politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » NEW EMERGENCY PB / POLLING MATTERS PODCAST: Bye Bye Boris and

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » NEW EMERGENCY PB / POLLING MATTERS PODCAST: Bye Bye Boris and what happens next?

On a special episode of the PB / Polling Matters podcast, Keiran Pedley and Leo Barasi discuss a momentous 24 hours in Westminster that has seen both David Davis and Boris Johnson resign. Keiran and Leo ask what happens next and look at what polling of Tory members by YouGov tells us about the future direction of the Conservative Party and who might come to lead it.

Read the full story here

RobD

Emergency podcast?

FrancisUrquhart

I am detecting that we haven't got many members of the Boris fan club on this forum.

RobD

RobD said:

Emergency podcast?

We're at PBCON 2 (threat of vote of no confidence critical)

HYUFD

Mogg first, then Javid and Davidson, then Gove was the main conclusion of today's Yougov Tory members poll. Boris was in the middle but before his resignation

solarflare

I hope tomorrow is quieter, reading a thousand comments on PB, the live updates on the BBC and all the major tweeters took all day.

Jonathan

May had a good day. And Boris begins his wilderness years.

GIN1138

FPT

Elliot said:

GIN1138 said:

rottenborough said:

GIN1138 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Missed it at the time, but on Newsnight it’s clear Peter Bone’s comments were met with a lot of barracking from his own side....

I doubt many Con MP's will like hearing their fate is to be thrown out on their arses whenever the next election is held but that doesn't make Bone wrong in his analysis.

Surely, faced with the prospect of Jezza and Abbot and co, they will put all doubts aside?

I don't think so... Most Leave voting Tories won't vote for Corbyn but many will stay at home instead.

Only the stupid ones. Andrea Leadsom was just on the news pointing out all the ways Brexit is being honoured. Raab, Gove and all the other practical minded Leavers know how much they have achieved. Letting in an anti-Western Marxist that spouts pro-Russian propaganda so they can thumb their noses? It's only the really childish Farage types that would do that. Even David Davis says May should remain PM.

But (and the five thousand time) this is her STARTING position.

We haven't begun to see it be taken apart by the EU yet. This is where she's starting from not where she's prepared to finish...

Wait for her and Robbins to start conceding most of this away over the next weeks. And she will because that's what she does...

rottenborough

FrancisUrquhart said:

I am detecting that we haven't got many members of the Boris fan club on this forum.

To be honest, and I speak as a Remainer, he has a point. Not easy to discern what Leavers voted exactly for, but I'm pretty sure Chequers isn't it.

Elliot

FrancisUrquhart said:

I am detecting that we haven't got many members of the Boris fan club on this forum.

The difference between David Davis' letter and Boris Johnson's was stark. Davis was a respectful laying out of why he disagreed with the Prime Minister and how his position was untenable, while praising the work she had done. Boris was a ridiculous rhetorical flourish for PR consumption. And this was after he had begged Davis not to resign. He just didn't want to be upstaged. It's always about him.

Roger

A smart move appearing to declare war on the loonies in the Tory party. It worked for Major and it should work for her. The secret is not to give them an inch. She might lose some on the extreme right to a slightly revamped UKIP but she'll more than make up for it with Labour and Tory Remainers who can see that Corbyn is full of shit.

PS Dominic Grieve V funny about Boris and he's got him spot on

GIN1138

FrancisUrquhart said:

I am detecting that we haven't got many members of the Boris fan club on this forum.

Odd how unpopular he is really given he's the only proven election winner the Conservatives have got now Cameron's quit and Con are stuck with Mr and Mrs Glum (May and Hammond)

I can understand why Labour supporters hate him because he turned them over in "their" city - Twice - But the hate he espouses from Tories on here is really quite odd.

kle4

rottenborough said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I am detecting that we haven't got many members of the Boris fan club on this forum.

To be honest, and I speak as a Remainer, he has a point. Not easy to discern what Leavers voted exactly for, but I'm pretty sure Chequers isn't it.

There are what look like genuine problems with the whole business, tempered some what by the difficulties of the parliamentary arithmetic and the scale of the task. Gin1138, like Boris, is not wrong to point out the proposal as a staring point is a big problem.

Keiran thinks the leave coalition has fractured a bit, highlighting the Carswell reaction. Not so sure it is as significant as that. I can believe that claimed 1922er saying he could have sold May's proposal, but cannot now because of what has happened.

rottenborough

Jonathan said:

May had a good day. And Boris begins his wilderness years.

Like his hero?

Elliot

GIN1138 said:

FPT

Elliot said:

GIN1138 said:

rottenborough said:

GIN1138 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Missed it at the time, but on Newsnight it’s clear Peter Bone’s comments were met with a lot of barracking from his own side....

I doubt many Con MP's will like hearing their fate is to be thrown out on their arses whenever the next election is held but that doesn't make Bone wrong in his analysis.

Surely, faced with the prospect of Jezza and Abbot and co, they will put all doubts aside?

I don't think so... Most Leave voting Tories won't vote for Corbyn but many will stay at home instead.

Only the stupid ones. Andrea Leadsom was just on the news pointing out all the ways Brexit is being honoured. Raab, Gove and all the other practical minded Leavers know how much they have achieved. Letting in an anti-Western Marxist that spouts pro-Russian propaganda so they can thumb their noses? It's only the really childish Farage types that would do that. Even David Davis says May should remain PM.

But (and the five thousand time) this is her STARTING position.

We haven't begun to see it be taken apart by the EU yet. This is where she's starting from not where she's prepared to finish...

Wait for her and Robbins to start conceding most of this away over the next weeks. And she will because that's what she does...

If this is conceded away, then that would be the point to kick up a fuss, resign etc. But this isn't the starting position. We have been negotiating for a while now.

I suspect the EU will realise there isn't much flexibility for the government to survive if they concede any more.

Sunil_Prasannan

FrancisUrquhart said:

I am detecting that we haven't got many members of the Boris fan club on this forum.

As I said earlier today, my biggest gripe against Boris is, as mayor of London, he cancelled the Thames Gateway Bridge which would have linked northeast London with southeast London, and also would have had dedicated light rail right of way.

kle4

Roger said:

PS Dominic Grieve V funny about Boris and he's got him spot on

Do tell.

TGOHF

Boris is no loss. But the top 4 ministers are now Remainers led by a nonentity who has shat in the soup.

Why bother voting to re-elect them ?

kle4

thecommissioner said:

In retrospect, was Andrea Leadsom on the money about May back in 2016?

I don't even remember what she said. So...yes?

glw

rottenborough said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I am detecting that we haven't got many members of the Boris fan club on this forum.

To be honest, and I speak as a Remainer, he has a point. Not easy to discern what Leavers voted exactly for, but I'm pretty sure Chequers isn't it.

Exactly, the only people on here who went "okay I can live with it" were the people who were broadly advocating joining EFTA. The people who want a more Kipperish Brexit are hopping mad.

kle4

TGOHF said:

Boris is no loss. But the top 4 ministers are now Remainers led by a nonentity who has shat in the soup.

Why bother voting to re-elect them ?

A question for another day - first thing they need to get Brexit done without splintering, then they can worry about getting re-elected!

Sunil_Prasannan

Boris and Davis' resignations have completely and utterly upstaged my advance along the railway from Darlington to Bishop Auckland this afternoon

williamglenn

Elliot said:

GIN1138 said:

FPT

Elliot said:

GIN1138 said:

rottenborough said:

GIN1138 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Missed it at the time, but on Newsnight it’s clear Peter Bone’s comments were met with a lot of barracking from his own side....

I doubt many Con MP's will like hearing their fate is to be thrown out on their arses whenever the next election is held but that doesn't make Bone wrong in his analysis.

Surely, faced with the prospect of Jezza and Abbot and co, they will put all doubts aside?

I don't think so... Most Leave voting Tories won't vote for Corbyn but many will stay at home instead.

Only the stupid ones. Andrea Leadsom was just on the news pointing out all the ways Brexit is being honoured. Raab, Gove and all the other practical minded Leavers know how much they have achieved. Letting in an anti-Western Marxist that spouts pro-Russian propaganda so they can thumb their noses? It's only the really childish Farage types that would do that. Even David Davis says May should remain PM.

But (and the five thousand time) this is her STARTING position.

We haven't begun to see it be taken apart by the EU yet. This is where she's starting from not where she's prepared to finish...

Wait for her and Robbins to start conceding most of this away over the next weeks. And she will because that's what she does...

If this is conceded away, then that would be the point to kick up a fuss, resign etc. But this isn't the starting position. We have been negotiating for a while now.

I suspect the EU will realise there isn't much flexibility for the government to survive if they concede any more.

As long as the EU play ball with May's framework enough to produce a political declaration to get the withdrawal agreement over the line, any formal concessions on the detail can be postponed until after Brexit. This is probably what May is hoping for.

Tykejohnno

GIN1138 said:

FPT

Elliot said:

GIN1138 said:

rottenborough said:

GIN1138 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Missed it at the time, but on Newsnight it’s clear Peter Bone’s comments were met with a lot of barracking from his own side....

I doubt many Con MP's will like hearing their fate is to be thrown out on their arses whenever the next election is held but that doesn't make Bone wrong in his analysis.

Surely, faced with the prospect of Jezza and Abbot and co, they will put all doubts aside?

I don't think so... Most Leave voting Tories won't vote for Corbyn but many will stay at home instead.

Only the stupid ones. Andrea Leadsom was just on the news pointing out all the ways Brexit is being honoured. Raab, Gove and all the other practical minded Leavers know how much they have achieved. Letting in an anti-Western Marxist that spouts pro-Russian propaganda so they can thumb their noses? It's only the really childish Farage types that would do that. Even David Davis says May should remain PM.

But (and the five thousand time) this is her STARTING position.

We haven't begun to see it be taken apart by the EU yet. This is where she's starting from not where she's prepared to finish...

Wait for her and Robbins to start conceding most of this away over the next weeks. And she will because that's what she does...

+1

glw

GIN1138 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I am detecting that we haven't got many members of the Boris fan club on this forum.

Odd how unpopular he is really given he's the only proven election winner the Conservatives have got now Cameron's quit and Con are stuck with Mr and Mrs Glum (May and Hammond)

I can understand why Labour supporters hate him because he turned them over in "their" city - Twice - But the hate he espouses from Tories on here is really quite odd.

Boris is clever and funny, but he's just too damn lazy and flighty to do a serious job. Mayor of London was his limit.

TheScreamingEagles

FPT

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tom Watson is a tit.

He's not heard of next cab of the rank principle?

https://twitter.com/calroscow/status/1016430985808924672

I very much doubt that the cab rank rule had much to do with that commission. He will have been very well paid for his efforts.

A good friend of mine juniored to him in a fairly major case and was extremely impressed. He is a very clever man who has just cut his income by something like 90% to serve his country.

Tom Watson is indeed a tit. His survival of his noncefinder general episodes shows the absolutely desperate lack of talent in Labour.

Tom Watson has made a lot of poor judgments, I mean he follows me on twitter for starters.

Do you have many important twatter followers ?

Lots and lots.

A few MPs including a one in the cabinet, the deputy leader of the Labour Party, ex MPs like Alex Salmond. Odd MEPs and Councillors.

A few SPADS such as SPADS to Penny Mordaunt and Sajid Javid.

The political editors of Sky, The Sun, The Times, Sunday Times, The Mail on Sunday, and a lot of political journalists too.

I have most of the major pollsters and their underlings following me like Ben Page, Martin Boon, Damian Lowes Lyon. Lord Ashcroft used to until I upset him

Huw Edwards and Kate Williams following me did wonders for the ego.

Fortunately I'm not a rampant egotist who'd let things like this go to his head.

The_Apocalypse

https://twitter.com/jamesrbuk/status/1016421743169277953?s=21

edmundintokyo

Elliot said:

I suspect the EU will realise there isn't much flexibility for the government to survive if they concede any more.

That's not really their problem though...

ExiledInScotland

glw said:

rottenborough said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I am detecting that we haven't got many members of the Boris fan club on this forum.

To be honest, and I speak as a Remainer, he has a point. Not easy to discern what Leavers voted exactly for, but I'm pretty sure Chequers isn't it.

Exactly, the only people on here who went "okay I can live with it" were the people who were broadly advocating joining EFTA. The people who want a more Kipperish Brexit are hopping mad.

And that's the members and activists. There will be a reackoning

DavidL

(Things I never thought I would say) I actually agree with DD. The acceptance of the EU rule book is an unacceptable price to pay for a FTA. Equivalence I could live with, even an independent regulator (ie not CJE) who could rule on an alleged lack of equivalence. But accepting all EU laws on such a wide tranche of our regulation not just now, not even for a limited period but indefinitely is going too far.

TheScreamingEagles

RobD said:

RobD said:

Emergency podcast?

We're at PBCON 2 (threat of vote of no confidence critical)

And a potential world cup final featuring England this week.

TGOHF

kle4 said:

TGOHF said:

Boris is no loss. But the top 4 ministers are now Remainers led by a nonentity who has shat in the soup.

Why bother voting to re-elect them ?

A question for another day - first thing they need to get Brexit done without splintering, then they can worry about getting re-elected!

May is going down as the worst PM ever - an endless catalogue of disasters.

Richard_Nabavi

DavidL said:

(Things I never thought I would say) I actually agree with DD. The acceptance of the EU rule book is an unacceptable price to pay for a FTA. Equivalence I could live with, even an independent regulator (ie not CJE) who could rule on an alleged lack of equivalence. But accepting all EU laws on such a wide tranche of our regulation not just now, not even for a limited period but indefinitely is going too far.

That would be a great point, except that no-one has a better idea.

Elliot

williamglenn said:

Elliot said:

GIN1138 said:

FPT

Elliot said:

GIN1138 said:

rottenborough said:

GIN1138 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Missed it at the time, but on Newsnight it’s clear Peter Bone’s comments were met with a lot of barracking from his own side....

I doubt many Con MP's will like hearing their fate is to be thrown out on their arses whenever the next election is held but that doesn't make Bone wrong in his analysis.

Surely, faced with the prospect of Jezza and Abbot and co, they will put all doubts aside?

I don't think so... Most Leave voting Tories won't vote for Corbyn but many will stay at home instead.

Only the stupid ones. Andrea Leadsom was just on the news pointing out all the ways Brexit is being honoured. Raab, Gove and all the other practical minded Leavers know how much they have achieved. Letting in an anti-Western Marxist that spouts pro-Russian propaganda so they can thumb their noses? It's only the really childish Farage types that would do that. Even David Davis says May should remain PM.

But (and the five thousand time) this is her STARTING position.

We haven't begun to see it be taken apart by the EU yet. This is where she's starting from not where she's prepared to finish...

Wait for her and Robbins to start conceding most of this away over the next weeks. And she will because that's what she does...

If this is conceded away, then that would be the point to kick up a fuss, resign etc. But this isn't the starting position. We have been negotiating for a while now.

I suspect the EU will realise there isn't much flexibility for the government to survive if they concede any more.

As long as the EU play ball with May's framework enough to produce a political declaration to get the withdrawal agreement over the line, any formal concessions on the detail can be postponed until after Brexit.

Yet May has crafted her red lines in such a way that concessions on details won't change too much. The biggest grey area is the consequences for not adopting EU regulations in the common rule book. I suspect that is also one where people are paying enough attention to it that the EU can't sneak more through.

May's biggest achievement in all this is having Chequers being now accepted as the soft Brexit position.

TGOHF

ExiledInScotland said:

glw said:

rottenborough said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I am detecting that we haven't got many members of the Boris fan club on this forum.

To be honest, and I speak as a Remainer, he has a point. Not easy to discern what Leavers voted exactly for, but I'm pretty sure Chequers isn't it.

Exactly, the only people on here who went "okay I can live with it" were the people who were broadly advocating joining EFTA. The people who want a more Kipperish Brexit are hopping mad.

And that's the members and activists. There will be a reackoning

Yes Mrs May will survive - but for what purpose ? Nothing.

kle4

Listening to the podcast, even knowing that the Tory members are much keener on Brexit than the general populace, I am surprised they truly do believe no deal is better than a soft deal to quite the extent that they do. They certainly believe that line a lot more than May did.

Elliot

DavidL said:

(Things I never thought I would say) I actually agree with DD. The acceptance of the EU rule book is an unacceptable price to pay for a FTA. Equivalence I could live with, even an independent regulator (ie not CJE) who could rule on an alleged lack of equivalence. But accepting all EU laws on such a wide tranche of our regulation not just now, not even for a limited period but indefinitely is going too far.

Except this deal isn't the EU rulebook. It's a common rulebook with an independent regulator.

For 15% of the economy.

kle4

TGOHF said:

ExiledInScotland said:

glw said:

rottenborough said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I am detecting that we haven't got many members of the Boris fan club on this forum.

To be honest, and I speak as a Remainer, he has a point. Not easy to discern what Leavers voted exactly for, but I'm pretty sure Chequers isn't it.

Exactly, the only people on here who went "okay I can live with it" were the people who were broadly advocating joining EFTA. The people who want a more Kipperish Brexit are hopping mad.

And that's the members and activists. There will be a reackoning

Yes Mrs May will survive - but for what purpose ? Nothing.

If she survives some kind of Brexit will occur. If she does not we might get no deal Brexit, we might get no Brexit. A gamble.

DavidL

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

(Things I never thought I would say) I actually agree with DD. The acceptance of the EU rule book is an unacceptable price to pay for a FTA. Equivalence I could live with, even an independent regulator (ie not CJE) who could rule on an alleged lack of equivalence. But accepting all EU laws on such a wide tranche of our regulation not just now, not even for a limited period but indefinitely is going too far.

That would be a great point, except that no-one has a better idea.

My comment contains 2 ideas which are better. Agreed Equivalence is better. Equivalence with an independent adjudicator is better. May has just surrendered and she is wrong to do so.

Elliot

edmundintokyo said:

Elliot said:

I suspect the EU will realise there isn't much flexibility for the government to survive if they concede any more.

That's not really their problem though...

It is if they don't want to hit their manufacturers with a second massive blow on top of the Trump tariffs.

TGOHF

kle4 said:

TGOHF said:

ExiledInScotland said:

glw said:

rottenborough said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I am detecting that we haven't got many members of the Boris fan club on this forum.

To be honest, and I speak as a Remainer, he has a point. Not easy to discern what Leavers voted exactly for, but I'm pretty sure Chequers isn't it.

Exactly, the only people on here who went "okay I can live with it" were the people who were broadly advocating joining EFTA. The people who want a more Kipperish Brexit are hopping mad.

And that's the members and activists. There will be a reackoning

Yes Mrs May will survive - but for what purpose ? Nothing.

If she survives some kind of Brexit will occur. If she does not we might get no deal Brexit, we might get no Brexit. A gamble.

Will it ? I doubt it will be worth a hill of beans in the end with May in charge.

kle4

TGOHF said:

kle4 said:

TGOHF said:

ExiledInScotland said:

glw said:

rottenborough said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I am detecting that we haven't got many members of the Boris fan club on this forum.

To be honest, and I speak as a Remainer, he has a point. Not easy to discern what Leavers voted exactly for, but I'm pretty sure Chequers isn't it.

Exactly, the only people on here who went "okay I can live with it" were the people who were broadly advocating joining EFTA. The people who want a more Kipperish Brexit are hopping mad.

And that's the members and activists. There will be a reackoning

Yes Mrs May will survive - but for what purpose ? Nothing.

If she survives some kind of Brexit will occur. If she does not we might get no deal Brexit, we might get no Brexit. A gamble.

Will it ? I doubt it will be worth a hill of beans in the end with May in charge.

It might not be much of a Brexit. I doubt it will please most Leavers. But it would technically be Brexit. I'm not sure that the rest can get something harder through at this time. Clearly they do, however.

TheScreamingEagles

TGOHF said:

Boris is no loss. But the top 4 ministers are now Remainers led by a nonentity who has shat in the soup.

Why bother voting to re-elect them ?

I think Mrs May is assuming that you’ll vote blue to stop Corbyn becoming PM.

williamglenn

Elliot said:

Yet May has crafted her red lines in such a way that concessions on details won't change too much. The biggest grey area is the consequences for not adopting EU regulations in the common rule book. I suspect that is also one where people are paying enough attention to it that the EU can't sneak more through.

May's biggest achievement in all this is having Chequers being now accepted as the soft Brexit position.

Agreed. One thing that hasn't been picked up on much is that the Chequers position is formally presented as a request for an Association Agreement, of the kind Guy Verhofstadt was proposing. If she has cleared the principle of trading some level of control on FoM for restricted access for services then there's probably a better chance than expected that she will not be met with a brick wall of EEA+CU or nothing.

The big question is what May does then. She'll be left with the framework of a deal that does a good job of balancing the spirit of the 2016 referendum, but that most people think is not in the national interest. In those circumstances a second referendum makes perfect sense.

DavidL

Elliot said:

DavidL said:

(Things I never thought I would say) I actually agree with DD. The acceptance of the EU rule book is an unacceptable price to pay for a FTA. Equivalence I could live with, even an independent regulator (ie not CJE) who could rule on an alleged lack of equivalence. But accepting all EU laws on such a wide tranche of our regulation not just now, not even for a limited period but indefinitely is going too far.

Except this deal isn't the EU rulebook. It's a common rulebook with an independent regulator.

For 15% of the economy.

Its not common if we are obliged to introduce their legislation here and are prevented from introducing our own legislation. It is subordination. And who is this independent regulator to be?

It is a starting point that is well beyond an acceptable finishing point for me.

Richard_Nabavi

DavidL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

(Things I never thought I would say) I actually agree with DD. The acceptance of the EU rule book is an unacceptable price to pay for a FTA. Equivalence I could live with, even an independent regulator (ie not CJE) who could rule on an alleged lack of equivalence. But accepting all EU laws on such a wide tranche of our regulation not just now, not even for a limited period but indefinitely is going too far.

That would be a great point, except that no-one has a better idea.

My comment contains 2 ideas which are better. Agreed Equivalence is better. Equivalence with an independent adjudicator is better. May has just surrendered and she is wrong to do so.

They would be better ideas, but unfortunately they crash to smithereens on the rock that the EU won't agree to them. It's not even obvious that they'll agree to TM's proposals, although I retain some hope that the civil service hasn't become so completely dysfunctional that they didn't sound out the EU27 and commission informally first.

FrancisUrquhart

Jacob Rees-Mogg last night backed Mr Johnson, saying he would make a ‘brilliant’ prime minister.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5935751/Jacob-Rees-Mogg-says-former-Foreign-Secretary-make-excellent-Prime-Minister.html

glw

kle4 said:

It might not be much of a Brexit. I doubt it will please most Leavers. But it would technically be Brexit. I'm not sure that the rest can get something harder through at this time. Clearly they do, however.

Few people have ever voted for a party because they technically did what they said they would. If May thinks that would be enough she is daft.

RobD

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

(Things I never thought I would say) I actually agree with DD. The acceptance of the EU rule book is an unacceptable price to pay for a FTA. Equivalence I could live with, even an independent regulator (ie not CJE) who could rule on an alleged lack of equivalence. But accepting all EU laws on such a wide tranche of our regulation not just now, not even for a limited period but indefinitely is going too far.

That would be a great point, except that no-one has a better idea.

My comment contains 2 ideas which are better. Agreed Equivalence is better. Equivalence with an independent adjudicator is better. May has just surrendered and she is wrong to do so.

They would be better ideas, but unfortunately they crash to smithereens on the rock that the EU won't agree to them. It's not even obvious that they'll agree to TM's proposals, although I retain some hope that the civil service hasn't become so completely dysfunctional that they didn't sound out the EU27 and commission informally first.

They must have done, surely??

CarlottaVance

Who edits this rag? Trump doesn’t bow to the queen - he’s a fellow head of state!

https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1016445458988916740?s=21

Richard_Nabavi

RobD said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

(Things I never thought I would say) I actually agree with DD. The acceptance of the EU rule book is an unacceptable price to pay for a FTA. Equivalence I could live with, even an independent regulator (ie not CJE) who could rule on an alleged lack of equivalence. But accepting all EU laws on such a wide tranche of our regulation not just now, not even for a limited period but indefinitely is going too far.

That would be a great point, except that no-one has a better idea.

My comment contains 2 ideas which are better. Agreed Equivalence is better. Equivalence with an independent adjudicator is better. May has just surrendered and she is wrong to do so.

They would be better ideas, but unfortunately they crash to smithereens on the rock that the EU won't agree to them. It's not even obvious that they'll agree to TM's proposals, although I retain some hope that the civil service hasn't become so completely dysfunctional that they didn't sound out the EU27 and commission informally first.

They must have done, surely??

Indeed!

GIN1138

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

Boris is no loss. But the top 4 ministers are now Remainers led by a nonentity who has shat in the soup.

Why bother voting to re-elect them ?

I think Mrs May is assuming that you’ll vote blue to stop Corbyn becoming PM.

Then she is wrong....

DavidL

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

(Things I never thought I would say) I actually agree with DD. The acceptance of the EU rule book is an unacceptable price to pay for a FTA. Equivalence I could live with, even an independent regulator (ie not CJE) who could rule on an alleged lack of equivalence. But accepting all EU laws on such a wide tranche of our regulation not just now, not even for a limited period but indefinitely is going too far.

That would be a great point, except that no-one has a better idea.

My comment contains 2 ideas which are better. Agreed Equivalence is better. Equivalence with an independent adjudicator is better. May has just surrendered and she is wrong to do so.

They would be better ideas, but unfortunately they crash to smithereens on the rock that the EU won't agree to them. It's not even obvious that they'll agree to TM's proposals, although I retain some hope that the civil service hasn't become so completely dysfunctional that they didn't sound out the EU27 and commission informally first.

Then we have to seriously prepare for a no deal Brexit. Which would be unfortunate but it does take 2 to tango.

Elliot

CarlottaVance said:

Who edits this rag? Trump doesn’t bow to the queen - he’s a fellow head of state!

https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1016445458988916740?s=21

He is the leader of a collection of colonies in a temporary period of rebellion.

TGOHF

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

Boris is no loss. But the top 4 ministers are now Remainers led by a nonentity who has shat in the soup.

Why bother voting to re-elect them ?

I think Mrs May is assuming that you’ll vote blue to stop Corbyn becoming PM.

Meh - I’m ambivalent. My business doesn’t rely on government interventions. A sharp dose of the 1970s might mean we get another 40 years free Socialism.

kle4

glw said:

kle4 said:

It might not be much of a Brexit. I doubt it will please most Leavers. But it would technically be Brexit. I'm not sure that the rest can get something harder through at this time. Clearly they do, however.

Few people have ever voted for a party because they technically did what they said they would. If May thinks that would be enough she is daft.

That wasn't what I was suggesting. I think 'technically a brexit' is the only Brexit May can manage, and the party would need to recover credibility after that. However, I question whether the others might even achieve any Brexit, or any non disastrous Brexit, given the more extreme options have even less chance of getting through, or being well regarded outside the true believers. Additionally, the sooner a GE the less chance the Tories can rebuild, so the more disruptive a Brexit, and more likely to spark a GE, the worse they will likely do.

A technical brexit won't win them many votes, and will lose them some, but perhaps they have time to recover from it. A crash out, which is the preferred option of others (as there's no time for anything else now)? It's popular among Tories, but wider than that?

DavidL

Richard_Nabavi said:

RobD said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

(Things I never thought I would say) I actually agree with DD. The acceptance of the EU rule book is an unacceptable price to pay for a FTA. Equivalence I could live with, even an independent regulator (ie not CJE) who could rule on an alleged lack of equivalence. But accepting all EU laws on such a wide tranche of our regulation not just now, not even for a limited period but indefinitely is going too far.

That would be a great point, except that no-one has a better idea.

My comment contains 2 ideas which are better. Agreed Equivalence is better. Equivalence with an independent adjudicator is better. May has just surrendered and she is wrong to do so.

They would be better ideas, but unfortunately they crash to smithereens on the rock that the EU won't agree to them. It's not even obvious that they'll agree to TM's proposals, although I retain some hope that the civil service hasn't become so completely dysfunctional that they didn't sound out the EU27 and commission informally first.

They must have done, surely??

Indeed!

I suspect May herself may have floated these ideas at the last summit. She has certainly got their agreement for radio silence on them at the present. No one of any substance in the EU is making any comment at all at the moment.

Elliot

DavidL said:

Elliot said:

DavidL said:

(Things I never thought I would say) I actually agree with DD. The acceptance of the EU rule book is an unacceptable price to pay for a FTA. Equivalence I could live with, even an independent regulator (ie not CJE) who could rule on an alleged lack of equivalence. But accepting all EU laws on such a wide tranche of our regulation not just now, not even for a limited period but indefinitely is going too far.

Except this deal isn't the EU rulebook. It's a common rulebook with an independent regulator.

For 15% of the economy.

Its not common if we are obliged to introduce their legislation here and are prevented from introducing our own legislation. It is subordination. And who is this independent regulator to be?

It is a starting point that is well beyond an acceptable finishing point for me.

The Chequers agreement proposes a joint committee for oversight consisting of both UK and ECJ judges. We would not be obliged to introduce their legislation. Parliament would vote on every change. Not being able to apply additional legislation on import regulations would also apply to any FTA with India or the USA.

kle4

I like Jeremy Hunt's recognition of how Health Secretary's are viewed

Massive wrench for me to leave health - I know some staff haven’t found me the easiest Health Sec but the NHS, and particularly patient safety, has become my passion & it really was the greatest privilege of my life to serve for so many year

RobD

Elliot said:

DavidL said:

Elliot said:

DavidL said:

(Things I never thought I would say) I actually agree with DD. The acceptance of the EU rule book is an unacceptable price to pay for a FTA. Equivalence I could live with, even an independent regulator (ie not CJE) who could rule on an alleged lack of equivalence. But accepting all EU laws on such a wide tranche of our regulation not just now, not even for a limited period but indefinitely is going too far.

Except this deal isn't the EU rulebook. It's a common rulebook with an independent regulator.

For 15% of the economy.

Its not common if we are obliged to introduce their legislation here and are prevented from introducing our own legislation. It is subordination. And who is this independent regulator to be?

It is a starting point that is well beyond an acceptable finishing point for me.

The Chequers agreement proposes a joint committee for oversight consisting of both UK and ECJ judges. We would not be obliged to introduce their legislation. Parliament would vote on every change.

What happens when Parliament doesn’t agree is key. Does it leave the treaty in abeyance?

Elliot

TGOHF said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

Boris is no loss. But the top 4 ministers are now Remainers led by a nonentity who has shat in the soup.

Why bother voting to re-elect them ?

I think Mrs May is assuming that you’ll vote blue to stop Corbyn becoming PM.

Meh - I’m ambivalent. My business doesn’t rely on government interventions. A sharp dose of the 1970s might mean we get another 40 years free Socialism.

I'm not sure the Western alliance would hold with both Trump amd Corbyn.

kle4

DavidL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

RobD said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

(Things I never thought I would say) I actually agree with DD. The acceptance of the EU rule book is an unacceptable price to pay for a FTA. Equivalence I could live with, even an independent regulator (ie not CJE) who could rule on an alleged lack of equivalence. But accepting all EU laws on such a wide tranche of our regulation not just now, not even for a limited period but indefinitely is going too far.

That would be a great point, except that no-one has a better idea.

My comment contains 2 ideas which are better. Agreed Equivalence is better. Equivalence with an independent adjudicator is better. May has just surrendered and she is wrong to do so.

They would be better ideas, but unfortunately they crash to smithereens on the rock that the EU won't agree to them. It's not even obvious that they'll agree to TM's proposals, although I retain some hope that the civil service hasn't become so completely dysfunctional that they didn't sound out the EU27 and commission informally first.

They must have done, surely??

Indeed!

I suspect May herself may have floated these ideas at the last summit. She has certainly got their agreement for radio silence on them at the present. No one of any substance in the EU is making any comment at all at the moment.

I still don't see how they accept what is proposed, particularly as bullish and high risk their strategy has been, but will they be persuaded by May's weakness,as it were? She isn't bluffing when she tells them she cannot do better than her offer; it's far from clear she can even match her own offer!

Podcast - Gavin Williamson not popular among the members apparently, who knew?

Elliot

RobD said:

Elliot said:

DavidL said:

Elliot said:

DavidL said:

(Things I never thought I would say) I actually agree with DD. The acceptance of the EU rule book is an unacceptable price to pay for a FTA. Equivalence I could live with, even an independent regulator (ie not CJE) who could rule on an alleged lack of equivalence. But accepting all EU laws on such a wide tranche of our regulation not just now, not even for a limited period but indefinitely is going too far.

Except this deal isn't the EU rulebook. It's a common rulebook with an independent regulator.

For 15% of the economy.

Its not common if we are obliged to introduce their legislation here and are prevented from introducing our own legislation. It is subordination. And who is this independent regulator to be?

It is a starting point that is well beyond an acceptable finishing point for me.

The Chequers agreement proposes a joint committee for oversight consisting of both UK and ECJ judges. We would not be obliged to introduce their legislation. Parliament would vote on every change.

What happens when Parliament doesn’t agree is key. Does it leave the treaty in abeyance?

To be determined by future negotiation. It might be something similar to Norway where free trade in that area is cut off. That would be the hard Brexit in goods these people want! If they were smart they would bank the hard Brexit on immigration, CFP, CAP, membership fees, social policy and services and then fight for that through this later!

ralphmalph

Elliot said:

DavidL said:

(Things I never thought I would say) I actually agree with DD. The acceptance of the EU rule book is an unacceptable price to pay for a FTA. Equivalence I could live with, even an independent regulator (ie not CJE) who could rule on an alleged lack of equivalence. But accepting all EU laws on such a wide tranche of our regulation not just now, not even for a limited period but indefinitely is going too far.

Except this deal isn't the EU rulebook. It's a common rulebook with an independent regulator.

For 15% of the economy.

Are you sure? The EU is not going to make a new rule book just for us. I think it is the whole of what the EU call Pillar 1. So it covers environment, social policy, employment and consumer protection. It is not just what spec a widget has to conform to. These apply to 100% of the economy.

DavidL

Elliot said:

DavidL said:

Elliot said:

DavidL said:

(Things I never thought I would say) I actually agree with DD. The acceptance of the EU rule book is an unacceptable price to pay for a FTA. Equivalence I could live with, even an independent regulator (ie not CJE) who could rule on an alleged lack of equivalence. But accepting all EU laws on such a wide tranche of our regulation not just now, not even for a limited period but indefinitely is going too far.

Except this deal isn't the EU rulebook. It's a common rulebook with an independent regulator.

For 15% of the economy.

Its not common if we are obliged to introduce their legislation here and are prevented from introducing our own legislation. It is subordination. And who is this independent regulator to be?

It is a starting point that is well beyond an acceptable finishing point for me.

The Chequers agreement proposes a joint committee for oversight consisting of both UK and ECJ judges. We would not be obliged to introduce their legislation. Parliament would vote on every change. Not being able to apply additional legislation on import regulations would also apply to any FTA with India or the USA.

That is not the way I read it. We will have the choice of either implementing their next GDPR style pile of manure (for example) or we lose the FTA. DD is right (ach, twice in one night, I am in pain) that that is illusionary independence not substantive. In the relevant areas we will not have left.

kle4

If May survives until Brexit day then whatever her many negatives, her endurance will be legendary.

Elliot

DavidL said:

Elliot said:

DavidL said:

Elliot said:

DavidL said:

(Things I never thought I would say) I actually agree with DD. The acceptance of the EU rule book is an unacceptable price to pay for a FTA. Equivalence I could live with, even an independent regulator (ie not CJE) who could rule on an alleged lack of equivalence. But accepting all EU laws on such a wide tranche of our regulation not just now, not even for a limited period but indefinitely is going too far.

Except this deal isn't the EU rulebook. It's a common rulebook with an independent regulator.

For 15% of the economy.

Its not common if we are obliged to introduce their legislation here and are prevented from introducing our own legislation. It is subordination. And who is this independent regulator to be?

It is a starting point that is well beyond an acceptable finishing point for me.

The Chequers agreement proposes a joint committee for oversight consisting of both UK and ECJ judges. We would not be obliged to introduce their legislation. Parliament would vote on every change. Not being able to apply additional legislation on import regulations would also apply to any FTA with India or the USA.

That is not the way I read it. We will have the choice of either implementing their next GDPR style pile of manure (for example) or we lose the FTA. DD is right (ach, twice in one night, I am in pain) that that is illusionary independence not substantive. In the relevant areas we will not have left.

You seem to be reading imaginary things. Nowhere does it say the FTA would be cut off.

Elliot

ralphmalph said:

Elliot said:

DavidL said:

(Things I never thought I would say) I actually agree with DD. The acceptance of the EU rule book is an unacceptable price to pay for a FTA. Equivalence I could live with, even an independent regulator (ie not CJE) who could rule on an alleged lack of equivalence. But accepting all EU laws on such a wide tranche of our regulation not just now, not even for a limited period but indefinitely is going too far.

Except this deal isn't the EU rulebook. It's a common rulebook with an independent regulator.

For 15% of the economy.

Are you sure? The EU is not going to make a new rule book just for us. I think it is the whole of what the EU call Pillar 1. So it covers environment, social policy, employment and consumer protection. It is not just what spec a widget has to conform to. These apply to 100% of the economy.

I am certain. It covers only a fraction of pillar one.

DavidL

Elliot said:

DavidL said:

Elliot said:

DavidL said:

Elliot said:

DavidL said:

(Things I never thought I would say) I actually agree with DD. The acceptance of the EU rule book is an unacceptable price to pay for a FTA. Equivalence I could live with, even an independent regulator (ie not CJE) who could rule on an alleged lack of equivalence. But accepting all EU laws on such a wide tranche of our regulation not just now, not even for a limited period but indefinitely is going too far.

Except this deal isn't the EU rulebook. It's a common rulebook with an independent regulator.

For 15% of the economy.

Its not common if we are obliged to introduce their legislation here and are prevented from introducing our own legislation. It is subordination. And who is this independent regulator to be?

It is a starting point that is well beyond an acceptable finishing point for me.

The Chequers agreement proposes a joint committee for oversight consisting of both UK and ECJ judges. We would not be obliged to introduce their legislation. Parliament would vote on every change. Not being able to apply additional legislation on import regulations would also apply to any FTA with India or the USA.

That is not the way I read it. We will have the choice of either implementing their next GDPR style pile of manure (for example) or we lose the FTA. DD is right (ach, twice in one night, I am in pain) that that is illusionary independence not substantive. In the relevant areas we will not have left.

You seem to be reading imaginary things. Nowhere does it say the FTA would be cut off.

Mrs May was quite clear about it. She said that Parliament could of course legislate as they wanted but they would have to appreciate the serious consequences of doing so. It is inevitable. If we have a FTA and a condition of that agreement is that we comply with their regulation then when we don't we are in breach and no longer entitled to the agreement.

ralphmalph

Elliot said:

ralphmalph said:

Elliot said:

DavidL said:

(Things I never thought I would say) I actually agree with DD. The acceptance of the EU rule book is an unacceptable price to pay for a FTA. Equivalence I could live with, even an independent regulator (ie not CJE) who could rule on an alleged lack of equivalence. But accepting all EU laws on such a wide tranche of our regulation not just now, not even for a limited period but indefinitely is going too far.

Except this deal isn't the EU rulebook. It's a common rulebook with an independent regulator.

For 15% of the economy.

Are you sure? The EU is not going to make a new rule book just for us. I think it is the whole of what the EU call Pillar 1. So it covers environment, social policy, employment and consumer protection. It is not just what spec a widget has to conform to. These apply to 100% of the economy.

I am certain. It covers only a fraction of pillar one.

Well there is no way the EU is going to grant full single market goodies for just that. We could still be Singapore on Thames.

HYUFD

Elliot said:

TGOHF said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

Boris is no loss. But the top 4 ministers are now Remainers led by a nonentity who has shat in the soup.

Why bother voting to re-elect them ?

I think Mrs May is assuming that you’ll vote blue to stop Corbyn becoming PM.

Meh - I’m ambivalent. My business doesn’t rely on government interventions. A sharp dose of the 1970s might mean we get another 40 years free Socialism.

I'm not sure the Western alliance would hold with both Trump amd Corbyn.

Add in maybe Sanders and Mogg too.

Populism is on the rise all over the place from Trump to Le Pen, Sanders to Corbyn, Brexit to indyref, Mogg to Salvini, One Nation to the AfD, the Swedish Democrats to Wilders, Tsipras to Podemos, Five Star to Lopez Obrador and Melenchon.

The Western Alliance is going to be under severe strain regardless

Elliot

DavidL said:

Elliot said:

DavidL said:

Elliot said:

DavidL said:

Elliot said:

DavidL said:

(Things I never thought I would say) I actually agree with DD. The acceptance of the EU rule book is an unacceptable price to pay for a FTA. Equivalence I could live with, even an independent regulator (ie not CJE) who could rule on an alleged lack of equivalence. But accepting all EU laws on such a wide tranche of our regulation not just now, not even for a limited period but indefinitely is going too far.

Except this deal isn't the EU rulebook. It's a common rulebook with an independent regulator.

For 15% of the economy.

Its not common if we are obliged to introduce their legislation here and are prevented from introducing our own legislation. It is subordination. And who is this independent regulator to be?

It is a starting point that is well beyond an acceptable finishing point for me.

The Chequers agreement proposes a joint committee for oversight consisting of both UK and ECJ judges. We would not be obliged to introduce their legislation. Parliament would vote on every change. Not being able to apply additional legislation on import regulations would also apply to any FTA with India or the USA.

That is not the way I read it. We will have the choice of either implementing their next GDPR style pile of manure (for example) or we lose the FTA. DD is right (ach, twice in one night, I am in pain) that that is illusionary independence not substantive. In the relevant areas we will not have left.

You seem to be reading imaginary things. Nowhere does it say the FTA would be cut off.

Mrs May was quite clear about it. She said that Parliament could of course legislate as they wanted but they would have to appreciate the serious consequences of doing so. It is inevitable. If we have a FTA and a condition of that agreement is that we comply with their regulation then when we don't we are in breach and no longer entitled to the agreement.

Yes, there would be consequences for access. Likely something similar to Norway, where the frictionless trade in that area stops if new rules are not incorporated. So, in effect, if we don't lile the new rules we get a hard Brexit in that area. It seems a bizarre position you have to demand a hard Brexit in goods because we might have to have a hard Brexit in goods if we dislike a new rule.

Elliot

ralphmalph said:

Elliot said:

ralphmalph said:

Elliot said:

DavidL said:

(Things I never thought I would say) I actually agree with DD. The acceptance of the EU rule book is an unacceptable price to pay for a FTA. Equivalence I could live with, even an independent regulator (ie not CJE) who could rule on an alleged lack of equivalence. But accepting all EU laws on such a wide tranche of our regulation not just now, not even for a limited period but indefinitely is going too far.

Except this deal isn't the EU rulebook. It's a common rulebook with an independent regulator.

For 15% of the economy.

Are you sure? The EU is not going to make a new rule book just for us. I think it is the whole of what the EU call Pillar 1. So it covers environment, social policy, employment and consumer protection. It is not just what spec a widget has to conform to. These apply to 100% of the economy.

I am certain. It covers only a fraction of pillar one.

Well there is no way the EU is going to grant full single market goodies for just that. We could still be Singapore on Thames.

It proposes to maintain high standards and not to let overall levels drop, but isn't signing up to EU rules on that. Common rulebook is just goods regulation.

Wulfrun_Phil

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

Boris is no loss. But the top 4 ministers are now Remainers led by a nonentity who has shat in the soup.

Why bother voting to re-elect them ?

I think Mrs May is assuming that you’ll vote blue to stop Corbyn becoming PM.

.... as she did in 2017 when she was saved by the collapse of UKIP. Hang on though.....

"Mr Farage pointed out that the tenure of Gerard Batten, the current leader of Ukip, will come to an end in March 2019 - the same month when Article 50 ends.The MEP added: "Unless Brexit is back on track by then, I will have to seriously consider putting my name forward to return as Ukip leader. I can ensure any Conservatives listening to this, sitting in marginal seats, who are not prepared to honour the wishes of the electorate, I will make damn sure that you all lose your seats There are millions on Conservative voters who are very unhappy indeed.”

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/986265/Brexit-News-Nigel-Farage-Ukip-leader-May-Davis-Johnson

GIN1138

Theresa's off to get her next set of orders from Merkel tomorrow.

Will the Tory Brexiteers move against her while she's out of the country?

AndyJS

HYUFD said:

Elliot said:

TGOHF said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

Boris is no loss. But the top 4 ministers are now Remainers led by a nonentity who has shat in the soup.

Why bother voting to re-elect them ?

I think Mrs May is assuming that you’ll vote blue to stop Corbyn becoming PM.

Meh - I’m ambivalent. My business doesn’t rely on government interventions. A sharp dose of the 1970s might mean we get another 40 years free Socialism.

I'm not sure the Western alliance would hold with both Trump amd Corbyn.

Add in maybe Sanders and Mogg too.

Populism is on the rise all over the place from Trump to Le Pen, Sanders to Corbyn, Brexit to indyref, Mogg to Salvini, One Nation to the AfD, the Swedish Democrats to Wilders, Tsipras to Podemos, Five Star to Lopez Obrador and Melenchon.

The Western Alliance is going to be under severe strain regardless

Yes, AfD took second place from the Social Democrats in a poll today for the first time.

Stark_Dawning

Elliot said:

CarlottaVance said:

Who edits this rag? Trump doesn’t bow to the queen - he’s a fellow head of state!

https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1016445458988916740?s=21

He is the leader of a collection of colonies in a temporary period of rebellion.

He was happy enough to curtsy to the Saudis:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-saudi-arabia-trip-curtsey-bow-king-salman-gold-medal-honour-barack-obama-bowing-a7747016.html

TheScreamingEagles

‪Latest @YouGov poll for @thetimes. ‬

Con 39 (-2)

Lab 39 (-1)

LD 9 (nc)

Fieldwork Sunday and Monday.

No other Party VI given.

First time since April the Tories haven’t led with YouGov.

18 per cent thought the government was doing well at negotiating Brexit and 66 per cent thought it was doing badly.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/labour-level-in-poll-after-chequers-deal-k6t6vpcgz

TheScreamingEagles

‪14% thought that the Chequers plan was good for Britain, 33% bad and 53% did not know. 27% said that the compromise respected the referendum result, 29% said that it did not respect it and 44% said that they did not know.‬

ExiledInScotland

Wulfrun_Phil said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

Boris is no loss. But the top 4 ministers are now Remainers led by a nonentity who has shat in the soup.

Why bother voting to re-elect them ?

I think Mrs May is assuming that you’ll vote blue to stop Corbyn becoming PM.

.... as she did in 2017 when she was saved by the collapse of UKIP. Hang on though.....

"Mr Farage pointed out that the tenure of Gerard Batten, the current leader of Ukip, will come to an end in March 2019 - the same month when Article 50 ends.The MEP added: "Unless Brexit is back on track by then, I will have to seriously consider putting my name forward to return as Ukip leader. I can ensure any Conservatives listening to this, sitting in marginal seats, who are not prepared to honour the wishes of the electorate, I will make damn sure that you all lose your seats There are millions on Conservative voters who are very unhappy indeed.”

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/986265/Brexit-News-Nigel-Farage-Ukip-leader-May-Davis-Johnson

There is real danger here.

For each marginal, if more people flip Tory -> UKIP over perceived BINO than flip Labour -> Tory over fear of Corbyn, seats go Labour. The Con MPs will overestimate the fear of Labour and underestimate the anger of BINO - they need to look at their members and activists and realise that they cannot control this. People will have an emotional response to this situation that will wash them away if they get it wrong.

Pulpstar

TheScreamingEagles said:

‪14% thought that the Chequers plan was good for Britain, 33% bad and 53% did not know. 27% said that the compromise respected the referendum result, 29% said that it did not respect it and 44% said that they did not know.‬

Looks like noone likes the Chequers deal

FrancisUrquhart

TheScreamingEagles said:

‪14% thought that the Chequers plan was good for Britain, 33% bad and 53% did not know. 27% said that the compromise respected the referendum result, 29% said that it did not respect it and 44% said that they did not know.‬

Given hardly MPs even know what the deal is....I am not sure how the public have any idea.

Chameleon

CarlottaVance said:

Who edits this rag? Trump doesn’t bow to the queen - he’s a fellow head of state!

https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1016445458988916740?s=21

That's where you'e wrong. A HoS that has been in place for longer takes seniority over one that hasn't been in place for so long. Currently our dear Queen is technically the most senior person in the world, as she's the longest reigning head of state.

williamglenn

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

‪14% thought that the Chequers plan was good for Britain, 33% bad and 53% did not know. 27% said that the compromise respected the referendum result, 29% said that it did not respect it and 44% said that they did not know.‬

Looks like noone likes the Chequers deal

But also that no-one has a viable alternative other than EEA+CU or full Remain.

archer101au

Elliot said:

DavidL said:

Elliot said:

DavidL said:

Elliot said:

The Chequers agreement proposes a joint committee for oversight consisting of both UK and ECJ judges. We would not be obliged to introduce their legislation. Parliament would vote on every change. Not being able to apply additional legislation on import regulations would also apply to any FTA with India or the USA.

That is not the way I read it. We will have the choice of either implementing their next GDPR style pile of manure (for example) or we lose the FTA. DD is right (ach, twice in one night, I am in pain) that that is illusionary independence not substantive. In the relevant areas we will not have left.

You seem to be reading imaginary things. Nowhere does it say the FTA would be cut off.

Mrs May was quite clear about it. She said that Parliament could of course legislate as they wanted but they would have to appreciate the serious consequences of doing so. It is inevitable. If we have a FTA and a condition of that agreement is that we comply with their regulation then when we don't we are in breach and no longer entitled to the agreement.

Yes, there would be consequences for access. Likely something similar to Norway, where the frictionless trade in that area stops if new rules are not incorporated. So, in effect, if we don't lile the new rules we get a hard Brexit in that area. It seems a bizarre position you have to demand a hard Brexit in goods because we might have to have a hard Brexit in goods if we dislike a new rule.

You don't get it at all. The way the deal will work is that any attempt to opt out of any EU regulation will cause the deal to fall and the NI backstop to be automatically invoked. Those are the 'consequences' she mentioned.

The reason we are in this position is that the EU have always said that frictionless trade cannot apply to parts of the economy because of the NI border. There is no way the EU will agree to limited consequences for divergence. Otherwise the UK would selectively diverge to its hearts content because in many sectors a bit of friction at the border would be irrelevant.

The NI backstop will still be the thing that kills of May's deal.

archer101au

williamglenn said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

‪14% thought that the Chequers plan was good for Britain, 33% bad and 53% did not know. 27% said that the compromise respected the referendum result, 29% said that it did not respect it and 44% said that they did not know.‬

Looks like noone likes the Chequers deal

But also that no-one has a viable alternative other than EEA+CU or full Remain.

Lies, and I will call you out every time I see you claiming it.

Steve Baker made it clear that the EU had agreed they would accept a CETA deal. Remainers don't want it.

williamglenn

archer101au said:

Elliot said:

DavidL said:

Elliot said:

DavidL said:

Elliot said:

The Chequers agreement proposes a joint committee for oversight consisting of both UK and ECJ judges. We would not be obliged to introduce their legislation. Parliament would vote on every change. Not being able to apply additional legislation on import regulations would also apply to any FTA with India or the USA.

That is not the way I read it. We will have the choice of either implementing their next GDPR style pile of manure (for example) or we lose the FTA. DD is right (ach, twice in one night, I am in pain) that that is illusionary independence not substantive. In the relevant areas we will not have left.

You seem to be reading imaginary things. Nowhere does it say the FTA would be cut off.

Mrs May was quite clear about it. She said that Parliament could of course legislate as they wanted but they would have to appreciate the serious consequences of doing so. It is inevitable. If we have a FTA and a condition of that agreement is that we comply with their regulation then when we don't we are in breach and no longer entitled to the agreement.

Yes, there would be consequences for access. Likely something similar to Norway, where the frictionless trade in that area stops if new rules are not incorporated. So, in effect, if we don't lile the new rules we get a hard Brexit in that area. It seems a bizarre position you have to demand a hard Brexit in goods because we might have to have a hard Brexit in goods if we dislike a new rule.

You don't get it at all. The way the deal will work is that any attempt to opt out of any EU regulation will cause the deal to fall and the NI backstop to be automatically invoked. Those are the 'consequences' she mentioned.

The reason we are in this position is that the EU have always said that frictionless trade cannot apply to parts of the economy because of the NI border. There is no way the EU will agree to limited consequences for divergence. Otherwise the UK would selectively diverge to its hearts content because in many sectors a bit of friction at the border would be irrelevant.

The NI backstop will still be the thing that kills of May's deal.

The question is whether it will kill it before it can form the basis of the political declaration or whether it's ambiguous enough to fudge until we're out.

williamglenn

archer101au said:

williamglenn said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

‪14% thought that the Chequers plan was good for Britain, 33% bad and 53% did not know. 27% said that the compromise respected the referendum result, 29% said that it did not respect it and 44% said that they did not know.‬

Looks like noone likes the Chequers deal

But also that no-one has a viable alternative other than EEA+CU or full Remain.

Lies, and I will call you out every time I see you claiming it.

Steve Baker made it clear that the EU had agreed they would accept a CETA deal. Remainers don't want it.

A CETA deal but with an Irish sea border. May made this explicit in her statement to parliament today.

ExiledInScotland

williamglenn said:

archer101au said:

williamglenn said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

‪14% thought that the Chequers plan was good for Britain, 33% bad and 53% did not know. 27% said that the compromise respected the referendum result, 29% said that it did not respect it and 44% said that they did not know.‬

Looks like noone likes the Chequers deal

But also that no-one has a viable alternative other than EEA+CU or full Remain.

Lies, and I will call you out every time I see you claiming it.

Steve Baker made it clear that the EU had agreed they would accept a CETA deal. Remainers don't want it.

A CETA deal but with an Irish sea border. May made this explicit in her statement to parliament today.

Irish Sea border = No

archer101au

GIN1138 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

Boris is no loss. But the top 4 ministers are now Remainers led by a nonentity who has shat in the soup.

Why bother voting to re-elect them ?

I think Mrs May is assuming that you’ll vote blue to stop Corbyn becoming PM.

Then she is wrong....

TSE you don't get it. I know the normal Tory plan is to screw everyone over and try to win the election by threatening a Labour Government and it usually works. But for many people (and certainly enough to cost you any chance of a majority) they will happily take the risk for Brexit. Brexit is forever, Corbyn will be for five years. And many Leave voters are simply not motivated by economics - they are retired and therefore just as safe under Corbyn or struggling with EU workers undercutting their wages with not much to lose. The Tories only need to lose a few percent of their vote over Brexit and they are toast. If there is no risk, why did Cameron call the referendum?

archer101au

ExiledInScotland said:

williamglenn said:

archer101au said:

williamglenn said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

‪14% thought that the Chequers plan was good for Britain, 33% bad and 53% did not know. 27% said that the compromise respected the referendum result, 29% said that it did not respect it and 44% said that they did not know.‬

Looks like noone likes the Chequers deal

But also that no-one has a viable alternative other than EEA+CU or full Remain.

Lies, and I will call you out every time I see you claiming it.

Steve Baker made it clear that the EU had agreed they would accept a CETA deal. Remainers don't want it.

A CETA deal but with an Irish sea border. May made this explicit in her statement to parliament today.

Irish Sea border = No

There is no need for an Irish Sea border. NI border with MaxFac. In a take it or leave it proposition with the EU, they will take it.

May blackmailed herself when she agreed to the NI backstop simply because she knew that she would be forced to agree a CETA deal and as a Remainer this would mean a complete break with the EU that she would not accept.

archer101au

Elliot said:

DavidL said:

(Things I never thought I would say) I actually agree with DD. The acceptance of the EU rule book is an unacceptable price to pay for a FTA. Equivalence I could live with, even an independent regulator (ie not CJE) who could rule on an alleged lack of equivalence. But accepting all EU laws on such a wide tranche of our regulation not just now, not even for a limited period but indefinitely is going too far.

Except this deal isn't the EU rulebook. It's a common rulebook with an independent regulator.

For 15% of the economy.

NO IT IS NOT. The EU common rulebook will apply to the whole of the goods economy, not just the bit that exports to the EU.

archer101au

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

(Things I never thought I would say) I actually agree with DD. The acceptance of the EU rule book is an unacceptable price to pay for a FTA. Equivalence I could live with, even an independent regulator (ie not CJE) who could rule on an alleged lack of equivalence. But accepting all EU laws on such a wide tranche of our regulation not just now, not even for a limited period but indefinitely is going too far.

That would be a great point, except that no-one has a better idea.

My comment contains 2 ideas which are better. Agreed Equivalence is better. Equivalence with an independent adjudicator is better. May has just surrendered and she is wrong to do so.

They would be better ideas, but unfortunately they crash to smithereens on the rock that the EU won't agree to them. It's not even obvious that they'll agree to TM's proposals, although I retain some hope that the civil service hasn't become so completely dysfunctional that they didn't sound out the EU27 and commission informally first.

Again, all untrue. The EU have already agreed to FTAs all over the World (Include CETA) based on regulatory equivalence. No country outside Europe accepts EU regulation.

The only barrier to CETA is the NI border trap which May deliberately jumped into,

williamglenn

archer101au said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

(Things I never thought I would say) I actually agree with DD. The acceptance of the EU rule book is an unacceptable price to pay for a FTA. Equivalence I could live with, even an independent regulator (ie not CJE) who could rule on an alleged lack of equivalence. But accepting all EU laws on such a wide tranche of our regulation not just now, not even for a limited period but indefinitely is going too far.

That would be a great point, except that no-one has a better idea.

My comment contains 2 ideas which are better. Agreed Equivalence is better. Equivalence with an independent adjudicator is better. May has just surrendered and she is wrong to do so.

They would be better ideas, but unfortunately they crash to smithereens on the rock that the EU won't agree to them. It's not even obvious that they'll agree to TM's proposals, although I retain some hope that the civil service hasn't become so completely dysfunctional that they didn't sound out the EU27 and commission informally first.

Again, all untrue. The EU have already agreed to FTAs all over the World (Include CETA) based on regulatory equivalence. No country outside Europe accepts EU regulation.

The only barrier to CETA is the NI border trap which May deliberately jumped into,

CETA has mutual recognition for conformity assessments but I don't think it's correct to call it regulatory equivalence.

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2017/september/tradoc_156062.pdf

Foxy

TheScreamingEagles said:

‪Latest @YouGov poll for @thetimes. ‬

Con 39 (-2)

Lab 39 (-1)

LD 9 (nc)

Fieldwork Sunday and Monday.

No other Party VI given.

First time since April the Tories haven’t led with YouGov.

18 per cent thought the government was doing well at negotiating Brexit and 66 per cent thought it was doing badly.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/labour-level-in-poll-after-chequers-deal-k6t6vpcgz

18% think doing well? How low were their expectations?

brendan16

AndyJS said:

HYUFD said:

Elliot said:

TGOHF said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

Boris is no loss. But the top 4 ministers are now Remainers led by a nonentity who has shat in the soup.

Why bother voting to re-elect them ?

I think Mrs May is assuming that you’ll vote blue to stop Corbyn becoming PM.

Meh - I’m ambivalent. My business doesn’t rely on government interventions. A sharp dose of the 1970s might mean we get another 40 years free Socialism.

I'm not sure the Western alliance would hold with both Trump amd Corbyn.

Add in maybe Sanders and Mogg too.

Populism is on the rise all over the place from Trump to Le Pen, Sanders to Corbyn, Brexit to indyref, Mogg to Salvini, One Nation to the AfD, the Swedish Democrats to Wilders, Tsipras to Podemos, Five Star to Lopez Obrador and Melenchon.

The Western Alliance is going to be under severe strain regardless

Yes, AfD took second place from the Social Democrats in a poll today for the first time.

The next major general election is in Sweden in September where the Tories new Brussels allies - the Sweden Democrats - now top some of the polls. It may be more difficult to keep them out of government this time if that happens.

edmundintokyo

Elliot said:

edmundintokyo said:

Elliot said:

I suspect the EU will realise there isn't much flexibility for the government to survive if they concede any more.

That's not really their problem though...

It is if they don't want to hit their manufacturers with a second massive blow on top of the Trump tariffs.

They don't want that, but a different British government wouldn't necessarily be worse at avoiding it, and may well be better.

Dura_Ace

Elliot said:

I suspect the EU will realise there isn't much flexibility for the government to survive if they concede any more.

Why do the EU care one way or another if this government falls?

rcs1000

Elliot said:

DavidL said:

Elliot said:

DavidL said:

(Things I never thought I would say) I actually agree with DD. The acceptance of the EU rule book is an unacceptable price to pay for a FTA. Equivalence I could live with, even an independent regulator (ie not CJE) who could rule on an alleged lack of equivalence. But accepting all EU laws on such a wide tranche of our regulation not just now, not even for a limited period but indefinitely is going too far.

Except this deal isn't the EU rulebook. It's a common rulebook with an independent regulator.

For 15% of the economy.

Its not common if we are obliged to introduce their legislation here and are prevented from introducing our own legislation. It is subordination. And who is this independent regulator to be?

It is a starting point that is well beyond an acceptable finishing point for me.

The Chequers agreement proposes a joint committee for oversight consisting of both UK and ECJ judges. We would not be obliged to introduce their legislation. Parliament would vote on every change. Not being able to apply additional legislation on import regulations would also apply to any FTA with India or the USA.

Which is pretty much the Swiss arrangement.

In fact, Mrs May is proposing Switzerland ii to the EU, with the exception that the UK is a lot more important export market for the EU.

rcs1000

DavidL said:

Elliot said:

DavidL said:

Elliot said:

DavidL said:

Elliot said:

DavidL said:

(Things I never thought I would say) I actually agree with DD. The acceptance of the EU rule book is an unacceptable price to pay for a FTA. Equivalence I could live with, even an independent regulator (ie not CJE) who could rule on an alleged lack of equivalence. But accepting all EU laws on such a wide tranche of our regulation not just now, not even for a limited period but indefinitely is going too far.

Except this deal isn't the EU rulebook. It's a common rulebook with an independent regulator.

For 15% of the economy.

Its not common if we are obliged to introduce their legislation here and are prevented from introducing our own legislation. It is subordination. And who is this independent regulator to be?

It is a starting point that is well beyond an acceptable finishing point for me.

The Chequers agreement proposes a joint committee for oversight consisting of both UK and ECJ judges. We would not be obliged to introduce their legislation. Parliament would vote on every change. Not being able to apply additional legislation on import regulations would also apply to any FTA with India or the USA.

That is not the way I read it. We will have the choice of either implementing their next GDPR style pile of manure (for example) or we lose the FTA. DD is right (ach, twice in one night, I am in pain) that that is illusionary independence not substantive. In the relevant areas we will not have left.

You seem to be reading imaginary things. Nowhere does it say the FTA would be cut off.

Mrs May was quite clear about it. She said that Parliament could of course legislate as they wanted but they would have to appreciate the serious consequences of doing so. It is inevitable. If we have a FTA and a condition of that agreement is that we comply with their regulation then when we don't we are in breach and no longer entitled to the agreement.

Well yes. But that applies pretty much all treaty commitments. They bind parliament and the executive, and mean they cannot do certain things.

rcs1000

archer101au said:

williamglenn said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

‪14% thought that the Chequers plan was good for Britain, 33% bad and 53% did not know. 27% said that the compromise respected the referendum result, 29% said that it did not respect it and 44% said that they did not know.‬

Looks like noone likes the Chequers deal

But also that no-one has a viable alternative other than EEA+CU or full Remain.

Lies, and I will call you out every time I see you claiming it.

Steve Baker made it clear that the EU had agreed they would accept a CETA deal. Remainers don't want it.

The EU has - in fact - published exactly what you say in a slide:

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/slide_presented_by_barnier_at_euco_15-12-2017.pdf