Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » NEW PB / Polling Matters podcast: Discussing the Brexit talks

13»

Comments

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,229

    By mid-July, Jeremy Corbyn was arguing (incorrectly – with reference to Norway, for example), on the Marr show, that being in “the Single Market is dependent on membership of the EU”. Marr pressed the matter, asking: “let me be absolutely crystal clear, we leave the single European market because we leave the EU?”. The Labour leader replied that EU membership and the Single Market are “inextricably linked”. Marr tried again: “so we have to leave the single market?” and Corbyn answered “yes”. That “yes” has now become “no”.

    https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/08/unlike-labours-brexit-this-autumn-2-henry-newman-when-can-we-expect-the-next-verse-of-corbyns-hokey-cokey.html

    Oh dear; what a shame; never mind.
    Tell that to the Shadow Cabinet members he sacked for voting to remain in the Single Market....
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 1,612
    edited August 2017
    Nigelb said:





    There is also the option - which for some reason we have not yet taken - of publishing what we believe our minimum legal obligations to add up to, and say that anything in excess of that figure has to be agreed as part of the trade negotiation progress.

    That would also have the merit of reflecting reality, as we've already conceded that we don't owe nothing, and it's entirely clear that we're not going to pay more than that minimum unless we reach some agreement.

    This is actually a very good point. I think, however, that the reason that the UK has not done so is that it would be a very small figure, and overall would result in a net flow to the UK. The UK position is pretty much summed up in Martin Howe QCs summary which states that the EU's only decent legal claim is for the funding for the European Development Fund period from Brexit to end of 2020, which is a mere GBP 1.3 billion. The UK share of the EIB, on the other hand, is worth far more than this.

    I suspect therefore if DD published the summary, the Remainers would claim that it was a tad provocative?

    I genuinely believe that DD is trying to avoid deliberately pissing them off, and by suggesting that the payment be linked to the trade deal is actually showing them how to solve the problem. Thing is, they just won't listen.
This discussion has been closed.