Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » May’s Straw Man
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » May’s Straw Man
Works away days invariably disappoint their participants and for all the beauty of the surroundings, the cabinet’s day out at Chequers won’t have been much different. Twelve hours of intensive discussions in literal hot-house conditions, to hammer out a Brexit policy that they could all stick to is surely no-one’s idea of fun.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Result!
https://twitter.com/janemerrick23/status/1015501777179959297
May also be worth considering him to win, each way, at around 17.
And I put a little on Mr. B's suggestion from yesterday of there being under 16 classified finishers, at 2.2 (which I think just about squeezes into value).
Edited extra bit: potential for a DNF or two due to these:
https://twitter.com/adamcooperF1/status/1015501189545381888
We voted to leave the EU. The EU's stance has always been they cannot compromise on FOM. If they stick to that, negotiation is futile.
"Tell us what you want?"
"This, this and this together with controls on immigration"
"No, now tell us what you want."
The sub-text is they cannot compromise on FOM without the other countries piling in too. That will unravel the whole cunning plan - a united or federal country.
Had they made it plain in 1975 that they always intended uniting Europe into a single country, we would never have voted to go in. That's why they downplayed any such suggestion at the time. Before anyone bothers suggesting they always made it clear, I was in my mid-twenties then and far more politically aware than I am now. I admit I believed the lies, and lies they were.
https://youtu.be/8wU27oAzsuo?t=44s
Even if this is not enough for the EU to confirm a FTA with the UK it should be enough in my view to enable the EU to confirm the transition period from the end of March 2019 and technical Brexit until December 2020 with FTA details worked on further during that time.
In terms of the political implications the main question is will many Tory Leave voters switch to UKIP when the next polls come out, while a few are bound to provided May can contain any defections and the Tories are still largely tied with Labour she will have avoided too much fallout there as well
https://twitter.com/emmamurphyitv/status/1015458126366167040
Politics will take a back seat as sport takes over
Anyone betting on World cup viewing figures - 24 million last match, will it reach 30 million today
And how many weddings will have absentee brides/grooms between 3.00pm and 5.00pm
All good fun
* Parliament COULD decide on deviation. Barnier will say sure, but build in the collapse of free trade if that happens. Parliament can in principle always decide to affiliate to Brazil or ban pubs, but in practice it doesn't happen.
* The "mobility framework" will be FoM in all but name - perhaps, as with Switzerland, allowing movement only if jobs have been advertised domestically first
* The MaxFac idea will certainly be implemented when it's been shown to be technically feasible to everyone's satisfaction, i.e. probably never.
* Britain can certainly agree trade deals with other countries if we can find a way to make them meaningful, yet consistent with the package, i.e. probably never.
I think the difficult one is the first, being harmonised on goods but not services. The Continent might be tempted as they can require a price of marginalising the City, but it breaches a fundamental principle. Expect some hard bargaining here with an outcome that we could in theory deviate for services, but with a massive effect which will mean we won't.
Will May get away with it? Yes, I think so. Most voters aren't really that interested in these arcane details. So long as we're leaving and there's some sort of deal that doesn't wreck Britain, they'll feel that's not too bad.
https://makeagif.com/i/iMfglo
I bow to your superior knowledge of politics, but anyone like me who voted leave out of annoyance at being misled in 1975 won't be inclined to take politicians at their word. What you describe is a probably BINO. Unfortunately, that's what it smells like already and I can see Barnier do the double-glazing act here.
"With a few tweaks, I could sell it to the boss, but it's a great deal for you and I'll do my best."
It is possible that behind the scenes, the EU has accepted this is the best that it can achieve and there is a tacit nod that it will be enough. Far more likely, though, is it will leave it, thank you. It is still far too worried that other nations will say "you know what - that will do us nicely too. Here's our Article 50 notice...." It would rather be £40 billion down, but keep the business going as is.
In which case, the PM needs the FM to takeover planning for No Deal Brexit. It's his preferred route to that on the table. Boris must be made to make it work.
Or take the flak if basic supplies grind to a halt.
The others have retreated to a safe distance. The man facing the bear calls out to his fellow explorers: “We’re on our own!” From behind some trees the others call back: “Yes you are, aren’t you!” I cannot remove from my mind the picture of a tousle-headed comrade who is discovering tonight that, for the moment at least, his mates have scampered off into the undergrowth.
It will suit Theresa May very well to isolate her foreign secretary from his natural allies. She aims to pick off an already wounded beast and has chosen well. She will hope the spectacle of his agonies will discourage his natural allies from joining him. She appears to have struck first and, for the moment at least, to have the advantage.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/chequers-summit-may-has-chosen-her-prey-well-boris-johnson-is-already-wounded-klbs0lgx5
That's like saying I'm still owed a pick and mix offer from Woolworths.
I hope that Remainers now respect that spirit of compromise and don't try to water down this deal further. I see charlatans like Chuka Umunna, who have got all their voiced concerns about rules and customs addressed, are still complaining. It just shows that there is a major contingent of Europhiles that will never be reconciled to anything less than full EU membership. May should stop trying to pacify them.
Having given a major concession to the EU, it's important May draws a red line on issues like reciprocity. The guarantor of this deal can not be the highly political ECJ, but should be a new international panel, perhaps with third parties as the swing votes. It's also important there's a mechanism for disputes to be resolved that can take into account domestic politics. Perhaps any breach should have a year or two to come to agreement before trade is halted etc.
It satisfies our need for continuity and for the outcome to be clearly and permanently worse for us than membership, which the EU requires. The EU will still want to constrain us on services so that equation holds. That would part of the negotiations.
I am content that this deal reflects the 52/48 vote and hopefully will see a deal by the end of the year and the conservatives can re focus urgently on domestic issues
The Treaties do give a measure of flexibility. Even within the EU, these have given rise to numerous questions of what is or is not consistent with the creation of a single market.
So for example, the 2006 services directive is much less a question of full harmonisation than its goods counterparts. And even within goods, there are wide enough areas of member states' competence to make something stick.
At times, the EU has sought to hold the Brexit-ing UK to a higher standard of harmonisation than currently deployed across the EU. That is because, fundamentally, the EU institutions see harmonisation (services as a good example) as either "done" to "currently doing". It is all abou endgame.
There is enough latitude to give the UK a perfectly viable deal along the lines of what has been agreed at Chequers, the question is whether (a) the EU is going to give it to us and/or (b) Member States will give it to us.
It woukd help explain the Brexiteers all being on board.
"Furthermore there is a danger that Brexit get's overturned to remain and that does not respect the vote to leave."
A danger?
To be honest, I trust none of them. I believed the reassurances in 1975 probably because I wanted to. With politics, people do usually believe what they want to believe. (it happens occasionally in science too).
This benefit of the doubt for politicians can wear thin, though. Mine is showing the lining now.
Take back control!
I think the EU adopted an all or nothing approach a long time ago. For all their love of fudge to fudge now would involve shifting on what they claim are red lines.
However, there is definitely scope for divergence on services, as I said yesterday it will result in capitalised subsidiaries in smaller EU countries with 95% of the work carried out in the UK. That's the Nomura model (though I thought I was Luxembourg, not Tallinn) and it looks very much like what JP are doing with their "dozens" of people moving and the rest being given guarantees of not moving to Europe.
* The Cabinet Brexiteers have been humiliated and emasculated - the Brexit they guaranteed is not deliverable and it turns out they have no workable plans to create the Bucanerring Britain freed from the shackles of Brussels. They have been revealed to be lazy, ignorant and/or mendacious. I would not underestimate just how important that is for both the Commission and the EU27. It is their blue passports - symbolically crucial.
* With this statement, the government has made a No Deal Brexit much more problematic domestically for each of the EU27 member states. That. too, is very important. The UK has made a very large number of significant concessions. A No Deal can no longer be blamed on British intransigence. Few, if any, of the EU27 leaders have the political capital to see such a No Deal scenario through from this point.
* The statement recognises that the UK's future prosperity is tied - and that is the right word - to Europe's. The TPP bit is also interesting. We have looked at the globe's three spheres of trading influence and we have decided that one of them is not for us. There will be no all-encompassing trade deal with the US.
* Freedom of movement will end. It will be replaced by freedom of movement in all but name.
* This is because we are going to need to look very carefully at services - especially as they are so intertwined with goods (if you sell machinery into Europe, part of that is supplying post-sales engineering support, for example).
* All this could and should have been done before Mrs May triggered Article 50 and drew her red lines. Nick Timothy has a hell of a lot to answer for.
* We are going to end up with an arrangement that looks pretty much like the one we have now, except we will have much less say in deciding the rules that we have to implement, our growth will be lower than it otherwise would have been, we'll be able to do some limited trade deals with second tier, non-EU countries and we will have blue passports.
* As Nick Palmer says, most people will be fine with all this - who notices growth that's lower than it should have been? And blue passports really do matter.
One final observation, this puts Labour in one hell of a bind. I am struggling to see how it can respond in any meaningful way. Its ambiguity worked for as long as the Tories had no position, now they do.
Why would the domestic populations of the member states be inclined to be upset at their own governments or the EU for sparking a no deal, when it it still so easy to say our intransigence was the cause? If they say we need to move 100m before a deal can be struck and we move 50m, sure we've made some movement, but they will still be able to claim it was our fault, and since when do people get angry at their own side for sticking to principle (even when those principles are unreasonably immovable)?
How big a hit the Tories take from this will not become clear for a while, but there's likely to be too many genuinely angry in the base for there to be no hit. Therefore Labour will play it safe and continue to say merely that they would have done a better job. What kind of a better job? They'll be pretty vague, which will not make it as effective a claim as it might be, but it will be enough to garner some level of support from the angry.
Remaining in the EU would dissatisfy a majority. If upsetting the majority is something she wants to avoid then we can neither leave nor remain.
Still, if it distracts her from taxing tasty food or otherwise pursuing her puritanical crusade, fine.
https://twitter.com/terencehooson/status/1015520354339606529?s=21
A Farage-Banks I Can't Believe It's Not UKIP political vehicle would arise. I don't think it'd have much impact at the next election, but at the one after that it could redraw the electoral map.
What concerns me is that further right parties might spring up. Between the far left's capture of Labour, the potential for Conservative woe, and a gnawing sense of betrayal, we could see things take an unpredictable turn (again), almost certainly not for the better.
Being complacent about 'upsetting the right people' reminds me 'fruitcakes, nutters, and closet racists'. Which transmogrified to 'Little Englanders'. And then the majority.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/07/the-governments-chequers-brexit-agreement-from-canada-plus-plus-plus-to-brexit-minus-minus-minus.html
https://twitter.com/AMDWaters/status/1015479292984164352
It is clear the audience is the UK public. When the EU rejects it, as it will, the "blame" will be theirs , at least, for domestic consumption.
In a sense, this was yet another can kicking exercise. No real acceptable solution was offered because there is none which can hold the Conservative Party together save a few headbangers.
There is therefore a resignation that we will either get Canada or WTO. The Conservative Party has enough links to the business community to know what the latter means. I think we will end up with Canada [ without the plus ] and this is just preparing the public. Basically, it is trying to say: "We tried but those nasty Euro's wanted to punish us".
As Max observed, this is essentially EU_Switzerland. But I don't think the EU will want to replicate Switzerland again. What will we do ? Go to the ECJ to complain ? That will be the supreme irony.
Ironically, this could be close to Corbyn's own vision. Not the Labour Party's.
I hope a deal is done, but I think it is expecting too much to think the populations of the EU will see something bad happening down the line and go 'Well, it's my government's fault', particularly when the EU 27 will probably be united, in that scenario, to saying it was ours. Sure, some oppositions may make something of it, but as factor in forcing the EU to concede on some pretty major points? It might happen, but I don't think it is as effective as some think.
The economy is important. But economic factors alone are not the whole story, and perhaps not even the most important aspect. Identity is a key component of why we voted to leave. It's also why migration and integration (or lack thereof) is so high on the agenda.
I'm not sure the political or media class understand this.
When a Newcastle Pakistani Muslim rape gang was sent down it got less coverage than the nonsense about Julia Hartley-Brewer's knee and it being touched a couple of decades ago. It'd be laughable if it weren't so serious.
There's a danger that the economic focus, which is comfortable for the political and media class to focus on, leads to the matter of identity being neglected. If people feel anxious enough about it, to quote a Dutch citizen who said he was voting for Wilders despite thinking he went too far, they'll prefer 'strong medicine' to no medicine at all.
Of course, I hope I'm wrong. The wretched far left already squats on the front bench of Labour. The rise of the far right would be horrifying.
It really boils down to immigration - if the government can quickly get to a point where EU citizens are treated no differently to Australian, Canadian or New Zealand for example, then I suspect the issue will be defused - if they retain “preferential access” then that may not be so easily wished away.
A UK entity or subsidiary would need to be FCA-registered and as such the FCA would need to align regulations with the EU if that subsidiary wanted to transact client business in the EU. Which to be fair the FCA has said it will do.
I do wonder if this will add to the impetus for the latter.
I’d have preferred Remain to have won, but once LEAVE did respect for democracy trumps that. On first glance what May has cobbled together seems to meet that - provided the immigration question is answered adequately. I still suspect we’ll have a major drama in October.
Where I think David is wrong is that this is as far as the government will go. There is more to come.
I've cashed out of Mr Meeks tip on brexit before March 2019 for a decent profit. Have decided I have no idea what's going on with Brexit, best to get out while ahead.
On the football, fancy De Bruyne for golden ball at 11-1.
The mantra of 'No deal is better than a bad deal' will become 'Remaining is better than a bad deal' and May will offer a second referendum. She'll get it through parliament on opposition votes and it will be 60% Remain.
https://twitter.com/duponline/status/1015530877613498368?s=21
The deal has to be on the table. So the question would be whether leaving with no deal or remaining would be the alternative.
The former (deal/no deal) would be construed as a referendum on the deal but also the Government. The latter would be framed more as a re-run, being either contempt for democracy or giving people the final say (provided they vote the way the political class want).
Bit of a guess, but I think remain would be on the ballot. There are significant obstacles to returning (Schengen, euro, etc) which make it much easier to just stay in rather than leave and try to get back in.
Remain would also have the advantage of being able to pick apart the deal. It wouldn't be a case of liking the EU or not, but comparing the concrete positions of the status quo and a negotiated, agreed upon deal (assuming there is one).
Of course, there could fail to be any deal agreed, and then we'd have a no deal/remain scenario.
So no, I think.
"In 1833, six men from Tolpuddle in Dorset founded the Friendly Society of Agricultural Labourers to protest against the gradual lowering of agricultural wages." heroes of the Labour Party.
How times change, but some things never change. Politicians are untrustworthy. As the vanguard of the elite, they would say they practice the art of the possible. That means dissembling is allowed.
Why bother voting?
I'll carry on happily without pointless trips to the ballot box.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1015512520268894213?s=21
What's your view of the Boston referendum result? I'm not looking for an argument, just curious.
I did very well in Scotland.
The additional words "including agricultural goods" to goods was deliberately inserted in the common rulebook regarding quality [ or, whatever it is called ]. This means chlorinated chicken cannot be imported as any import of agricultural produce must conform to EU standards.
The loss of the angry 1 in 10, or even 1 in 15 of the Tory GE 2017 vote to NOTA, UKIP or just stay at home, would radically alter the electoral position.