critique of what the Conservatives currently are.
And none the worse for that. She recognises and is comfortable with regulation to protect the weak from market exploitation and she is far more upfront about it than most politicians of any stripe. She recognises that there are major issues of inequality and generational fairness and that governments need to grapple with these too. She is unashamedly capitalist but recognises the necessary limitations if a capitalist society is to deliver for all. And she does not pretend that there are simplistic solutions.
It is a form of Conservatism I personally would be extremely comfortable with. It is so superior to May's "vision" harping back to grammar schools and fox hunting that it is indeed surprising it is from the same party.
Honestly I think what's she's written is a lot closer to Labour/Lib Dems than the Tories. She is impressive though - so she might be able to move the party as a whole one day.
It seems perfectly reasonable, even to someone (such as myself) who is perfectly happy with a WTO Brexit. I am clear that legally there is no Brexit bill payable at all, but there is no reason we should not trade off payments against a deal we like, and hiding the payments as suggested seems like the obvious solution to that problem.
The main question/issue would be that the UK should NOT enter a transition period without an agreed high level agreement on the eventual ETA as part of the WA - otherwise the terms will just keep being rolled and we will never get to the end of the process.
I am also interested in the origin of this post, because if I am honest what you are suggesting seems far too reasonable for the EU to accept, but we live in hope.
Have to say if the Tories do manage to negotiate the agreement that you have outlined, it is going to make the Remainers a bit queasy - Brexit will not be a disaster at all.
As a Remainer, I for one would not be queasy with this outcome; I'd have preferred us to stay in but, as we voted to come out, this seems like a sensible deal. What would make me queasy is coming out with no deal.
And what is making me queasy at the moment is that I have zero confidence that this government could negotiate such a deal. On the other hand, a deal like this is the only way the Tories could hope to compete in the next GE imo, so maybe there is hope for this country yet?
Oh she's good. I am still nervous about the situation in Scotland but getting her to Westminster should be a priority.
It's really well-written and she has some good ideas.
But if I'd read that and not looked at the author name - I would never have guessed it came from a Conservative politician - and indeed much of it is a critique of what the Conservatives currently are.
And none the worse for that. She recognises and is comfortable with regulation to protect the weak from market exploitation and she is far more upfront about it than most politicians of any stripe. She recognises that there are major issues of inequality and generational fairness and that governments need to grapple with these too. She is unashamedly capitalist but recognises the necessary limitations if a capitalist society is to deliver for all. And she does not pretend that there are simplistic solutions.
It is a form of Conservatism I personally would be extremely comfortable with. It is so superior to May's "vision" harping back to grammar schools and fox hunting that it is indeed surprising it is from the same party.
Honestly I think what's she's written is a lot closer to Labour/Lib Dems than the Tories. She is impressive though - so she might be able to move the party as a whole one day.
I could see her as a Tony Blair type character leading her party to success from slightly outside its comfort zone leaving its opponents with little space in which to make their pitch. Hopefully with fewer wars of course.
Is that a picture of her shovelling up Osborne's manure ?
(edit... It's a good piece, but it does remind me of Brown also being a fan of Adam Smith - truly a thinker who can be interepreted favourably by just about anyone, to taste.)
Is that a picture of her shovelling up Osborne's manure ?
(edit... It's a good piece, but it does remind me of Brown also being a fan of Adam Smith - truly a thinker who can be interepreted favourably by just about anyone, to taste.)
Turkey lets refugees cross to Europe from Syria....
For all Cameron's failings one thing he did get massively right was aid to the countries surrounding Syria for refugees - in complete contrast to Merkel who history I suspect will judge very harshly.
So we keep hearing from PB Tories, yet Dave is writing his memoires in a caravan while Merkel looks set for her 4th term...
You think Merkel's refugee policy has been a success?
It's too early to tell I think. You won't like to hear this but it's very possible it could be seen as an enormous success in the long term.
If that were the case the numbers on the chart posted upthread would likely be very different.
I'm not sure which chart you mean - but when I say long-term I mean in like 30-40 years. Will those migrants integrate into the German economy, reduce their demographic problems etc.? It could be a modern day equivalent of the Marshall plan. It could be a disaster too although I hope not.
The chart referring to attitudes to fellow employees from different ethnic groups - a small minority (UK, France among the large countries) seem relatively sanguine, while others very much less so. Initial employment data among refugees in Germany is not good.
Oh she's good. I am still nervous about the situation in Scotland but getting her to Westminster should be a priority.
It's really well-written and she has some good ideas.
But if I'd read that and not looked at the author name - I would never have guessed it came from a Conservative politician - and indeed much of it is a critique of what the Conservatives currently are.
Its stating things that some of us here have been saying for a decade.
Though this bit amused me:
' Boldness of the kind we don’t often see from government is going to be necessary. '
Boldness from the woman who wants Scottish millionaires to keep WFA.
And the problem with her 'investment and training' mantra is that her mate George Osborne borrowed hundreds of billions to subsidise house prices, pensioners, retailers of imported tat and foreign hoteliers.
Oh she's good. I am still nervous about the situation in Scotland but getting her to Westminster should be a priority.
It's really well-written and she has some good ideas.
But if I'd read that and not looked at the author name - I would never have guessed it came from a Conservative politician - and indeed much of it is a critique of what the Conservatives currently are.
And none the worse for that. She recognises and is comfortable with regulation to protect the weak from market exploitation and she is far more upfront about it than most politicians of any stripe. She recognises that there are major issues of inequality and generational fairness and that governments need to grapple with these too. She is unashamedly capitalist but recognises the necessary limitations if a capitalist society is to deliver for all. And she does not pretend that there are simplistic solutions.
It is a form of Conservatism I personally would be extremely comfortable with. It is so superior to May's "vision" harping back to grammar schools and fox hunting that it is indeed surprising it is from the same party.
Honestly I think what's she's written is a lot closer to Labour/Lib Dems than the Tories. She is impressive though - so she might be able to move the party as a whole one day.
One day.
The party - and membership - is way to the right of her. They can't see beyond their buy to let portfolios;
"It is time to review Osborne’s tax changes on buy-to-let landlords"
Comments
https://twitter.com/ToryFibs/status/889075103841038340
Difference vs White: Black - Asian - Roma:
U.K.: 0 / -4 / -16
France: -4 / -3 / -17
Germany: -8 / -8 / -31
Italy: -14 / -19 / -58
PART 1
The UK will leave the EU in Mar-2019. Thereafter no participation in European Parliament, no Commissioner and no votes in Council of Ministers. Some observer/ consultative role in the Council is likely.
From Mar-19 the UK will have repatriated powers on agriculture, fisheries (though see below) and regional policy. The UK will also be outside of the Charter of Fundamental Rights for UK law (but not ongoing EU law).
The UK will be outside the Common Foreign and Security Policy pillar. It will continue its relationship with EU via some special new body or new status with the existing EU foreign policy and security institutions.
From Mar-19 to Mar-21 OR Mar-22 the UK will be in the transitional phase. Formally this won't be Single Market and Customs Union membership but effectively it will be the same. This will be a bilateral and bespoke relationship as it doing it via EEA unnecessarily complicates it. These elements of the deal will be ajudicated by the ECJ for this period.
The one significant change on CU will be that the EU will give explicit recognition that the UK is allowed to negotiate trade deals with third parties during this period.
The Justice and Home Affairs pillar will probably be rolled over during this period. As will membership of Euratom, or a status near enough to it.
Freedom of movement will continue during this time, except the UK will have tougher powers on preventing entry/ deporting criminals and possibly more freedom in how it pays benefits.
The UK-Irish border will be as per today.
There may be a special joint tribunal set up to rule on early exit issues (e.g. any relating to fisheries).
The EU will agree to this transition for six reasons:
> The EU does not want a chaotic transition or cliff edge;
> The UK will also contribute funds at roughly the same level as today. This will be composed of lower contributions to the EU because we'll be outside the CAP and Regional Policy but some accounting for 'exit bill' items. So the EU will have some of their financial hole filled, and the UK will be able to sell it as another 2/3 years of routine membership fee (in net terms, the UK's gross contribution will be lower);
> The UK will make behind the scenes assurances about security to the Eastern states;
> Some in the EU also think it increases the chance of the UK never properly leaving;
> The UK will extend the citizens' rights grace period currently being talked about to go to as far as Mar-19 to instead go to the end of this period;
> Though the UK will formally have control of fisheries during this transitional period (and could alter fisheries policy) it will not do anything in this period to take back fishing quotas, as part of sweetening the deal.
From Mar-21/22 the UK will fully leave and enter the new Free Trade Agreement phase, which will have been negotiated from Mar-19 to Mar-21/22 (some very broad goals may be discussed prior to Mar-19). This FTA may be called something else to show it is a special partnership.
It will feature:
- No tarrifs or quotas on goods;
- Free movement of capital as per today, but with some joint supervision for financial services. This joint supervision may be a part of or the basis for a new, wider international system of governance. The UK will probably not incorporate future integration (e.g. the Capital Markets Union).
- No free movement of people, but some advantage in the UK immigration system for EU citizens and effectively free movement for some classes of people (e.g. academics, nuclear industry). These privileges will be reciprocated by the EU;
- Most elements of services, particularly for network industries (aviation, energy). This will probably be on the basis of the UK having a bilateral relationship with single european sky, Euratom, etc. On these the UK may covered by future development of the market.
The UK will be outside the Common External Tariff and free to commence new third party trading relationships from this moment. Rules of origins restrictions will exist but these will be applied in as light a way as possible and make full use of extended accumulation.
The arrangements between the UK and Ireland will not be legally any different to those between the UK and the rest of the EU. But border restrictions will be even more sensitively applied. The UK will fund the required technological change for implementation. The special agreement between the EU and UK will include a role for the EU in monitoring the Good Friday Agreement though with no meaningful power of intervention.
The UK will be outside the single market, apart from a few selected services industries where the UK has a special ongoing relationship. The UK will have to abide by EU standards in all goods and services where selling into the single market.
In leaving the authority of the single market the UK will also be outside of the social chapter.
Gibraltar's access to the single market will not be identical but it will be content.
The EU will also ask for extensive assurances about the UK not undercutting regulatory or tax standards in general. The UK will agree some principles but these will set quite a low bar and not unduly restrict future UK government action.
The UK will continue financial contributions at a much lower rate for the first few years. These will be dressed up as transitional support out of solidarity but will really be the further elements of the agreed exit bill not paid for between Mar-19 and Mar-20/21.
After a few years the UK's payments will largely stop. A few payments may continue for specific programmes, e.g. Erasmus.
A phased and compensated reassignment of fishing quotas will be agreed.
The UK will be totally outside the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the ECJ, except where it is de facto abiding by single market rules in a few service industries, where the Charter will have little effect anyway.
The UK will continue to rollover most existing elements of the Justice and Home Affairs relationship but will the ongoing right to withdraw from specific provision in future (with due notice) and with a rebadged European Arrest Warrant which provides some more barriers to extradition than exist today but fewer than prior to the EAW.
A new tribunal will be set up to administer the agreement, if it has not already been set up for the earlier exit issues during the transitional phase. This will administer all elements of the exit agreement, including guaranteeing citizens rights and the UK's commitments on regulatory standards. It will include representatives from the UK and EU and potentially Canada (though any Canadian representation may need to balance English and French speakers!).
The UK and EU will further institutionalise their special partnership in foreign and security policy.
Personally I would be quite content with what you have outlined.
The main question/issue would be that the UK should NOT enter a transition period without an agreed high level agreement on the eventual ETA as part of the WA - otherwise the terms will just keep being rolled and we will never get to the end of the process.
I am also interested in the origin of this post, because if I am honest what you are suggesting seems far too reasonable for the EU to accept, but we live in hope.
Have to say if the Tories do manage to negotiate the agreement that you have outlined, it is going to make the Remainers a bit queasy - Brexit will not be a disaster at all.
"After months of diplomatic tiptoeing, Germany’s patience has run out. On July 18th a Turkish court ordered that six human rights activists, including a German trainer who had been detained during a training workshop with Amnesty International, a human-rights group, should be officially arrested. Two days later Germany’s foreign minister, Sigmar Gabriel, cut loose.
He warned his country’s nationals against travelling to Turkey, proposed rolling back European Union economic assistance and suggested his government might stop providing export credit guarantees to companies doing business in Turkey. “We cannot advise anyone to invest in a country where there is no longer legal certainty and even companies are being accused of supporting terrorists,” he said."
https://www.economist.com/news/europe/21725457-human-rights-activists-arrest-more-angela-merkel-can-tolerate-turkeys-growing-repression
For those who have not seen it yet
https://unherd.com/2017/07/ctrl-alt-del-conservatives-must-reboot-capitalism/
For all Cameron's failings one thing he did get massively right was aid to the countries surrounding Syria for refugees - in complete contrast to Merkel who history I suspect will judge very harshly.
There are nine treaties between the EU and the US, for example, that govern issues such as how CE and FCC standards are interpreted, and govern double taxation. And then there are the deeper FTA agreements with Switzerland, Canada, South Korea, etc.
The fact that we have not even got a tariff schedule published (and that DfIT is messing around considering writing a new one), should tell you that the UK government is way behind the curve on getting out trade arrangements with the rest of the world sorted.
You won't like to hear this but it's very possible it could be seen as an enormous success in the long term.
The Government promised only to implement the result of the referendum, which simply said 'Leave'. So as long as we leave, the Government has delivered. It could have signed Article 50 the day after the vote and then done nothing until the 2 years expired and it would have been keeping its promise. Of course it makes sense to try and negotiate a deal, but if it doesn't get one, we come out anyway and the promise has been kept.
We are leaving, whatever. It's what we voted for.
But if I'd read that and not looked at the author name - I would never have guessed it came from a Conservative politician - and indeed much of it is a critique of what the Conservatives currently are.
Will those migrants integrate into the German economy, reduce their demographic problems etc.? It could be a modern day equivalent of the Marshall plan. It could be a disaster too although I hope not.
It is a form of Conservatism I personally would be extremely comfortable with. It is so superior to May's "vision" harping back to grammar schools and fox hunting that it is indeed surprising it is from the same party.
She is impressive though - so she might be able to move the party as a whole one day.
And what is making me queasy at the moment is that I have zero confidence that this government could negotiate such a deal. On the other hand, a deal like this is the only way the Tories could hope to compete in the next GE imo, so maybe there is hope for this country yet?
(edit... It's a good piece, but it does remind me of Brown also being a fan of Adam Smith - truly a thinker who can be interepreted favourably by just about anyone, to taste.)
Now need some serious weather!!
Though this bit amused me:
' Boldness of the kind we don’t often see from government is going to be necessary. '
Boldness from the woman who wants Scottish millionaires to keep WFA.
And the problem with her 'investment and training' mantra is that her mate George Osborne borrowed hundreds of billions to subsidise house prices, pensioners, retailers of imported tat and foreign hoteliers.
The party - and membership - is way to the right of her. They can't see beyond their buy to let portfolios;
"It is time to review Osborne’s tax changes on buy-to-let landlords"
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2017/07/iain-duncan-smith-the-housing-crisis-demands-a-revolutionary-new-approach.html
^ That kind of logic makes sense in mainstream tory world.