I’m confused again. I had assumed from noises off that we are close to a deal with with EU based on Chequers.
However I see there is now a large faction pushing for “EFTA then CETA”, with the backing of Gove.
Feels there are now four groups in the Tories.
Chequers (Mayites) No deal ultras (Moggites) EFTA then CETA (Goveites) Remainers (Soubrettes).
It is all going over my head now. Lots of noise but I am not going to argue either way on this. I am waiting to see the deal (or not) and will then comment.
The only real significance today is TM 100% rejection of a second referendum so the logic of that is that she would have to be beaten in a confidence vote for anything to change that position. She cannot go back on that now without resigning
I’m confused again. I had assumed from noises off that we are close to a deal with with EU based on Chequers.
However I see there is now a large faction pushing for “EFTA then CETA”, with the backing of Gove.
Feels there are now four groups in the Tories.
Chequers (Mayites) No deal ultras (Moggites) EFTA then CETA (Goveites) Remainers (Soubrettes).
Not hard to understand. May's 'deal' is not built around Chequers. It is built around paying the EU 40bn simply for a transition period so she can kick the can down the road for two more years and save her worthless arse.
To do that, all the EU need to do is issue a 'political declaration' (eg a completely non binding and worthless paper) that makes it LOOK like Chequers is the solution and that it will solve the NI problem. Then, the moment it is signed and we are on the hook for the money, everything will become a problem again and Chequers will be slowly picked apart, but at that time the UK will have no cards left to play. Just as Olly Robbins planned.
So, from this point of view, we are close to a deal. May is lying when she says the political declaration will be worth anything. It will be very vague, and very short. She will simply spin it as a deal hopeful that the Remainer establishment will back her up. The EU are happy to play this game.
The issue is now how do they come up with an NI backstop text that gives the EU everything it wants (eg a way to torpedo the statements in the political declaration later and force us into a full CU and SM compliance) but that will allow May and the Tory sheep to declare a deal and get the withdrawal agreement signed. I suspect they will manage something.
The Brexiteers are of course wise to this plan and are setting out to stop her. Since it is now obvious to anyone with a brain that CETA is the only solution, all Brexiteer roads lead that way. The only difference is the method - (a) kick out May and do it now, (b) No Deal and do it later or (c) EFTA now and CETA later. But once May signs the NI backstop it will be impossible to have a real FTA which is why she is doing it.
'...the World’s two largest English speaking democracies"
Point of order- isn't India the world's largest English speaking democracy?
Point of pedantry:
Canada, Australia and New Zealand are also larger, amongst many others. They are however less populous!
Time to go and enjoy Sunday worship. What a lovely day here in Leics.
Canada is technically larger than the USA in land area as well as being far bigger than the UK but has just a tenth of the US population and half the UK population
I am about to go and swim in some heavily chlorineated water. I’ll probably end up drinking some by accident.
It’s not the chlorine that’s the problem, but the reason the chlorine is needed is. On the other hand, l take much more care over handling raw chicken than any other meat and always make sure it is fully cooked, as I’m not sure the chicken we get at the moment is much better.
I no longer buy or eat chicken, partly for this reason and partly because it generally tastes of nothing at all.
I thought we had a trade surplus with the US. Why then all this agitation for an FTA? Surely the main thing the US, certainly under Trump, will want to do is reverse that in their favour and extend their jurisdiction over us in a way that would give IDS apoplexy were the ECJ to do it. So what’s the big deal?
Though according to US figures, they have a trade surplus with us:
I really loathe the way parts of the British political class cling onto this ludicrous idea that there is some sort of special Anglo- American relationship and the way we abase ourselves before the US. We will have interests in common and be allies but behaving like the US’s bitch, while believing ourselves to be more important than we really are, is delusional, demeaning and pathetic. And it stops us being realistic about our true place in the world and what we should sensibly aim for.
Anyway, off out for a trip round a garden in the Lakes open for the last day this year under the NGS scheme, to get ideas for my own. One of my modest ambitions is one day to open my own under this scheme. We are facing months of building work in the house so I try and keep cheerful by focusing in the loveliness at the end rather than the mess and bills in the interim.
I am about to go and swim in some heavily chlorineated water. I’ll probably end up drinking some by accident.
It’s not the chlorine that’s the problem, but the reason the chlorine is needed is. On the other hand, l take much more care over handling raw chicken than any other meat and always make sure it is fully cooked, as I’m not sure the chicken we get at the moment is much better.
I no longer buy or eat chicken, partly for this reason and partly because it generally tastes of nothing at all.
I thought we had a trade surplus with the US. Why then all this agitation for an FTA? Surely the main thing the US, certainly under Trump, will want to do is reverse that in their favour and extend their jurisdiction over us in a way that would give IDS apoplexy were the ECJ to do it. So what’s the big deal?
Though according to US figures, they have a trade surplus with us:
I really loathe the way parts of the British political class cling onto this ludicrous idea that there is some sort of special Anglo- American relationship and the way we abase ourselves before the US. We will have interests in common and be allies but behaving like the US’s bitch, while believing ourselves to be more important than we really are, is delusional, demeaning and pathetic. And it stops us being realistic about our true place in the world and what we should sensibly aim for.
Anyway, off out for a trip round a garden in the Lakes open for the last day this year under the NGS scheme, to get ideas for my own. One of my modest ambitions is one day to open my own under this scheme. We are facing months of building work in the house so I try and keep cheerful by focusing in the loveliness at the end rather than the mess and bills in the interim.
Have a good day all.
In reality the real 'special relationship' is actually Australia and the USA rather than the UK and the USA, Australia is now closer culturally to the USA than we are and Australia is the only country that has fought alongside the USA in all its wars over the last century, from WW1 and WW2 to Korea to Vietnam to the Gulf War, the Iraq War and Afghanistan.
The UK of course opted out of the Vietnam War under Wilson
The Brexiteers are of course wise to this plan and are setting out to stop her. Since it is now obvious to anyone with a brain that CETA is the only solution, all Brexiteer roads lead that way. The only difference is the method - (a) kick out May and do it now, (b) No Deal and do it later or (c) EFTA now and CETA later. But once May signs the NI backstop it will be impossible to have a real FTA which is why she is doing it.
Which confirms that nobody thinks No Deal is sustainable as an end state and is just being proposed as a negotiating tactic. Even the hardest of hard Brexiteers implicitly concede that we need a deal with the EU.
McCain was, according to reports, in favour of every recent US intervention abroad, including some which were proposed but not implemented. Had he become President, I suspect that some of those now treating him as a sort of secular saint would be singing a very different tune. Harsh as this may sound, some of the pro-McCain eulogising seems to be as much about attacking Trump as about McCain’s virtues. Politics, no doubt.
Indeed.
The 'America is great it doesn't need to be made great again' line is amusing when we're regularly told that for decades the inequality has grown as the wealth has been hoovered up by the 1% with the incomes of the rest stagnating.
I’m confused again. I had assumed from noises off that we are close to a deal with with EU based on Chequers.
However I see there is now a large faction pushing for “EFTA then CETA”, with the backing of Gove.
Feels there are now four groups in the Tories.
Chequers (Mayites) No deal ultras (Moggites) EFTA then CETA (Goveites) Remainers (Soubrettes).
Not hard to understand. May's 'deal' is not built around Chequers. It is built around paying the EU 40bn simply for a transition period so she can kick the can down the road for two more years and save her worthless arse.
To do that, all the EU need to do is issue a 'political declaration' (eg a completely non binding and worthless paper) that makes it LOOK like Chequers is the solution and that it will solve the NI problem. Then, the moment it is signed and we are on the hook for the money, everything will become a problem again and Chequers will be slowly picked apart, but at that time the UK will have no cards left to play. Just as Olly Robbins planned.
So, from this point of view, we are close to a deal. May is lying when she says the political declaration will be worth anything. It will be very vague, and very short. She will simply spin it as a deal hopeful that the Remainer establishment will back her up. The EU are happy to play this game.
The issue is now how do they come up with an NI backstop text that gives the EU everything it wants (eg a way to torpedo the statements in the political declaration later and force us into a full CU and SM compliance) but that will allow May and the Tory sheep to declare a deal and get the withdrawal agreement signed. I suspect they will manage something.
The Brexiteers are of course wise to this plan and are setting out to stop her. Since it is now obvious to anyone with a brain that CETA is the only solution, all Brexiteer roads lead that way. The only difference is the method - (a) kick out May and do it now, (b) No Deal and do it later or (c) EFTA now and CETA later. But once May signs the NI backstop it will be impossible to have a real FTA which is why she is doing it.
So the battle begins.
Thanks.
As a Remainer, I’d much prefer (c) EFTA now. It is, with the CU besides, the only logical way to transition from the EU. Whether that remains a permanent limbo state, or merely a passage to CETA is up for democratic debate.
Unholy alliance of No Dealers and Remainers to depose May’s plan?
I’m confused again. I had assumed from noises off that we are close to a deal with with EU based on Chequers.
However I see there is now a large faction pushing for “EFTA then CETA”, with the backing of Gove.
Feels there are now four groups in the Tories.
Chequers (Mayites) No deal ultras (Moggites) EFTA then CETA (Goveites) Remainers (Soubrettes).
The other thing to bear in mind is that the EU insisted on parking the end state arrangement until after Brexit. This was agreed by the UK in December last year. In any case there isn't time to negotiate it by spring next year, even if we were in a fit state to negotiate anything. Chequers and CETA can only be indicative arrangements at this stage.
The important thing now is what to do about the NI backstop, if anything, and can a standstill extension of arrangements be implemented to avoid a chaotic exit?
Edit if Chequers depends on "Mayites" it's in dodgy place. I'm not sure even Theresa May is a Mayite. No-one else is, certainly.
David Davis says he will vote against the Chequers Deal if it comes back to Parliament as the basis of the Deal with the EU on Marr. Says NI border issue overestimated, only issue rules of origin of goods which can be dealt with at ports, already VAT and excise duties etc anyway there.
I can't get very excited about whether a dead chicken is washed in chlorine or some other method that kills e. coli etc. - as long as they work.
The much bigger issue is the living conditions of the chickens before they are killed. We should not compromise on the highest standards there.
I’m not sure I agree with the last statement. The highest standards in food production can put it out of the reach of most people: Waygu beef from Japan is an extreme example here. We should find a set of standards we can all agree are adequate (in the literal sense) and make sure everyone at least matches them. Those who want to exceed them should be able to use that as marketing and the standards should change with time, but increasing the cost to consumers is not something to be taken lightly.
We should certainly not allow people to sell us food that is produced in a way that is lower than our set of standards, I'm sure we can agree on that.
Or you are confronted with the notion that, yes the poor can have affordable food - but it requires animals to suffer...
You haven’t been to Stansted have you? Not recommended.
Luton is worse, though the sushi takeaway is quite a bright spot.
I was in Vienna this week and was reflecting that UK airports (or at least the London area ones) are actually not that bad compared to other European and American airports. Vienna for example had only two sitdown eating options once past passport control. Berlin Schoenefeld surprisingly is a particularly awful example of an airport.
I like the layout of European airports, streets ahead of UK, no herding you in to spend money , normally very open eating places / bars and shopping.
I’m confused again. I had assumed from noises off that we are close to a deal with with EU based on Chequers.
However I see there is now a large faction pushing for “EFTA then CETA”, with the backing of Gove.
Feels there are now four groups in the Tories.
Chequers (Mayites) No deal ultras (Moggites) EFTA then CETA (Goveites) Remainers (Soubrettes).
The other thing to bear in mind is that the EU insisted on parking the end state arrangement until after Brexit. This was agreed by the UK in December last year. In any case there isn't time to negotiate it by spring next year, even if we were in a fit state to negotiate anything. Chequers and CETA can only be indicative arrangements at this stage.
The important thing now is what to do about the NI backstop, if anything, and can a standstill extension of arrangements be implemented to avoid a chaotic exit?
Whoever succeeds May, it looks on the EU as though they are going to inherit a shit-sandwich buffet....
Hopefully not from chicken though. Hope she gets well soon. You never heard of Sepsis till last year or so and now it seems to be rampant , was it always there in such numbers or is it a recent thing. Scary.
I can't get very excited about whether a dead chicken is washed in chlorine or some other method that kills e. coli etc. - as long as they work.
The much bigger issue is the living conditions of the chickens before they are killed. We should not compromise on the highest standards there.
I’m not sure I agree with the last statement. The highest standards in food production can put it out of the reach of most people: Waygu beef from Japan is an extreme example here. We should find a set of standards we can all agree are adequate (in the literal sense) and make sure everyone at least matches them. Those who want to exceed them should be able to use that as marketing and the standards should change with time, but increasing the cost to consumers is not something to be taken lightly.
We should certainly not allow people to sell us food that is produced in a way that is lower than our set of standards, I'm sure we can agree on that.
Or you are confronted with the notion that, yes the poor can have affordable food - but it requires animals to suffer...
Good video as always Robert. As you say, trying to get a comprehensive free trade agreement with the USA is the work of a decade unless we want to swap one type of ruletaking for another. IMO what’s more likely is a number of sectoral agreements where standards are currently closely aligned, such as financial services, aerospace, industrial machinery, maybe even wine, which may over time move towards something larger in scope. As you say agriculture will be the biggest sticking point, we’d welcome imports of USDA beef, but most of the rest of US food production is cheap crap.
I really loathe the way parts of the British political class cling onto this ludicrous idea that there is some sort of special Anglo- American relationship and the way we abase ourselves before the US. We will have interests in common and be allies but behaving like the US’s bitch, while believing ourselves to be more important than we really are, is delusional, demeaning and pathetic. And it stops us being realistic about our true place in the world and what we should sensibly aim for.
Anyway, off out for a trip round a garden in the Lakes open for the last day this year under the NGS scheme, to get ideas for my own. One of my modest ambitions is one day to open my own under this scheme. We are facing months of building work in the house so I try and keep cheerful by focusing in the loveliness at the end rather than the mess and bills in the interim.
Have a good day all.
Do we have a special relationship with the USA?
Well we work very closely on security matters and intelligence gathering. The money spent on GCHQ means that we still have plenty to offer in that field. This works to our advantage.
We work closely together through NATO and the UN. This is currently under strain.
Political ideas seem to transmit more readily than is normal between 2 independent countries. This is largely but not exclusively 1 way. Most of our politicians have some experience of US think tanks etc. Whilst you get the odd Rhodes scholar like Bill Clinton it is a much smaller trickle the other way although Thatcherism had some impact.
We remain the largest private sector investor in the US and they remain the largest foreign investor here.
So I would say yes, it is a close relationship. But it of course has its limits as Vietnam and Trump show in their different ways. We should not delude ourselves about having influence over the US nor should we act contrary to our own interests to maintain that delusion of influence but it is the case that in many cases we will be on the same page.
McCain was, according to reports, in favour of every recent US intervention abroad, including some which were proposed but not implemented. Had he become President, I suspect that some of those now treating him as a sort of secular saint would be singing a very different tune. Harsh as this may sound, some of the pro-McCain eulogising seems to be as much about attacking Trump as about McCain’s virtues. Politics, no doubt.
Indeed.
The 'America is great it doesn't need to be made great again' line is amusing when we're regularly told that for decades the inequality has grown as the wealth has been hoovered up by the 1% with the incomes of the rest stagnating.
The fact of Trump’s election proves that a significant part of the US population doesn’t think that life in America is great right now.
As Ms Cyclefree puts it eloquently as ever, the comments seem to be more about having a go at the President than celebrating the life of Sen McCain.
Good video as always Robert. As you say, trying to get a comprehensive free trade agreement with the USA is the work of a decade unless we want to swap one type of ruletaking for another. IMO what’s more likely is a number of sectoral agreements where standards are currently closely aligned, such as financial services, aerospace, industrial machinery, maybe even wine, which may over time move towards something larger in scope. As you say agriculture will be the biggest sticking point, we’d welcome imports of USDA beef, but most of the rest of US food production is cheap crap.
You mention wine. There's a trap here.
If our FTA with America lets them sell Californian champagne, how will we reconcile that with the EU -- a far more important market -- insisting that only French fizz can be labelled champagne?
David Davis says he will vote against the Chequers Deal if it comes back to Parliament as the basis of the Deal with the EU on Marr. Says NI border issue overestimated, only issue rules of origin of goods which can be dealt with at ports, already VAT and excise duties etc anyway there.
Hopefully not from chicken though. Hope she gets well soon. You never heard of Sepsis till last year or so and now it seems to be rampant , was it always there in such numbers or is it a recent thing. Scary.
No, it’s always been there. (I think it’s thought many of the 1918 influenza victims died of sepsis.)
The consensus definition of the syndromes which the term covers was only agreed on in the early 90s, so naturally diagnosis has improved in recent years. Incidence has probably increased in the UK thanks to an ageing population, but as I understand it, relative mortality rates have dropped as diagnosis and treatments have improved. No doubt our resident doctors can correct any of my misunderstandings.
David Davis says he will vote against the Chequers Deal if it comes back to Parliament as the basis of the Deal with the EU on Marr. Says NI border issue overestimated, only issue rules of origin of goods which can be dealt with at ports, already VAT and excise duties etc anyway there.
McDonnell confirms Labour policy is not to have a second EU referendum and would instead call for a general election first to judge any Deal or no Deal with the EU
McDonnell confirms Labour policy is not to have a second EU referendum and would instead call for a general election first to judge any Deal or no Deal with the EU
Yes but is that surprising? It is the opposition's job to call for a general election for any contingency, even if they don't like Jeremy Hunt's socks. What will Labour do when the Prime Minister refuses a 2019 election?
McDonnell confirms Labour policy is not to have a second EU referendum and would instead call for a general election first to judge any Deal or no Deal with the EU
So Labour will vote against any Brexit deal, in the hope that this will force a general election, where Labour will win a majority, and then be able to implement - er, what, exactly on Brexit?
McDonnell confirms Labour policy is not to have a second EU referendum and would instead call for a general election first to judge any Deal or no Deal with the EU
So Labour will vote against any Brexit deal, in the hope that this will force a general election, where Labour will win a majority, and then be able to implement - er, what, exactly on Brexit?
Good video as always Robert. As you say, trying to get a comprehensive free trade agreement with the USA is the work of a decade unless we want to swap one type of ruletaking for another. IMO what’s more likely is a number of sectoral agreements where standards are currently closely aligned, such as financial services, aerospace, industrial machinery, maybe even wine, which may over time move towards something larger in scope. As you say agriculture will be the biggest sticking point, we’d welcome imports of USDA beef, but most of the rest of US food production is cheap crap.
You mention wine. There's a trap here.
If our FTA with America lets them sell Californian champagne, how will we reconcile that with the EU -- a far more important market -- insisting that only French fizz can be labelled champagne?
No-one said it was going to be easy!
It’s not a trap at all, well not for the UK anyway. If the EU want to talk about geographic indicators then they can offer us a comprehensive trade agreement.
McDonnell confirms Labour policy is not to have a second EU referendum and would instead call for a general election first to judge any Deal or no Deal with the EU
So Labour will vote against any Brexit deal, in the hope that this will force a general election, where Labour will win a majority, and then be able to implement - er, what, exactly on Brexit?
Good question, right up there with such classics as: what's the government's position on Brexit?
It turns out that Boris Johnson is the Walter Bagehot de nos jours, with his cake policy on Brexit.
McDonnell confirms Labour policy is not to have a second EU referendum and would instead call for a general election first to judge any Deal or no Deal with the EU
So Labour will vote against any Brexit deal, in the hope that this will force a general election, where Labour will win a majority, and then be able to implement - er, what, exactly on Brexit?
What do they care they'll be in power.
Not one poll gives Labour a majority, if they get in power it will likely be propped up by minor parties and then having to deal with Brexit (having rejected a deal) and their spending promises
McDonnell confirms Labour policy is not to have a second EU referendum and would instead call for a general election first to judge any Deal or no Deal with the EU
Yes but is that surprising? It is the opposition's job to call for a general election for any contingency, even if they don't like Jeremy Hunt's socks. What will Labour do when the Prime Minister refuses a 2019 election?
McDonnell confirms Labour policy is not to have a second EU referendum and would instead call for a general election first to judge any Deal or no Deal with the EU
So Labour will vote against any Brexit deal, in the hope that this will force a general election, where Labour will win a majority, and then be able to implement - er, what, exactly on Brexit?
The chance of no specific deal at all being able to pass the Commons gets higher every day.
The question is will Labour take it to the point of actually leaving with no deal, given that very few of them want that outcome and they could end up with a fair amount of the blame?
McDonnell confirms Labour policy is not to have a second EU referendum and would instead call for a general election first to judge any Deal or no Deal with the EU
So Labour will vote against any Brexit deal, in the hope that this will force a general election, where Labour will win a majority, and then be able to implement - er, what, exactly on Brexit?
What do they care they'll be in power.
Not one poll gives Labour a majority, if they get in power it will likely be propped up by minor parties and then having to deal with Brexit (having rejected a deal) and their spending promises
Polls today are not very useful to judging how a true Brexit election would play out.
I’m confused again. I had assumed from noises off that we are close to a deal with with EU based on Chequers.
However I see there is now a large faction pushing for “EFTA then CETA”, with the backing of Gove.
Feels there are now four groups in the Tories.
Chequers (Mayites) No deal ultras (Moggites) EFTA then CETA (Goveites) Remainers (Soubrettes).
Not hard to understand. May's 'deal' is not built around Chequers. It is built around paying the EU 40bn simply for a transition period so she can kick the can down the road for two more years and save her worthless arse.
To do that, all the EU need to do is issue a 'political declaration' (eg a completely non binding and worthless paper) that makes it LOOK like Chequers is the solution and that it will solve the NI problem. Then, the moment it is signed and we are on the hook for the money, everything will become a problem again and Chequers will be slowly picked apart, but at that time the UK will have no cards left to play. Just as Olly Robbins planned.
So, from this point of view, we are close to a deal. May is lying when she says the political declaration will be worth anything. It will be very vague, and very short. She will simply spin it as a deal hopeful that the Remainer establishment will back her up. The EU are happy to play this game.
The issue is now how do they come up with an NI backstop text that gives the EU everything it wants (eg a way to torpedo the statements in the political declaration later and force us into a full CU and SM compliance) but that will allow May and the Tory sheep to declare a deal and get the withdrawal agreement signed. I suspect they will manage something.
The Brexiteers are of course wise to this plan and are setting out to stop her. Since it is now obvious to anyone with a brain that CETA is the only solution, all Brexiteer roads lead that way. The only difference is the method - (a) kick out May and do it now, (b) No Deal and do it later or (c) EFTA now and CETA later. But once May signs the NI backstop it will be impossible to have a real FTA which is why she is doing it.
So the battle begins.
Pretty much. However CETA isn't the solution. It might be in ten years time, by which time much water will have flowed under the bridge and I expect people will be heartily fed up. In the meantime, the EU calls the shots. Do we want a "transition period" ? It isn't just a Robbins / May plot. People voted for a "Brexit dividend". The UK government needs to hang on to as much of the status quo as possible.
Good video as always Robert. As you say, trying to get a comprehensive free trade agreement with the USA is the work of a decade unless we want to swap one type of ruletaking for another. IMO what’s more likely is a number of sectoral agreements where standards are currently closely aligned, such as financial services, aerospace, industrial machinery, maybe even wine, which may over time move towards something larger in scope. As you say agriculture will be the biggest sticking point, we’d welcome imports of USDA beef, but most of the rest of US food production is cheap crap.
You mention wine. There's a trap here.
If our FTA with America lets them sell Californian champagne, how will we reconcile that with the EU -- a far more important market -- insisting that only French fizz can be labelled champagne?
No-one said it was going to be easy!
It’s not a trap at all, well not for the UK anyway. If the EU want to talk about geographic indicators then they can offer us a comprehensive trade agreement.
You miss the point. It is a trap because different countries will make different demands that are just not compatible with each other. Champagne is just a clear and simple example. Imagine it multiplied by every good in every sector in every market that we want to trade in. That is why FTAs take years.
McDonnell confirms Labour policy is not to have a second EU referendum and would instead call for a general election first to judge any Deal or no Deal with the EU
So Labour will vote against any Brexit deal, in the hope that this will force a general election, where Labour will win a majority, and then be able to implement - er, what, exactly on Brexit?
What do they care they'll be in power.
Not one poll gives Labour a majority, if they get in power it will likely be propped up by minor parties and then having to deal with Brexit (having rejected a deal) and their spending promises
Polls today are not very useful to judging how a true Brexit election would play out.
On a true Brexit election the LDs would likely be up further at the expense of Labour amongst Remainers and UKIP up further at the expense of the Tories amongst Leavers
McDonnell confirms Labour policy is not to have a second EU referendum and would instead call for a general election first to judge any Deal or no Deal with the EU
So Labour will vote against any Brexit deal, in the hope that this will force a general election, where Labour will win a majority, and then be able to implement - er, what, exactly on Brexit?
The chance of no specific deal at all being able to pass the Commons gets higher every day.
The question is will Labour take it to the point of actually leaving with no deal, given that very few of them want that outcome and they could end up with a fair amount of the blame?
If May has a deal with the EU, but Labour works with Mogg to bring it down (for its own naked ambition to bring the Govt. down then win an election) - then Labour will own No Deal Brexit.....
Good video as always Robert. As you say, trying to get a comprehensive free trade agreement with the USA is the work of a decade unless we want to swap one type of ruletaking for another. IMO what’s more likely is a number of sectoral agreements where standards are currently closely aligned, such as financial services, aerospace, industrial machinery, maybe even wine, which may over time move towards something larger in scope. As you say agriculture will be the biggest sticking point, we’d welcome imports of USDA beef, but most of the rest of US food production is cheap crap.
You mention wine. There's a trap here.
If our FTA with America lets them sell Californian champagne, how will we reconcile that with the EU -- a far more important market -- insisting that only French fizz can be labelled champagne?
No-one said it was going to be easy!
It’s not a trap at all, well not for the UK anyway. If the EU want to talk about geographic indicators then they can offer us a comprehensive trade agreement.
You miss the point. It is a trap because different countries will make different demands that are just not compatible with each other. Champagne is just a clear and simple example. Imagine it multiplied by every good in every sector in every market that we want to trade in. That is why FTAs take years.
It’s not a trap, it’s just how these things work and why they take so long.
What the EU are seeking to do, is to tie us into their rules on labelling without offerering a trade deal, thus actively preventing us from talking to other countries. This has been their plan all along and it’s right that we call them on it.
McDonnell confirms Labour policy is not to have a second EU referendum and would instead call for a general election first to judge any Deal or no Deal with the EU
So Labour will vote against any Brexit deal, in the hope that this will force a general election, where Labour will win a majority, and then be able to implement - er, what, exactly on Brexit?
The chance of no specific deal at all being able to pass the Commons gets higher every day.
The question is will Labour take it to the point of actually leaving with no deal, given that very few of them want that outcome and they could end up with a fair amount of the blame?
If May has a deal with the EU, but Labour works with Mogg to bring it down (for its own naked ambition to bring the Govt. down then win an election) - then Labour will own No Deal Brexit.....
No, Brexit will be owned by the Tories whatever the outcome; that die is already cast.
McDonnell confirms Labour policy is not to have a second EU referendum and would instead call for a general election first to judge any Deal or no Deal with the EU
So Labour will vote against any Brexit deal, in the hope that this will force a general election, where Labour will win a majority, and then be able to implement - er, what, exactly on Brexit?
What do they care they'll be in power.
In office maybe. In power? What's our policy today, Nichola?
McDonnell confirms Labour policy is not to have a second EU referendum and would instead call for a general election first to judge any Deal or no Deal with the EU
So Labour will vote against any Brexit deal, in the hope that this will force a general election, where Labour will win a majority, and then be able to implement - er, what, exactly on Brexit?
The chance of no specific deal at all being able to pass the Commons gets higher every day.
The question is will Labour take it to the point of actually leaving with no deal, given that very few of them want that outcome and they could end up with a fair amount of the blame?
If May has a deal with the EU, but Labour works with Mogg to bring it down (for its own naked ambition to bring the Govt. down then win an election) - then Labour will own No Deal Brexit.....
If that scenario played out and the Commons voted down May's deal she might well try and get a Deal or No Deal referendum through the Commons.
If that also failed as No Remain option and as is likely the Tories voted down a referendum with a Remain option too we may then go to a general election with Boris leading the Tories fighting for No Deal Brexit and Corbyn leading Labour having opposed a Deal too
Good video as always Robert. As you say, trying to get a comprehensive free trade agreement with the USA is the work of a decade unless we want to swap one type of ruletaking for another. IMO what’s more likely is a number of sectoral agreements where standards are currently closely aligned, such as financial services, aerospace, industrial machinery, maybe even wine, which may over time move towards something larger in scope. As you say agriculture will be the biggest sticking point, we’d welcome imports of USDA beef, but most of the rest of US food production is cheap crap.
You mention wine. There's a trap here.
If our FTA with America lets them sell Californian champagne, how will we reconcile that with the EU -- a far more important market -- insisting that only French fizz can be labelled champagne?
No-one said it was going to be easy!
It’s not a trap at all, well not for the UK anyway. If the EU want to talk about geographic indicators then they can offer us a comprehensive trade agreement.
You miss the point. It is a trap because different countries will make different demands that are just not compatible with each other. Champagne is just a clear and simple example. Imagine it multiplied by every good in every sector in every market that we want to trade in. That is why FTAs take years.
It’s not a trap, it’s just how these things work and why they take so long.
What the EU are seeking to do, is to tie us into their rules on labelling without offerering a trade deal, thus actively preventing us from talking to other countries. This has been their plan all along and it’s right that we call them on it.
"Without offering a trade deal"? The EU is offering a menu of deals.
McDonnell confirms Labour policy is not to have a second EU referendum and would instead call for a general election first to judge any Deal or no Deal with the EU
So Labour will vote against any Brexit deal, in the hope that this will force a general election, where Labour will win a majority, and then be able to implement - er, what, exactly on Brexit?
The chance of no specific deal at all being able to pass the Commons gets higher every day.
The question is will Labour take it to the point of actually leaving with no deal, given that very few of them want that outcome and they could end up with a fair amount of the blame?
If May has a deal with the EU, but Labour works with Mogg to bring it down (for its own naked ambition to bring the Govt. down then win an election) - then Labour will own No Deal Brexit.....
No, Brexit will be owned by the Tories whatever the outcome; that die is already cast.
Not sure - a lot depends on the circumumstances. I am sure you hope so but hope may not be enough
McDonnell confirms Labour policy is not to have a second EU referendum and would instead call for a general election first to judge any Deal or no Deal with the EU
So Labour will vote against any Brexit deal, in the hope that this will force a general election, where Labour will win a majority, and then be able to implement - er, what, exactly on Brexit?
The chance of no specific deal at all being able to pass the Commons gets higher every day.
The question is will Labour take it to the point of actually leaving with no deal, given that very few of them want that outcome and they could end up with a fair amount of the blame?
If May has a deal with the EU, but Labour works with Mogg to bring it down (for its own naked ambition to bring the Govt. down then win an election) - then Labour will own No Deal Brexit.....
No, Brexit will be owned by the Tories whatever the outcome; that die is already cast.
The British people voted for Brexit against the advice of the Tory PM at the time, May is trying to get a reasonable Deal that respects the Brexit vote, if Corbyn forces No Deal and in a general election where voters decide whether they want Boris or Corbyn to lead No Deal Brexit Britain Boris may then win
Good video as always Robert. As you say, trying to get a comprehensive free trade agreement with the USA is the work of a decade unless we want to swap one type of ruletaking for another. IMO what’s more likely is a number of sectoral agreements where standards are currently closely aligned, such as financial services, aerospace, industrial machinery, maybe even wine, which may over time move towards something larger in scope. As you say agriculture will be the biggest sticking point, we’d welcome imports of USDA beef, but most of the rest of US food production is cheap crap.
You mention wine. There's a trap here.
If our FTA with America lets them sell Californian champagne, how will we reconcile that with the EU -- a far more important market -- insisting that only French fizz can be labelled champagne?
No-one said it was going to be easy!
It’s not a trap at all, well not for the UK anyway. If the EU want to talk about geographic indicators then they can offer us a comprehensive trade agreement.
You miss the point. It is a trap because different countries will make different demands that are just not compatible with each other. Champagne is just a clear and simple example. Imagine it multiplied by every good in every sector in every market that we want to trade in. That is why FTAs take years.
It’s not a trap, it’s just how these things work and why they take so long.
What the EU are seeking to do, is to tie us into their rules on labelling without offerering a trade deal, thus actively preventing us from talking to other countries. This has been their plan all along and it’s right that we call them on it.
And America will do the same. We can't take American terms because that will scupper a European deal. We can't take European terms because they will scupper an American deal. Either one will scupper a Chinese deal. That is why something as straightforward-looking as wine is a trap.
Of those two markets, Europe is far more important, not because the EU is lovely but because it is closer.
McDonnell confirms Labour policy is not to have a second EU referendum and would instead call for a general election first to judge any Deal or no Deal with the EU
So Labour will vote against any Brexit deal, in the hope that this will force a general election, where Labour will win a majority, and then be able to implement - er, what, exactly on Brexit?
BINO, with some kind of Cameron-esque Free Movement face-saver, and they'll pretend it's transitional. They'd blame the Tories for not leaving enough time to do anything else, which would have the virtue of being true.
I guess the SNP would vote for this too if he needs them; It removes most of the short-term practical downsides of Brexit for Scottish voters, but also gives them an upside for independence, because an independent Scotland could join the EU and get their influence back.
McDonnell confirms Labour policy is not to have a second EU referendum and would instead call for a general election first to judge any Deal or no Deal with the EU
So Labour will vote against any Brexit deal, in the hope that this will force a general election, where Labour will win a majority, and then be able to implement - er, what, exactly on Brexit?
The chance of no specific deal at all being able to pass the Commons gets higher every day.
The question is will Labour take it to the point of actually leaving with no deal, given that very few of them want that outcome and they could end up with a fair amount of the blame?
If May has a deal with the EU, but Labour works with Mogg to bring it down (for its own naked ambition to bring the Govt. down then win an election) - then Labour will own No Deal Brexit.....
Indeed. Mindless opposition to whatever ends up proposed could cost them dear, and lead to an outcome that none of them want.
In the event of no deal, or a very limited deal, Parliament is going to have to sit 18 hours a day for the spring, in order to get all the necessary legislation and ratification of various agreements passed.
There’s no chance whatsoever of an election before we leave the EU, unless several Conservative or DUP MPs are prepared to cross the floor to no-confidence their own government (and be expelled from their party).
McDonnell confirms Labour policy is not to have a second EU referendum and would instead call for a general election first to judge any Deal or no Deal with the EU
So Labour will vote against any Brexit deal, in the hope that this will force a general election, where Labour will win a majority, and then be able to implement - er, what, exactly on Brexit?
The chance of no specific deal at all being able to pass the Commons gets higher every day.
The question is will Labour take it to the point of actually leaving with no deal, given that very few of them want that outcome and they could end up with a fair amount of the blame?
If May has a deal with the EU, but Labour works with Mogg to bring it down (for its own naked ambition to bring the Govt. down then win an election) - then Labour will own No Deal Brexit.....
No, Brexit will be owned by the Tories whatever the outcome; that die is already cast.
The British people voted for Brexit against the advice of the Tory PM at the time, May is trying to get a reasonable Deal that respects the Brexit vote, if Corbyn forces No Deal and in a general election where voters decide whether they want Boris or Corbyn to lead No Deal Brexit Britain Boris may then win
In that scenario I agree with you. Indeed it would be who do you want to run the Country, not just Brexit
McDonnell confirms Labour policy is not to have a second EU referendum and would instead call for a general election first to judge any Deal or no Deal with the EU
So Labour will vote against any Brexit deal, in the hope that this will force a general election, where Labour will win a majority, and then be able to implement - er, what, exactly on Brexit?
BINO, with some kind of Cameron-esque Free Movement face-saver, and they'll pretend it's transitional. They'd blame the Tories for not leaving enough time to do anything else, which would have the virtue of being true.
I guess the SNP would vote for this too if he needs them; It removes most of the short-term practical downsides of Brexit for Scottish voters, but also gives them an upside for independence, because an independent Scotland could join the EU and get their influence back.
Why would an independent Scotland get its influence back in the EU, it would have gone from being one of 4 nations in the UK to one of 27 in the EU and a minnow at that compared to the likes of France and Germany and Italy and Spain and Poland.
Indeed Chequers Deal terms Brexit probably reduces the chances of Scottish independence a little as it avoids hard Brexit
Good video as always Robert. As you say, trying to get a comprehensive free trade agreement with the USA is the work of a decade unless we want to swap one type of ruletaking for another. IMO what’s more likely is a number of sectoral agreements where standards are currently closely aligned, such as financial services, aerospace, industrial machinery, maybe even wine, which may over time move towards something larger in scope. As you say agriculture will be the biggest sticking point, we’d welcome imports of USDA beef, but most of the rest of US food production is cheap crap.
You mention wine. There's a trap here.
If our FTA with America lets them sell Californian champagne, how will we reconcile that with the EU -- a far more important market -- insisting that only French fizz can be labelled champagne?
No-one said it was going to be easy!
It’s not a trap at all, well not for the UK anyway. If the EU want to talk about geographic indicators then they can offer us a comprehensive trade agreement.
You miss the point. It is a trap because different countries will make different demands that are just not compatible with each other. Champagne is just a clear and simple example. Imagine it multiplied by every good in every sector in every market that we want to trade in. That is why FTAs take years.
It’s not a trap, it’s just how these things work and why they take so long.
What the EU are seeking to do, is to tie us into their rules on labelling without offerering a trade deal, thus actively preventing us from talking to other countries. This has been their plan all along and it’s right that we call them on it.
"Without offering a trade deal"? The EU is offering a menu of deals.
No, they’re trying to put GIs into the Withdrawal Agreement, alongside some fluffy words about discussing a trade deal. By all means put them into the trade deal, but we will sign up to the GIs at the same time as the trade deal.
Good video as always Robert. As you say, trying to get a comprehensive free trade agreement with the USA is the work of a decade unless we want to swap one type of ruletaking for another. IMO what’s more likely is a number of sectoral agreements where standards are currently closely aligned, such as financial services, aerospace, industrial machinery, maybe even wine, which may over time move towards something larger in scope. As you say agriculture will be the biggest sticking point, we’d welcome imports of USDA beef, but most of the rest of US food production is cheap crap.
Disagree. Like all Roberts videos, they simply justify a base political position with the veneer of analysis. FTAs do not involve ruletaking, nor are they 'won' by the larger economy. FTAs are complex, but basically they are win-win constructs (except when dealing with the EU, whose objectives are political and not economic). The delays are caused by parties trying to build in protectionism. However, in the case of the UK, we are not that interested in protectionism of our industry. We are interested in exporting services. And this can easily be agreed with the US.
The proof is to look at open minded small economies, such as Australia and NZ, who make FTAs with large numbers of partners very quickly and easily. They do not submit to these partners, and certainly don't adopt their rules. They don't 'lose'. They are simply not protectionist by nature and therefore don't hold up deals for endless vested interests (like, er, the EU).
The agricultural issues with the US are massively overstated. Nobody actually argues that US food is not safe. The EU simply object to their methods as a form of protectionism.
The golden rule of international trade is that it is method-agnostic. Why should we refuse US chicken because we don't like 'animal cruelty' when we import goods from countries that have no employment protections and treat employees like virtual slaves? We do so because we subscribe to the view that it is the product standard that matters, not how they got there.
Of course, the person arguing against this is Trump - he claims that we should not follow these rules but base trade solely on the various interests of the home state, of which for example outsourcing to take advantage of cheap exploited labour is not a good thing at all. So really, those saying we should block US food imports are really agreeing with his view of international trade. Oh, the irony.....
McDonnell confirms Labour policy is not to have a second EU referendum and would instead call for a general election first to judge any Deal or no Deal with the EU
So Labour will vote against any Brexit deal, in the hope that this will force a general election, where Labour will win a majority, and then be able to implement - er, what, exactly on Brexit?
BINO, with some kind of Cameron-esque Free Movement face-saver, and they'll pretend it's transitional. They'd blame the Tories for not leaving enough time to do anything else, which would have the virtue of being true.
I guess the SNP would vote for this too if he needs them; It removes most of the short-term practical downsides of Brexit for Scottish voters, but also gives them an upside for independence, because an independent Scotland could join the EU and get their influence back.
Why would an independent Scotland get its influence back in the EU, it would have gone from being one of 4 nations in the UK to one of 27 in the EU and a minnow at that compared to the likes of France and Germany and Italy and Spain and Poland.
Indeed Chequers Deal terms Brexit probably reduces the chances of Scottish independence a little as it avoids hard Brexit
And a giant compared to Malta, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Estonia, etc...
If the UK had a federal structure like the EU, Scotland's Remain vote would have constituted a veto on Brexit.
I’m confused again. I had assumed from noises off that we are close to a deal with with EU based on Chequers.
However I see there is now a large faction pushing for “EFTA then CETA”, with the backing of Gove.
Feels there are now four groups in the Tories.
Chequers (Mayites) No deal ultras (Moggites) EFTA then CETA (Goveites) Remainers (Soubrettes).
Not hard to understand. May's 'deal' is not built around Chequers. It is built around paying the EU 40bn simply for a transition period so she can kick the can down the road for two more years and save her worthless arse.
To do that, all the EU need to do is issue a 'political declaration' (eg a completely non binding and worthless paper) that makes it LOOK like Chequers is the solution and that it will solve the NI problem. Then, the moment it is signed and we are on the hook for the money, everything will become a problem again and Chequers will be slowly picked apart, but at that time the UK will have no cards left to play. Just as Olly Robbins planned.
Snip
The Brexiteers are of course wise to this plan and are setting out to stop her. Since it is now obvious to anyone with a brain that CETA is the only solution, all Brexiteer roads lead that way. The only difference is the method - (a) kick out May and do it now, (b) No Deal and do it later or (c) EFTA now and CETA later. But once May signs the NI backstop it will be impossible to have a real FTA which is why she is doing it.
So the battle begins.
Thanks.
As a Remainer, I’d much prefer (c) EFTA now. It is, with the CU besides, the only logical way to transition from the EU. Whether that remains a permanent limbo state, or merely a passage to CETA is up for democratic debate.
Unholy alliance of No Dealers and Remainers to depose May’s plan?
I’m beginning to agree with you. It certainly doesn’t appear that May’s mutant deal will be any better.
North pere et fils were right about this. The problem is that they are terrible at influencing other people, and hence Steven Kinnock and a couple of the Tory Remainers are the only ones pushing this line.
We could go straight into EEA/EFTA, with customs union membership until December 2020, plus full application of all freedom of movement controls that we have rights to enforce but choose not to. We could then reopen the merits or otherwise of EEA after the next election.
McDonnell confirms Labour policy is not to have a second EU referendum and would instead call for a general election first to judge any Deal or no Deal with the EU
So Labour will vote against any Brexit deal, in the hope that this will force a general election, where Labour will win a majority, and then be able to implement - er, what, exactly on Brexit?
The chance of no specific deal at all being able to pass the Commons gets higher every day.
The question is will Labour take it to the point of actually leaving with no deal, given that very few of them want that outcome and they could end up with a fair amount of the blame?
If May has a deal with the EU, but Labour works with Mogg to bring it down (for its own naked ambition to bring the Govt. down then win an election) - then Labour will own No Deal Brexit.....
No, Brexit will be owned by the Tories whatever the outcome; that die is already cast.
The British people voted for Brexit against the advice of the Tory PM at the time, May is trying to get a reasonable Deal that respects the Brexit vote, if Corbyn forces No Deal and in a general election where voters decide whether they want Boris or Corbyn to lead No Deal Brexit Britain Boris may then win
In that scenario I agree with you. Indeed it would be who do you want to run the Country, not just Brexit
Though I do not see it happening
It would only happen if Corbyn and the ERG voted down a Deal and May was forced to resign as PM and replaced by Boris as Tory leader and a general election shortly followed
McDonnell confirms Labour policy is not to have a second EU referendum and would instead call for a general election first to judge any Deal or no Deal with the EU
So Labour will vote against any Brexit deal, in the hope that this will force a general election, where Labour will win a majority, and then be able to implement - er, what, exactly on Brexit?
The chance of no specific deal at all being able to pass the Commons gets higher every day.
The question is will Labour take it to the point of actually leaving with no deal, given that very few of them want that outcome and they could end up with a fair amount of the blame?
If May has a deal with the EU, but Labour works with Mogg to bring it down (for its own naked ambition to bring the Govt. down then win an election) - then Labour will own No Deal Brexit.....
No, Brexit will be owned by the Tories whatever the outcome; that die is already cast.
The British people voted for Brexit against the advice of the Tory PM at the time, May is trying to get a reasonable Deal that respects the Brexit vote, if Corbyn forces No Deal and in a general election where voters decide whether they want Boris or Corbyn to lead No Deal Brexit Britain Boris may then win
In that scenario I agree with you. Indeed it would be who do you want to run the Country, not just Brexit
Though I do not see it happening
It would only happen if Corbyn and the ERG voted down a Deal and May was forced to resign as PM and replaced by Boris as Tory leader and a general election shortly followed
I’m very pleased to see alternatives to Chequers being put forward. They are necessary, because Chequers won’t fly as it is with the EU, and the backstop the EU want won’t get through Parliament.
We could go straight into EEA/EFTA, with customs union membership until December 2020...
EFTA is incompatible with a customs union with the EU, and arguably its absence is the defining characteristic of the EEA. Negotiating what you see as a quick fix would not be easy and may be impossible. It certainly can't be done as an alternative to a status quo transition.
McDonnell confirms Labour policy is not to have a second EU referendum and would instead call for a general election first to judge any Deal or no Deal with the EU
So Labour will vote against any Brexit deal, in the hope that this will force a general election, where Labour will win a majority, and then be able to implement - er, what, exactly on Brexit?
BINO, with some kind of Cameron-esque Free Movement face-saver, and they'll pretend it's transitional. They'd blame the Tories for not leaving enough time to do anything else, which would have the virtue of being true.
I guess the SNP would vote for this too if he needs them; It removes most of the short-term practical downsides of Brexit for Scottish voters, but also gives them an upside for independence, because an independent Scotland could join the EU and get their influence back.
Why would an independent Scotland get its influence back in the EU, it would have gone from being one of 4 nations in the UK to one of 27 in the EU and a minnow at that compared to the likes of France and Germany and Italy and Spain and Poland.
Indeed Chequers Deal terms Brexit probably reduces the chances of Scottish independence a little as it avoids hard Brexit
Because in BINO the rules that the UK (and Scotland) have to follow are still all made by the EU, the only difference with the status quo is that the UK can no longer vote on what they are.
I don't think anyone knows what Hard Brexit would do to the cause of Scottish Independence; On the one hand it would increase the attractiveness of being separate from the whole "United Kingdom" clusterfuck, but the experience might also discourage people from tinkering with constitutional settlements. But in the meantime it would totally shaft Scottish people, just as it totally shafted people in the rest of the UK.
We could go straight into EEA/EFTA, with customs union membership until December 2020...
EFTA is incompatible with a customs union with the EU, and arguably its absence is the defining characteristic of the EEA. Negotiating what you see as a quick fix would not be easy and may be impossible. It certainly can't be done as an alternative to a status quo transition.
I’m very pleased to see alternatives to Chequers being put forward. They are necessary, because Chequers won’t fly as it is with the EU, and the backstop the EU want won’t get through Parliament.
It is all part of the debate but the conservative party need to remember their thirst for power and not do anything that could let Corbyn near power
I’m beginning to agree with you. It certainly doesn’t appear that May’s mutant deal will be any better.
North pere et fils were right about this. The problem is that they are terrible at influencing other people, and hence Steven Kinnock and a couple of the Tory Remainers are the only ones pushing this line.
We could go straight into EEA/EFTA, with customs union membership until December 2020, plus full application of all freedom of movement controls that we have rights to enforce but choose not to. We could then reopen the merits or otherwise of EEA after the next election.
I’m not sure many will want to though.
The EEA lifeboat idea was rejected not just because North is a pain in the arse, it is because nobody trusts that it would not become permanent. As Marcus Fysh said, the EU would have absolutely no incentive to negotiate a CETA deal once we are safely in the EEA. And since to 'solve' the mythical NI border we have to be in the CU as well, it gives the EU exactly what it wants - full compliance with no say and FOM. And of course a guaranteed Tory wipeout at the next GE.
Fysh is wrong however about the Hague. The new EEA 'plan' involves us not paying the Brexit bill until CETA is agreed. The EU cannot, by any legal process, take the UK to the Hague for non payment (unless the UK agreed). But, equally, we cannot join the EEA unless the EU consent. Which they won't do unless we pay.
So, overall, this idea is crap, not surprising as it is from Gove.
McDonnell confirms Labour policy is not to have a second EU referendum and would instead call for a general election first to judge any Deal or no Deal with the EU
So Labour will vote against any Brexit deal, in the hope that this will force a general election, where Labour will win a majority, and then be able to implement - er, what, exactly on Brexit?
BINO, with some kind of Cameron-esque Free Movement face-saver, and they'll pretend it's transitional. They'd blame the Tories for not leaving enough time to do anything else, which would have the virtue of being true.
I guess the SNP would vote for this too if he needs them; It removes most of the short-term practical downsides of Brexit for Scottish voters, but also gives them an upside for independence, because an independent Scotland could join the EU and get their influence back.
Why would an independent Scotland get its influence back in the EU, it would have gone from being one of 4 nations in the UK to one of 27 in the EU and a minnow at that compared to the likes of France and Germany and Italy and Spain and Poland.
Indeed Chequers Deal terms Brexit probably reduces the chances of Scottish independence a little as it avoids hard Brexit
And a giant compared to Malta, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Estonia, etc...
If the UK had a federal structure like the EU, Scotland's Remain vote would have constituted a veto on Brexit.
Not Luxembourg which currently has the EU Commission President and ECJ.
Given Qualified Majority voting on most Council of Minister decisions Scotland would have few if any vetoes on anything, especially with votes allocated based on population even with weighting
McDonnell confirms Labour policy is not to have a second EU referendum and would instead call for a general election first to judge any Deal or no Deal with the EU
So Labour will vote against any Brexit deal, in the hope that this will force a general election, where Labour will win a majority, and then be able to implement - er, what, exactly on Brexit?
The chance of no specific deal at all being able to pass the Commons gets higher every day.
The question is will Labour take it to the point of actually leaving with no deal, given that very few of them want that outcome and they could end up with a fair amount of the blame?
If May has a deal with the EU, but Labour works with Mogg to bring it down (for its own naked ambition to bring the Govt. down then win an election) - then Labour will own No Deal Brexit.....
No, Brexit will be owned by the Tories whatever the outcome; that die is already cast.
The British people voted for Brexit against the advice of the Tory PM at the time, May is trying to get a reasonable Deal that respects the Brexit vote, if Corbyn forces No Deal and in a general election where voters decide whether they want Boris or Corbyn to lead No Deal Brexit Britain Boris may then win
In that scenario I agree with you. Indeed it would be who do you want to run the Country, not just Brexit
Though I do not see it happening
It would only happen if Corbyn and the ERG voted down a Deal and May was forced to resign as PM and replaced by Boris as Tory leader and a general election shortly followed
McDonnell confirms Labour policy is not to have a second EU referendum and would instead call for a general election first to judge any Deal or no Deal with the EU
So Labour will vote against any Brexit deal, in the hope that this will force a general election, where Labour will win a majority, and then be able to implement - er, what, exactly on Brexit?
BINO, with some kind of Cameron-esque Free Movement face-saver, and they'll pretend it's transitional. They'd blame the Tories for not leaving enough time to do anything else, which would have the virtue of being true.
I guess the SNP would vote for this too if he needs them; It removes most of the short-term practical downsides of Brexit for Scottish voters, but also gives them an upside for independence, because an independent Scotland could join the EU and get their influence back.
Why would an independent Scotland get its influence back in the EU, it would have gone from being one of 4 nations in the UK to one of 27 in the EU and a minnow at that compared to the likes of France and Germany and Italy and Spain and Poland.
Indeed Chequers Deal terms Brexit probably reduces the chances of Scottish independence a little as it avoids hard Brexit
Because in BINO the rules that the UK (and Scotland) have to follow are still all made by the EU, the only difference with the status quo is that the UK can no longer vote on what they are.
I don't think anyone knows what Hard Brexit would do to the cause of Scottish Independence; On the one hand it would increase the attractiveness of being separate from the whole "United Kingdom" clusterfuck, but the experience might also discourage people from tinkering with constitutional settlements. But in the meantime it would totally shaft Scottish people, just as it totally shafted people in the rest of the UK.
On Chequers Deal terms we would still end free movement and be out of the single market for Services.
I doubt hard Brexit changes the independence narrative much just as Brexit has not (as GE17 proved) but it would likely push independence a little more
McDonnell confirms Labour policy is not to have a second EU referendum and would instead call for a general election first to judge any Deal or no Deal with the EU
So Labour will vote against any Brexit deal, in the hope that this will force a general election, where Labour will win a majority, and then be able to implement - er, what, exactly on Brexit?
The chance of no specific deal at all being able to pass the Commons gets higher every day.
The question is will Labour take it to the point of actually leaving with no deal, given that very few of them want that outcome and they could end up with a fair amount of the blame?
If May has a deal with the EU, but Labour works with Mogg to bring it down (for its own naked ambition to bring the Govt. down then win an election) - then Labour will own No Deal Brexit.....
No, Brexit will be owned by the Tories whatever the outcome; that die is already cast.
The British people voted for Brexit against the advice of the Tory PM at the time, May is trying to get a reasonable Deal that respects the Brexit vote, if Corbyn forces No Deal and in a general election where voters decide whether they want Boris or Corbyn to lead No Deal Brexit Britain Boris may then win
In that scenario I agree with you. Indeed it would be who do you want to run the Country, not just Brexit
Though I do not see it happening
It would only happen if Corbyn and the ERG voted down a Deal and May was forced to resign as PM and replaced by Boris as Tory leader and a general election shortly followed
I am sure we can both agree that is very unlikely
That depends on Corbyn
I respectfully suggest it depends on a lot more than Corbyn
McDonnell confirms Labour policy is not to have a second EU referendum and would instead call for a general election first to judge any Deal or no Deal with the EU
So Labour will vote against any Brexit deal, in the hope that this will force a general election, where Labour will win a majority, and then be able to implement - er, what, exactly on Brexit?
BINO, with some kind of Cameron-esque Free Movement face-saver, and they'll pretend it's transitional. They'd blame the Tories for not leaving enough time to do anything else, which would have the virtue of being true.
I guess the SNP would vote for this too if he needs them; It removes most of the short-term practical downsides of Brexit for Scottish voters, but also gives them an upside for independence, because an independent Scotland could join the EU and get their influence back.
Why would an independent Scotland get its influence back in the EU, it would have gone from being one of 4 nations in the UK to one of 27 in the EU and a minnow at that compared to the likes of France and Germany and Italy and Spain and Poland.
Indeed Chequers Deal terms Brexit probably reduces the chances of Scottish independence a little as it avoids hard Brexit
And a giant compared to Malta, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Estonia, etc...
If the UK had a federal structure like the EU, Scotland's Remain vote would have constituted a veto on Brexit.
Whilst not quite following your point, but to take up the logic, so then would NI’s. Meaning that a majority of votes cast in whatever turnout in a part of the U.K. with approx 2.5% of the population could veto the votes of the other 97.5%.
In practice on a 70% turnout about 450-500k could veto the other more than 30 million?
McDonnell confirms Labour policy is not to have a second EU referendum and would instead call for a general election first to judge any Deal or no Deal with the EU
So Labour will vote against any Brexit deal, in the hope that this will force a general election, where Labour will win a majority, and then be able to implement - er, what, exactly on Brexit?
BINO, with some kind of Cameron-esque Free Movement face-saver, and they'll pretend it's transitional. They'd blame the Tories for not leaving enough time to do anything else, which would have the virtue of being true.
I guess the SNP would vote for this too if he needs them; It removes most of the short-term practical downsides of Brexit for Scottish voters, but also gives them an upside for independence, because an independent Scotland could join the EU and get their influence back.
Why would an independent Scotland get its influence back in the EU, it would have gone from being one of 4 nations in the UK to one of 27 in the EU and a minnow at that compared to the likes of France and Germany and Italy and Spain and Poland.
Indeed Chequers Deal terms Brexit probably reduces the chances of Scottish independence a little as it avoids hard Brexit
And a giant compared to Malta, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Estonia, etc...
If the UK had a federal structure like the EU, Scotland's Remain vote would have constituted a veto on Brexit.
Not Luxembourg which currently has the EU Commission President and ECJ.
Given Qualified Majority voting on most Council of Minister decisions Scotland would have few if any vetoes on anything, especially with votes allocated based on population even with weighting
Ireland has twice held the position occupied by the current Eurosceptic bête noire Martin Selmayr. A country like Scotland wouldn't struggle for influence, especially if it were the closest member state to a large non-EU economy...
McDonnell confirms Labour policy is not to have a second EU referendum and would instead call for a general election first to judge any Deal or no Deal with the EU
So Labour will vote against any Brexit deal, in the hope that this will force a general election, where Labour will win a majority, and then be able to implement - er, what, exactly on Brexit?
The chance of no specific deal at all being able to pass the Commons gets higher every day.
The question is will Labour take it to the point of actually leaving with no deal, given that very few of them want that outcome and they could end up with a fair amount of the blame?
If May has a deal with the EU, but Labour works with Mogg to bring it down (for its own naked ambition to bring the Govt. down then win an election) - then Labour will own No Deal Brexit.....
No, Brexit will be owned by the Tories whatever the outcome; that die is already cast.
The British people voted for Brexit against the advice of the Tory PM at the time, May is trying to get a reasonable Deal that respects the Brexit vote, if Corbyn forces No Deal and in a general election where voters decide whether they want Boris or Corbyn to lead No Deal Brexit Britain Boris may then win
In that scenario I agree with you. Indeed it would be who do you want to run the Country, not just Brexit
Though I do not see it happening
It would only happen if Corbyn and the ERG voted down a Deal and May was forced to resign as PM and replaced by Boris as Tory leader and a general election shortly followed
I am sure we can both agree that is very unlikely
That depends on Corbyn
I respectfully suggest it depends on a lot more than Corbyn
With Labour votes and Tory loyalist and DUP votes May can get a Deal with the EU through Parliament even if the ERG vote against, if Labour votes against a Deal though then combined with ERG votes against May will find it difficult to get a Deal through the Commons
McDonnell confirms Labour policy is not to have a second EU referendum and would instead call for a general election first to judge any Deal or no Deal with the EU
So Labour will vote against any Brexit deal, in the hope that this will force a general election, where Labour will win a majority, and then be able to implement - er, what, exactly on Brexit?
BINO, with some kind of Cameron-esque Free Movement face-saver, and they'll pretend it's transitional. They'd blame the Tories for not leaving enough time to do anything else, which would have the virtue of being true.
I guess the SNP would vote for this too if he needs them; It removes most of the short-term practical downsides of Brexit for Scottish voters, but also gives them an upside for independence, because an independent Scotland could join the EU and get their influence back.
Why would an independent Scotland get its influence back in the EU, it would have gone from being one of 4 nations in the UK to one of 27 in the EU and a minnow at that compared to the likes of France and Germany and Italy and Spain and Poland.
Indeed Chequers Deal terms Brexit probably reduces the chances of Scottish independence a little as it avoids hard Brexit
And a giant compared to Malta, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Estonia, etc...
If the UK had a federal structure like the EU, Scotland's Remain vote would have constituted a veto on Brexit.
Whilst not quite following your point, but to take up the logic, so then would NI’s. Meaning that a majority of votes cast in whatever turnout in a part of the U.K. with approx 2.5% of the population could veto the votes of the other 97.5%.
In practice on a 70% turnout about 450-500k could veto the other more than 30 million?
That sounds fair.
Do you think it's fair that Donald Trump is President and not Hillary Clinton?
McDonnell confirms Labour policy is not to have a second EU referendum and would instead call for a general election first to judge any Deal or no Deal with the EU
So Labour will vote against any Brexit deal, in the hope that this will force a general election, where Labour will win a majority, and then be able to implement - er, what, exactly on Brexit?
The chance of no specific deal at all being able to pass the Commons gets higher every day.
The question is will Labour take it to the point of actually leaving with no deal, given that very few of them want that outcome and they could end up with a fair amount of the blame?
If May has a deal with the EU, but Labour works with Mogg to bring it down (for its own naked ambition to bring the Govt. down then win an election) - then Labour will own No Deal Brexit.....
No, Brexit will be owned by the Tories whatever the outcome; that die is already cast.
The British people voted for Brexit against the advice of the Tory PM at the time, May is trying to get a reasonable Deal that respects the Brexit vote, if Corbyn forces No Deal and in a general election where voters decide whether they want Boris or Corbyn to lead No Deal Brexit Britain Boris may then win
In that scenario I agree with you. Indeed it would be who do you want to run the Country, not just Brexit
Though I do not see it happening
It would only happen if Corbyn and the ERG voted down a Deal and May was forced to resign as PM and replaced by Boris as Tory leader and a general election shortly followed
I am sure we can both agree that is very unlikely
That depends on Corbyn
I respectfully suggest it depends on a lot more than Corbyn
With Labour votes and Tory loyalist and DUP votes May can get a Deal with the EU through Parliament even if the ERG vote against, if Labour votes against a Deal though then combined with ERG votes against May will find it difficult to get a Deal through the Commons
You are assuming labour will vote as a block and that is not a given
McDonnell confirms Labour policy is not to have a second EU referendum and would instead call for a general election first to judge any Deal or no Deal with the EU
So Labour will vote against any Brexit deal, in the hope that this will force a general election, where Labour will win a majority, and then be able to implement - er, what, exactly on Brexit?
BINO, with some kind of Cameron-esque Free Movement face-saver, and they'll pretend it's transitional. They'd blame the Tories for not leaving enough time to do anything else, which would have the virtue of being true.
I guess the SNP would vote for this too if he needs them; It removes most of the short-term practical downsides of Brexit for Scottish voters, but also gives them an upside for independence, because an independent Scotland could join the EU and get their influence back.
Why would an independent Scotland get its influence back in the EU, it would have gone from being one of 4 nations in the UK to one of 27 in the EU and a minnow at that compared to the likes of France and Germany and Italy and Spain and Poland.
Indeed Chequers Deal terms Brexit probably reduces the chances of Scottish independence a little as it avoids hard Brexit
Because in BINO the rules that the UK (and Scotland) have to follow are still all made by the EU, the only difference with the status quo is that the UK can no longer vote on what they are.
I don't think anyone knows what Hard Brexit would do to the cause of Scottish Independence; On the one hand it would increase the attractiveness of being separate from the whole "United Kingdom" clusterfuck, but the experience might also discourage people from tinkering with constitutional settlements. But in the meantime it would totally shaft Scottish people, just as it totally shafted people in the rest of the UK.
On Chequers Deal terms we would still end free movement and be out of the single market for Services.
I doubt hard Brexit changes the independence narrative much just as Brexit has not (as GE17 proved) but it would likely push independence a little more
I'm talking about BINO, not the Chequers Deal. Where I came in was somebody asking what Corbyn would do if he voted down whatever TMay proposed, got a general election, and won it. I'm not sure what TMay would have been proposing in that scenario, but it can't be Chequers as is, since that's not acceptable to the EU.
McDonnell confirms Labour policy is not to have a second EU referendum and would instead call for a general election first to judge any Deal or no Deal with the EU
So Labour will vote against any Brexit deal, in the hope that this will force a general election, where Labour will win a majority, and then be able to implement - er, what, exactly on Brexit?
BINO, with some kind of Cameron-esque Free Movement face-saver, and they'll pretend it's transitional. They'd blame the Tories for not leaving enough time to do anything else, which would have the virtue of being true.
I guess the SNP would vote for this too if he needs them; It removes most of the short-term practical downsides of Brexit for Scottish voters, but also gives them an upside for independence, because an independent Scotland could join the EU and get their influence back.
Why would an independent Scotland get its influence back in the EU, it would have gone from being one of 4 nations in the UK to one of 27 in the EU and a minnow at that compared to the likes of France and Germany and Italy and Spain and Poland.
Indeed Chequers Deal terms Brexit probably reduces the chances of Scottish independence a little as it avoids hard Brexit
Because in BINO the rules that the UK (and Scotland) have to follow are still all made by the EU, the only difference with the status quo is that the UK can no longer vote on what they are.
I don't think anyone knows what Hard Brexit would do to the cause of Scottish Independence; On the one hand it would increase the attractiveness of being separate from the whole "United Kingdom" clusterfuck, but the experience might also discourage people from tinkering with constitutional settlements. But in the meantime it would totally shaft Scottish people, just as it totally shafted people in the rest of the UK.
On Chequers Deal terms we would still end free movement and be out of the single market for Services.
I doubt hard Brexit changes the independence narrative much just as Brexit has not (as GE17 proved) but it would likely push independence a little more
I'm talking about BINO, not the Chequers Deal. Where I came in was somebody asking what Corbyn would do if he voted down whatever TMay proposed, got a general election, and won it. I'm not sure what TMay would have been proposing in that scenario, but it can't be Chequers as is, since that's not acceptable to the EU.
The first question is not what he would do, but what Brexit policy he would take into the election in order to win it. I don't think his current prevarication would cut it.
McDonnell confirms Labour policy is not to have a second EU referendum and would instead call for a general election first to judge any Deal or no Deal with the EU
So Labour will vote against any Brexit deal, in the hope that this will force a general election, where Labour will win a majority, and then be able to implement - er, what, exactly on Brexit?
BINO, with some kind of Cameron-esque Free Movement face-saver, and they'll pretend it's transitional. They'd blame the Tories for not leaving enough time to do anything else, which would have the virtue of being true.
I guess the SNP would vote for this too if he needs them; It removes most of the short-term practical downsides of Brexit for Scottish voters, but also gives them an upside for independence, because an independent Scotland could join the EU and get their influence back.
Why would an independent Scotland get its influence back in the EU, it would have gone from being one of 4 nations in the UK to one of 27 in the EU and a minnow at that compared to the likes of France and Germany and Italy and Spain and Poland.
Indeed Chequers Deal terms Brexit probably reduces the chances of Scottish independence a little as it avoids hard Brexit
And a giant compared to Malta, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Estonia, etc...
If the UK had a federal structure like the EU, Scotland's Remain vote would have constituted a veto on Brexit.
Not Luxembourg which currently has the EU Commission President and ECJ.
Given Qualified Majority voting on most Council of Minister decisions Scotland would have few if any vetoes on anything, especially with votes allocated based on population even with weighting
Ireland has twice held the position occupied by the current Eurosceptic bête noire Martin Selmayr. A country like Scotland wouldn't struggle for influence, especially if it were the closest member state to a large non-EU economy...
Scotland would be about 1.25% of the EU. It would get told what to do and like it. Just like Ireland is going to be when they are out of the Brexit limelight. (Watch that low corporate tax rate come into the Commission’s sights).
Now all of that may, or may not deter the Scots from independence or EU membership, that’s up to them. But given many of us as a bloc of 65m thought we had bugger all influence I find the notion of 5M in Scotland having some as faintly ridiculous.
Comments
The only real significance today is TM 100% rejection of a second referendum so the logic of that is that she would have to be beaten in a confidence vote for anything to change that position. She cannot go back on that now without resigning
To do that, all the EU need to do is issue a 'political declaration' (eg a completely non binding and worthless paper) that makes it LOOK like Chequers is the solution and that it will solve the NI problem. Then, the moment it is signed and we are on the hook for the money, everything will become a problem again and Chequers will be slowly picked apart, but at that time the UK will have no cards left to play. Just as Olly Robbins planned.
So, from this point of view, we are close to a deal. May is lying when she says the political declaration will be worth anything. It will be very vague, and very short. She will simply spin it as a deal hopeful that the Remainer establishment will back her up. The EU are happy to play this game.
The issue is now how do they come up with an NI backstop text that gives the EU everything it wants (eg a way to torpedo the statements in the political declaration later and force us into a full CU and SM compliance) but that will allow May and the Tory sheep to declare a deal and get the withdrawal agreement signed. I suspect they will manage something.
The Brexiteers are of course wise to this plan and are setting out to stop her. Since it is now obvious to anyone with a brain that CETA is the only solution, all Brexiteer roads lead that way. The only difference is the method - (a) kick out May and do it now, (b) No Deal and do it later or (c) EFTA now and CETA later. But once May signs the NI backstop it will be impossible to have a real FTA which is why she is doing it.
So the battle begins.
Mr. Rentool, indeed. Ironically, English is an official language in India but not in England.
Anyway, off out for a trip round a garden in the Lakes open for the last day this year under the NGS scheme, to get ideas for my own. One of my modest ambitions is one day to open my own under this scheme. We are facing months of building work in the house so I try and keep cheerful by focusing in the loveliness at the end rather than the mess and bills in the interim.
Have a good day all.
The UK of course opted out of the Vietnam War under Wilson
The 'America is great it doesn't need to be made great again' line is amusing when we're regularly told that for decades the inequality has grown as the wealth has been hoovered up by the 1% with the incomes of the rest stagnating.
As a Remainer, I’d much prefer (c) EFTA now. It is, with the CU besides, the only logical way to transition from the EU. Whether that remains a permanent limbo state, or merely a passage to CETA is up for democratic debate.
Unholy alliance of No Dealers and Remainers to depose May’s plan?
The important thing now is what to do about the NI backstop, if anything, and can a standstill extension of arrangements be implemented to avoid a chaotic exit?
Edit if Chequers depends on "Mayites" it's in dodgy place. I'm not sure even Theresa May is a Mayite. No-one else is, certainly.
Though says May can still stay PM
Or you are confronted with the notion that, yes the poor can have affordable food - but it requires animals to suffer...
Well we work very closely on security matters and intelligence gathering. The money spent on GCHQ means that we still have plenty to offer in that field. This works to our advantage.
We work closely together through NATO and the UN. This is currently under strain.
Political ideas seem to transmit more readily than is normal between 2 independent countries. This is largely but not exclusively 1 way. Most of our politicians have some experience of US think tanks etc. Whilst you get the odd Rhodes scholar like Bill Clinton it is a much smaller trickle the other way although Thatcherism had some impact.
We remain the largest private sector investor in the US and they remain the largest foreign investor here.
So I would say yes, it is a close relationship. But it of course has its limits as Vietnam and Trump show in their different ways. We should not delude ourselves about having influence over the US nor should we act contrary to our own interests to maintain that delusion of influence but it is the case that in many cases we will be on the same page.
As Ms Cyclefree puts it eloquently as ever, the comments seem to be more about having a go at the President than celebrating the life of Sen McCain.
If our FTA with America lets them sell Californian champagne, how will we reconcile that with the EU -- a far more important market -- insisting that only French fizz can be labelled champagne?
No-one said it was going to be easy!
(I think it’s thought many of the 1918 influenza victims died of sepsis.)
The consensus definition of the syndromes which the term covers was only agreed on in the early 90s, so naturally diagnosis has improved in recent years. Incidence has probably increased in the UK thanks to an ageing population, but as I understand it, relative mortality rates have dropped as diagnosis and treatments have improved.
No doubt our resident doctors can correct any of my misunderstandings.
I wish Mrs SquareRoot a speedy recovery.
250 maybe with luck
It turns out that Boris Johnson is the Walter Bagehot de nos jours, with his cake policy on Brexit.
https://twitter.com/MarcusFysh/status/1036182024489459712
The question is will Labour take it to the point of actually leaving with no deal, given that very few of them want that outcome and they could end up with a fair amount of the blame?
What the EU are seeking to do, is to tie us into their rules on labelling without offerering a trade deal, thus actively preventing us from talking to other countries. This has been their plan all along and it’s right that we call them on it.
If that also failed as No Remain option and as is likely the Tories voted down a referendum with a Remain option too we may then go to a general election with Boris leading the Tories fighting for No Deal Brexit and Corbyn leading Labour having opposed a Deal too
Of those two markets, Europe is far more important, not because the EU is lovely but because it is closer.
I guess the SNP would vote for this too if he needs them; It removes most of the short-term practical downsides of Brexit for Scottish voters, but also gives them an upside for independence, because an independent Scotland could join the EU and get their influence back.
In the event of no deal, or a very limited deal, Parliament is going to have to sit 18 hours a day for the spring, in order to get all the necessary legislation and ratification of various agreements passed.
There’s no chance whatsoever of an election before we leave the EU, unless several Conservative or DUP MPs are prepared to cross the floor to no-confidence their own government (and be expelled from their party).
Though I do not see it happening
Indeed Chequers Deal terms Brexit probably reduces the chances of Scottish independence a little as it avoids hard Brexit
The proof is to look at open minded small economies, such as Australia and NZ, who make FTAs with large numbers of partners very quickly and easily. They do not submit to these partners, and certainly don't adopt their rules. They don't 'lose'. They are simply not protectionist by nature and therefore don't hold up deals for endless vested interests (like, er, the EU).
The agricultural issues with the US are massively overstated. Nobody actually argues that US food is not safe. The EU simply object to their methods as a form of protectionism.
The golden rule of international trade is that it is method-agnostic. Why should we refuse US chicken because we don't like 'animal cruelty' when we import goods from countries that have no employment protections and treat employees like virtual slaves? We do so because we subscribe to the view that it is the product standard that matters, not how they got there.
Of course, the person arguing against this is Trump - he claims that we should not follow these rules but base trade solely on the various interests of the home state, of which for example outsourcing to take advantage of cheap exploited labour is not a good thing at all. So really, those saying we should block US food imports are really agreeing with his view of international trade. Oh, the irony.....
If the UK had a federal structure like the EU, Scotland's Remain vote would have constituted a veto on Brexit.
North pere et fils were right about this. The problem is that they are terrible at influencing other people, and hence Steven Kinnock and a couple of the Tory Remainers are the only
ones pushing this line.
We could go straight into EEA/EFTA, with customs union membership until December 2020, plus full application of all freedom of movement controls that we have rights to enforce but choose not to. We could then reopen the merits or otherwise of EEA after the next election.
I’m not sure many will want to though.
https://youtu.be/kkUOwBCt_0g
https://www.theredroar.com/2018/09/revealed-jeremy-corbyns-no-10-team-communists-stalinists-and-fake-news-fanatics/
I don't think anyone knows what Hard Brexit would do to the cause of Scottish Independence; On the one hand it would increase the attractiveness of being separate from the whole "United Kingdom" clusterfuck, but the experience might also discourage people from tinkering with constitutional settlements. But in the meantime it would totally shaft Scottish people, just as it totally shafted people in the rest of the UK.
Fysh is wrong however about the Hague. The new EEA 'plan' involves us not paying the Brexit bill until CETA is agreed. The EU cannot, by any legal process, take the UK to the Hague for non payment (unless the UK agreed). But, equally, we cannot join the EEA unless the EU consent. Which they won't do unless we pay.
So, overall, this idea is crap, not surprising as it is from Gove.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/09/02/jewish-people-will-leave-britain-jeremy-corbyn-becomes-prime/
Given Qualified Majority voting on most Council of Minister decisions Scotland would have few if any vetoes on anything, especially with votes allocated based on population even with weighting
I doubt hard Brexit changes the independence narrative much just as Brexit has not (as GE17 proved) but it would likely push independence a little more
In practice on a 70% turnout about 450-500k could veto the other more than 30 million?
That sounds fair.
To fair though, Corbyn's office is already staffed by a lot of rich commies.
Now all of that may, or may not deter the Scots from independence or EU membership, that’s up to them. But given many of us as a bloc of 65m thought we had bugger all influence I find the notion of 5M in Scotland having some as faintly ridiculous.