politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » More evidence that Corbyn is not now getting anything like the

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » More evidence that Corbyn is not now getting anything like the personal backing from GE2017 LAB voters than he was

An average of 51% of 2017 Labour voters now pick Corbyn as the best choice for PM, compared to May and 'Not Sure', down from an average of 77% across the summer of 2017.

Read the full story here

Philip_Thompson

FPT

williamglenn said:

archer101au said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SouthamObserver said:

May did agree to an Irish Sea border. She then rowed back because the DUP threatened her.

No she did not!

The backstop agreed in December was explicitly a whole-UK backstop.

Barnier then rowed back as he didn't want a whole-UK backstop and promptly ignored the fact he'd agreed it in December.

Quite right. Section 49 of the joint declaration clearly references a UK wide backstop. A NI only backstop is inconsistent with sections 44 and 50. Article 49 clearly does not require full participation by the UK in the CU or SM and was deliberately vague as to the extent of the alignment. Leavers were told that it could be achieved by regulatory equivalence within an FTA (eg CETA) and this would be wholly consistent with the text.

It can just as easily be read the other way:

- Paragraph 49 clearly describes a Northern Ireland only backstop to be implemented by the UK
- Paragraph 44 confirms that the UK does not regard this as compromising the integrity of the UK
- Paragraph 50 commits the UK to align with Northern Ireland unless the Assembly allows it to diverge

No it can't, it absolutely is crystal clear the backstop is UK wide.

49. The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North - South cooperation and to
its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU - UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North - South cooperation, the all - island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.

Where in that is it saying Northern Ireland only? It is crystal clear that the backstop is the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment. The entire United Kingdom not a fraction of it.

GIN1138

The question is will we have another Jezzgasm at the next election?

RobD

Third

TOPPING

Just seen the McCluskey footage. Palestinian flag lanyard an' all.

What *the f&ck* is it about the Jews that presses the Left's buttons so much??

williamglenn

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

williamglenn said:

archer101au said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SouthamObserver said:

May did agree to an Irish Sea border. She then rowed back because the DUP threatened her.

No she did not!

The backstop agreed in December was explicitly a whole-UK backstop.

Barnier then rowed back as he didn't want a whole-UK backstop and promptly ignored the fact he'd agreed it in December.

Quite right. Section 49 of the joint declaration clearly references a UK wide backstop. A NI only backstop is inconsistent with sections 44 and 50. Article 49 clearly does not require full participation by the UK in the CU or SM and was deliberately vague as to the extent of the alignment. Leavers were told that it could be achieved by regulatory equivalence within an FTA (eg CETA) and this would be wholly consistent with the text.

It can just as easily be read the other way:

- Paragraph 49 clearly describes a Northern Ireland only backstop to be implemented by the UK
- Paragraph 44 confirms that the UK does not regard this as compromising the integrity of the UK
- Paragraph 50 commits the UK to align with Northern Ireland unless the Assembly allows it to diverge

No it can't, it absolutely is crystal clear the backstop is UK wide.

49. The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North - South cooperation and to
its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU - UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North - South cooperation, the all - island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.

Where in that is it saying Northern Ireland only? It is crystal clear that the backstop is the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment. The entire United Kingdom not a fraction of it.

It says that because the United Kingdom is the party singing the agreement. The whole section in which paragraph 49 sits is titled "Ireland and Northern Ireland".

Nemtynakht

Cuddly Corbyn is not so cuddly any more.

RobD

TOPPING said:

Just seen the McCluskey footage. Palestinian flag lanyard an' all.

What *the f&ck* is it about the Jews that presses the Left's buttons so much??

One wonders if they would rather be seen with the Palestine flag than the England flag?

philiph

RobD said:

Third

Don't worry, at least one of the winners is bound to be disqualified for doping, or as a dope. When Russia is involved (and they run the entire internet and political activity on it) WADA is never far away

RobD

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

williamglenn said:

archer101au said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SouthamObserver said:

May did agree to an Irish Sea border. She then rowed back because the DUP threatened her.

No she did not!

The backstop agreed in December was explicitly a whole-UK backstop.

Barnier then rowed back as he didn't want a whole-UK backstop and promptly ignored the fact he'd agreed it in December.

Quite right. Section 49 of the joint declaration clearly references a UK wide backstop. A NI only backstop is inconsistent with sections 44 and 50. Article 49 clearly does not require full participation by the UK in the CU or SM and was deliberately vague as to the extent of the alignment. Leavers were told that it could be achieved by regulatory equivalence within an FTA (eg CETA) and this would be wholly consistent with the text.

It can just as easily be read the other way:

- Paragraph 49 clearly describes a Northern Ireland only backstop to be implemented by the UK
- Paragraph 44 confirms that the UK does not regard this as compromising the integrity of the UK
- Paragraph 50 commits the UK to align with Northern Ireland unless the Assembly allows it to diverge

No it can't, it absolutely is crystal clear the backstop is UK wide.

49. The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North - South cooperation and to
its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU - UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North - South cooperation, the all - island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.

Where in that is it saying Northern Ireland only? It is crystal clear that the backstop is the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment. The entire United Kingdom not a fraction of it.

It says that because the United Kingdom is the party singing the agreement. The whole section in which paragraph 49 sits is titled "Ireland and Northern Ireland".

But does that mean the clauses within only apply to NI, or just that they relate to NI?

ExiledInScotland

GIN1138 said:

The question is will we have another Jezzgasm at the next election?

My son has just started at Uni. One of his first year flatmates has covered her poster board with posters of Jeremy Corbyn. The rest of the flat are taking the mickey mercilessly. She was apparently amazed that they didn't understand that the second coming was amongst us.

stodge

Afternoon all

Indeed, Corbyn is the central defining figure in politics at the moment. Like him or loathe him probably determines where you put the cross at the next General Election.

As others have said, his presence gives May and the Conservatives incredible latitude to make a dog's dinner of almost everything without it seemingly having an impact on the Conservative polling position as, however bad things may get, if the alternative is Corbyn, a significant number of people will, however frustrated they may be with the Government, stay in the blue camp.

I think it highly likely the Conservatives will remain in Government as long as Corbyn remains Labour leader. Once he goes all bets will be off. As we've seen before, the same policies presented differently by a leader without the emotional baggage of the predecessor can suddenly become much more attractive.

Philip_Thompson

williamglenn said:

It says that because the United Kingdom is the party singing the agreement. The whole section in which paragraph 49 sits is titled "Ireland and Northern Ireland".

The title isn't the action, the text is the action. Because of the situation with regards to Ireland and Northern Ireland (the title) the agreement reached is crystal clear: In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North - South cooperation, the all - island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.

Both parties signed that. The backstop is that the UK would remain aligned. Nowhere does it say this is not a UK backstop. Nowhere does it say Northern Ireland alone would stay aligned. It specifically and explicitly says that the UK will remain aligned.

Only after the agreement was signed did Barnier reneg on what was signed and insist that the UK couldn't have a backstop and only Northern Ireland must. What was signed is that the UK would though.

SquareRoot

GIN1138 said:

The question is will we have another Jezzgasm at the next election?

no

williamglenn

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

It says that because the United Kingdom is the party singing the agreement. The whole section in which paragraph 49 sits is titled "Ireland and Northern Ireland".

The title isn't the action, the text is the action. Because of the situation with regards to Ireland and Northern Ireland (the title) the agreement reached is crystal clear: In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North - South cooperation, the all - island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.

Both parties signed that. The backstop is that the UK would remain aligned. Nowhere does it say this is not a UK backstop. Nowhere does it say Northern Ireland alone would stay aligned. It specifically and explicitly says that the UK will remain aligned.

Only after the agreement was signed did Barnier reneg on what was signed and insist that the UK couldn't have a backstop and only Northern Ireland must. What was signed is that the UK would though.

Paragraph 46: "The commitments and principles outlined in this joint report will not pre-determine the outcome of wider discussions on the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom and are, as necessary, specific to the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland."

Philip_Thompson

GIN1138 said:

The question is will we have another Jezzgasm at the next election?

In the same was as we had a Cleggasm in 2010 (a surge in attention but they actually then lost seats) then probably.

We won't have a Rose Garden moment afterwards though.

RobD

SquareRoot said:

GIN1138 said:

The question is will we have another Jezzgasm at the next election?

no

Some might say it came too early......

Don’t worry, I’ll fetch my own coat.

GIN1138

RobD said:

SquareRoot said:

GIN1138 said:

The question is will we have another Jezzgasm at the next election?

no

Some might say it came too early......

#Filth

Philip_Thompson

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

It says that because the United Kingdom is the party singing the agreement. The whole section in which paragraph 49 sits is titled "Ireland and Northern Ireland".

The title isn't the action, the text is the action. Because of the situation with regards to Ireland and Northern Ireland (the title) the agreement reached is crystal clear: In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North - South cooperation, the all - island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.

Both parties signed that. The backstop is that the UK would remain aligned. Nowhere does it say this is not a UK backstop. Nowhere does it say Northern Ireland alone would stay aligned. It specifically and explicitly says that the UK will remain aligned.

Only after the agreement was signed did Barnier reneg on what was signed and insist that the UK couldn't have a backstop and only Northern Ireland must. What was signed is that the UK would though.

Paragraph 46: "The commitments and principles outlined in this joint report will not pre-determine the outcome of wider discussions on the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom and are, as necessary, specific to the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland."

Yes they are specific to the circumstances on the island of Ireland but that doesn't vary what was agreed which is a UK wide backstop to address those circumstances. Otherwise are you suggesting Ireland is committed to losing its integrity with the rest of the EU? Why should the integrity of the EU be sacrosanct but the integrity of the UK goes up in smoke? It doesn't say anywhere that it does.

williamglenn

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

It says that because the United Kingdom is the party singing the agreement. The whole section in which paragraph 49 sits is titled "Ireland and Northern Ireland".

The title isn't the action, the text is the action. Because of the situation with regards to Ireland and Northern Ireland (the title) the agreement reached is crystal clear: In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North - South cooperation, the all - island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.

Both parties signed that. The backstop is that the UK would remain aligned. Nowhere does it say this is not a UK backstop. Nowhere does it say Northern Ireland alone would stay aligned. It specifically and explicitly says that the UK will remain aligned.

Only after the agreement was signed did Barnier reneg on what was signed and insist that the UK couldn't have a backstop and only Northern Ireland must. What was signed is that the UK would though.

Paragraph 46: "The commitments and principles outlined in this joint report will not pre-determine the outcome of wider discussions on the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom and are, as necessary, specific to the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland."

Yes they are specific to the circumstances on the island of Ireland but that doesn't vary what was agreed which is a UK wide backstop to address those circumstances. Otherwise are you suggesting Ireland is committed to losing its integrity with the rest of the EU? Why should the integrity of the EU be sacrosanct but the integrity of the UK goes up in smoke? It doesn't say anywhere that it does.

If you think paragraph 49 describes a UK-wide backstop, what exactly is the purpose of paragraph 50?

Sandpit

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

It says that because the United Kingdom is the party singing the agreement. The whole section in which paragraph 49 sits is titled "Ireland and Northern Ireland".

The title isn't the action, the text is the action. Because of the situation with regards to Ireland and Northern Ireland (the title) the agreement reached is crystal clear: In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North - South cooperation, the all - island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.

Both parties signed that. The backstop is that the UK would remain aligned. Nowhere does it say this is not a UK backstop. Nowhere does it say Northern Ireland alone would stay aligned. It specifically and explicitly says that the UK will remain aligned.

Only after the agreement was signed did Barnier reneg on what was signed and insist that the UK couldn't have a backstop and only Northern Ireland must. What was signed is that the UK would though.

That was my reading of it too. What looked to have been agreed in December looked very different by March.

I wonder if the talks are about to completely break down over the NI issue, Mrs May comes back from the October summit and says that she’s sorry but can’t possibly accept any agreement that annexes NI so it’s going to be no deal and no £39bn, but we will spend the next six months making preparations to exit on good terms to the best of our abilities. If the EU want to come back to the table that’s up to them, and we could offer to work with an impartial arbitrator to solve the impasse, but the U.K. is the U.K. and can’t be divided.

Philip_Thompson

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

It says that because the United Kingdom is the party singing the agreement. The whole section in which paragraph 49 sits is titled "Ireland and Northern Ireland".

The title isn't the action, the text is the action. Because of the situation with regards to Ireland and Northern Ireland (the title) the agreement reached is crystal clear: In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North - South cooperation, the all - island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.

Both parties signed that. The backstop is that the UK would remain aligned. Nowhere does it say this is not a UK backstop. Nowhere does it say Northern Ireland alone would stay aligned. It specifically and explicitly says that the UK will remain aligned.

Only after the agreement was signed did Barnier reneg on what was signed and insist that the UK couldn't have a backstop and only Northern Ireland must. What was signed is that the UK would though.

Paragraph 46: "The commitments and principles outlined in this joint report will not pre-determine the outcome of wider discussions on the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom and are, as necessary, specific to the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland."

Yes they are specific to the circumstances on the island of Ireland but that doesn't vary what was agreed which is a UK wide backstop to address those circumstances. Otherwise are you suggesting Ireland is committed to losing its integrity with the rest of the EU? Why should the integrity of the EU be sacrosanct but the integrity of the UK goes up in smoke? It doesn't say anywhere that it does.

If you think paragraph 49 describes a UK-wide backstop, what exactly is the purpose of paragraph 50?

Article 50 emphasises the fact that its a UK-wide backstop by ruling out any variances unless Stormont approves. If Stormont believes that it becomes appropriate for Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK to diverge then Stormont retains that right, but Westminster does not have that right unilaterally. Only Stormont can approve any divergence.

So in the absence of any Article 50 Stormont-approved variances the Article 49 backstop remains UK-wide.

Philip_Thompson

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

It says that because the United Kingdom is the party singing the agreement. The whole section in which paragraph 49 sits is titled "Ireland and Northern Ireland".

The title isn't the action, the text is the action. Because of the situation with regards to Ireland and Northern Ireland (the title) the agreement reached is crystal clear: In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North - South cooperation, the all - island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.

Both parties signed that. The backstop is that the UK would remain aligned. Nowhere does it say this is not a UK backstop. Nowhere does it say Northern Ireland alone would stay aligned. It specifically and explicitly says that the UK will remain aligned.

Only after the agreement was signed did Barnier reneg on what was signed and insist that the UK couldn't have a backstop and only Northern Ireland must. What was signed is that the UK would though.

That was my reading of it too. What looked to have been agreed in December looked very different by March.

I wonder if the talks are about to completely break down over the NI issue, Mrs May comes back from the October summit and says that she’s sorry but can’t possibly accept any agreement that annexes NI so it’s going to be no deal and no £39bn, but we will spend the next six months making preparations to exit on good terms to the best of our abilities. If the EU want to come back to the table that’s up to them, and we could offer to work with an impartial arbitrator to solve the impasse, but the U.K. is the U.K. and can’t be divided.

That should have been what she said the day after Chequers was rejected. If not months beforehand.

RochdalePioneers

TOPPING said:

Just seen the McCluskey footage. Palestinian flag lanyard an' all.

What *the f&ck* is it about the Jews that presses the Left's buttons so much??

Not "the left". Just "wankers".

notme

GIN1138 said:

RobD said:

SquareRoot said:

GIN1138 said:

The question is will we have another Jezzgasm at the next election?

no

Some might say it came too early......

#Filth

And it just ends up as an unfulfilling sticky mess.

williamglenn

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

It says that because the United Kingdom is the party singing the agreement. The whole section in which paragraph 49 sits is titled "Ireland and Northern Ireland".

The title isn't the action, the text is the action. Because of the situation with regards to Ireland and Northern Ireland (the title) the agreement reached is crystal clear: In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North - South cooperation, the all - island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.

Both parties signed that. The backstop is that the UK would remain aligned. Nowhere does it say this is not a UK backstop. Nowhere does it say Northern Ireland alone would stay aligned. It specifically and explicitly says that the UK will remain aligned.

Only after the agreement was signed did Barnier reneg on what was signed and insist that the UK couldn't have a backstop and only Northern Ireland must. What was signed is that the UK would though.

Paragraph 46: "The commitments and principles outlined in this joint report will not pre-determine the outcome of wider discussions on the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom and are, as necessary, specific to the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland."

Yes they are specific to the circumstances on the island of Ireland but that doesn't vary what was agreed which is a UK wide backstop to address those circumstances. Otherwise are you suggesting Ireland is committed to losing its integrity with the rest of the EU? Why should the integrity of the EU be sacrosanct but the integrity of the UK goes up in smoke? It doesn't say anywhere that it does.

If you think paragraph 49 describes a UK-wide backstop, what exactly is the purpose of paragraph 50?

Article 50 emphasises the fact that its a UK-wide backstop by ruling out any variances unless Stormont approves. If Stormont believes that it becomes appropriate for Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK to diverge then Stormont retains that right, but Westminster does not have that right unilaterally. Only Stormont can approve any divergence.

So in the absence of any Article 50 Stormont-approved variances the Article 49 backstop remains UK-wide.

Paragraph 50 is an internal UK commitment. Your reading of it is not consistent with paragraph 49 being a commitment to the EU to a UK-wide backstop.

TOPPING

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

Just seen the McCluskey footage. Palestinian flag lanyard an' all.

What *the f&ck* is it about the Jews that presses the Left's buttons so much??

Not "the left". Just "wankers".

Union set large much?

TOPPING

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

It says that because the United Kingdom is the party singing the agreement. The whole section in which paragraph 49 sits is titled "Ireland and Northern Ireland".

The title isnmaintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North - South cooperation, the all - island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.

Both parties signed that. The backstop is that the UK would remain aligned. Nowhere does it say this is not a UK backstop. Nowhere does it say Northern Ireland alone would stay aligned. It specifically and explicitly says that the UK will remain aligned.

Only after the agreement was signed did Barnier reneg on what was signed and insist that the UK couldn't have a backstop and only Northern Ireland must. What was signed is that the UK would though.

That was my reading of it too. What looked to have been agreed in December looked very different by March.

I wonder if the talks are about to completely break down over the NI issue, Mrs May comes back from the October summit and says that she’s sorry but can’t possibly accept any agreement that annexes NI so it’s going to be no deal and no £39bn, but we will spend the next six months making preparations to exit on good terms to the best of our abilities. If the EU want to come back to the table that’s up to them, and we could offer to work with an impartial arbitrator to solve the impasse, but the U.K. is the U.K. and can’t be divided.

That should have been what she said the day after Chequers was rejected. If not months beforehand.

I remember reading the December document and the "gotcha" moment (in that it would have cemented BINO) was indeed that the UK pledged to stay in the SM/CU if there was no agreement on NI and I also remember subsequently it being altered so that the accepted status was that it was just NI. And that has now become the accepted version of the backstop.

As to what now? It seems from the press that, unsurprisingly, the DUP has dug in its heels against what seems to have been an attempt by TMay to create that administratively separate area of the island of Ireland. I still think it is a 20%-ish (perhaps more) possibility that this will eventually transpire (with a lot of "transitions" and "final settlements" and so forth thrown in).

As we know the alternatives are what the original December agreement mooted ie the UK stays fully in the SM/CU and hence retains FoM which although anathema to many, IMO is still the most likely outcome.

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, everyone.

RobD

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

Good afternoon, comrade Dancer.

Sandpit

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

It says that because the United Kingdom is the party singing the agreement. The whole section in which paragraph 49 sits is titled "Ireland and Northern Ireland".

The title isn't the action, the text is the action. Because of the situation with regards to Ireland and Northern Ireland (the title) the agreement reached is crystal clear: In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North - South cooperation, the all - island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.

Both parties signed that. The backstop is that the UK would remain aligned. Nowhere does it say this is not a UK backstop. Nowhere does it say Northern Ireland alone would stay aligned. It specifically and explicitly says that the UK will remain aligned.

Only after the agreement was signed did Barnier reneg on what was signed and insist that the UK couldn't have a backstop and only Northern Ireland must. What was signed is that the UK would though.

That was my reading of it too. What looked to have been agreed in December looked very different by March.

I wonder if the talks are about to completely break down over the NI issue, Mrs May comes back from the October summit and says that she’s sorry but can’t possibly accept any agreement that annexes NI so it’s going to be no deal and no £39bn, but we will spend the next six months making preparations to exit on good terms to the best of our abilities. If the EU want to come back to the table that’s up to them, and we could offer to work with an impartial arbitrator to solve the impasse, but the U.K. is the U.K. and can’t be divided.

That should have been what she said the day after Chequers was rejected. If not months beforehand.

That’s what I expected her to say last week to be honest.

Just about the only sensible option for a long term settled relationship is something based around the Canada arrangement - the U.K. doesn’t want a vassal state arrangement and the EU doesn’t want a huge Singapore off their shore. So it’s in everyone’s best interest to work towards that solution.

The above is, of course, based on the economics rather than the politics - and with the EU the two are inextricably linked. I don’t believe they’ve negotiated in good faith, they’ve been more concerned at seeing the U.K. “punished” for daring to leave The Project, than getting a mutually beneficial deal.

TOPPING

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

It says that because the United Kingdom is the party singing the agreement. The whole section in which paragraph 49 sits is titled "Ireland and Northern Ireland".

The title isn't the action, the text is the action. Because of the situation with regards to Ireland and Northern Ireland (the title) the agreement reached is crystal clear: In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North - South cooperation, the all - island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.

Both parties signed that. The backstop is that the UK would remain aligned. Nowhere does it say this is not a UK backstop. Nowhere does it say Northern Ireland alone would stay aligned. It specifically and explicitly says that the UK will remain aligned.

Only after the agreement was signed did Barnier reneg on what was signed and insist that the UK couldn't have a backstop and only Northern Ireland must. What was signed is that the UK would though.

That was my reading of it too. What looked to have been agreed in December looked very different by March.

I wonder if the talks are about to completely break down over the NI issue, Mrs May comes back from the October summit and says that she’s sorry but can’t possibly accept any agreement that annexes NI so it’s going to be no deal and no £39bn, but we will spend the next six months making preparations to exit on good terms to the best of our abilities. If the EU want to come back to the table that’s up to them, and we could offer to work with an impartial arbitrator to solve the impasse, but the U.K. is the U.K. and can’t be divided.

That should have been what she said the day after Chequers was rejected. If not months beforehand.

That’s what I expected her to say last week to be honest.

Just about the only sensible option for a long term settled relationship is something based around the Canada arrangement - the U.K. doesn’t want a vassal state arrangement and the EU doesn’t want a huge Singapore off their shore. So it’s in everyone’s best interest to work towards that solution.

The above is, of course, based on the economics rather than the politics - and with the EU the two are inextricably linked. I don’t believe they’ve negotiated in good faith, they’ve been more concerned at seeing the U.K. “punished” for daring to leave The Project, than getting a mutually beneficial deal.

How is sticking to the negotiating criteria that they made clear at the very beginning of the negotiations not "negotiating in good faith"?

Sandpit

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

It says that because the United Kingdom is the party singing the agreement. The whole section in which paragraph 49 sits is titled "Ireland and Northern Ireland".

.

That was my reading of it too. What looked to have been agreed in December looked very different by March.

I wonder if the talks are about to completely break down over the NI issue, Mrs May comes back from the October summit and says that she’s sorry but can’t possibly accept any agreement that annexes NI so it’s going to be no deal and no £39bn, but we will spend the next six months making preparations to exit on good terms to the best of our abilities. If the EU want to come back to the table that’s up to them, and we could offer to work with an impartial arbitrator to solve the impasse, but the U.K. is the U.K. and can’t be divided.

That should have been what she said the day after Chequers was rejected. If not months beforehand.

That’s what I expected her to say last week to be honest.

Just about the only sensible option for a long term settled relationship is something based around the Canada arrangement - the U.K. doesn’t want a vassal state arrangement and the EU doesn’t want a huge Singapore off their shore. So it’s in everyone’s best interest to work towards that solution.

The above is, of course, based on the economics rather than the politics - and with the EU the two are inextricably linked. I don’t believe they’ve negotiated in good faith, they’ve been more concerned at seeing the U.K. “punished” for daring to leave The Project, than getting a mutually beneficial deal.

How is sticking to the negotiating criteria that they made clear at the very beginning of the negotiations not "negotiating in good faith"?

Both the concept and the sneakiness of the “NI backstop” for a start, alongside what’s now clearly the intention to run down the clock in the hope of last-minute concessions from the U.K. to avoid a crash out, and the refusal to talk about the future trading relationship as required by Article 50 of Lisbon.

stodge

Sandpit said:

I wonder if the talks are about to completely break down over the NI issue, Mrs May comes back from the October summit and says that she’s sorry but can’t possibly accept any agreement that annexes NI so it’s going to be no deal and no £39bn, but we will spend the next six months making preparations to exit on good terms to the best of our abilities. If the EU want to come back to the table that’s up to them, and we could offer to work with an impartial arbitrator to solve the impasse, but the U.K. is the U.K. and can’t be divided.

If Paris was once supposed to be "worth a mass", is Belfast worth a Treaty?

TOPPING

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

It says that because the United Kingdom is the party singing the agreement. The whole section in which paragraph 49 sits is titled "Ireland and Northern Ireland".

.

That was my reading of it too. What looked to have been agreed in December looked very different by March.

I wonder if the talks are about to completely break down over the NI issue, Mrs May comes back from the October summit and says that she’s sorry but can’t possibly accept any agreement that annexes NI so it’s going to be no deal and no £39bn, but we will spend the next six months making preparations to exit on good terms to the best of our abilities. If the EU want to come back to the table that’s up to them, and we could offer to work with an impartial arbitrator to solve the impasse, but the U.K. is the U.K. and can’t be divided.

That should have been what she said the day after Chequers was rejected. If not months beforehand.

That’s what I expected her to say last week to be honest.

Just about the only sensible option for a long term settled relationship is something based around the Canada arrangement - the U.K. doesn’t want a vassal state arrangement and the EU doesn’t want a huge Singapore off their shore. So it’s in everyone’s best interest to work towards that solution.

The above is, of course, based on the economics rather than the politics - and with the EU the two are inextricably linked. I don’t believe they’ve negotiated in good faith, they’ve been more concerned at seeing the U.K. “punished” for daring to leave The Project, than getting a mutually beneficial deal.

How is sticking to the negotiating criteria that they made clear at the very beginning of the negotiations not "negotiating in good faith"?

Both the concept and the sneakiness of the “NI backstop” for a start, alongside what’s now clearly the intention to run down the clock in the hope of last-minute concessions from the U.K. to avoid a crash out, and the refusal to talk about the future trading relationship as required by Article 50 of Lisbon.

Running down the clock? How long did it take us even to get to Chequers??

FrancisUrquhart

As far as I know, McDonnell’s policy has been tried in one other comparable situation. In the early 80s, Sweden’s Social Democrats promised to give 20% of company shares to workers. Named after its architect, trade union economist Rudolf Meidner, the policy was popular with the party faithful.

But in this polite and outwardly cohesive country, it caused outright war, writes Robin Blackburn in his classic history Banking on Death: “Business leaders were intensely alarmed and spent five times more money attacking the plan than the cash laid out by all the parties on the 1982 election. The privately-owned press ran a sustained and vigorous campaign … under assault, support for the scheme ebbed and the Social Democrat leaders believed that it was prudent greatly to dilute the scheme…” By the mid-90s, the policy was dead.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/24/labour-class-war-john-mcdonnell-workers-stake-firms

williamglenn

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

It says that because the United Kingdom is the party singing the agreement. The whole section in which paragraph 49 sits is titled "Ireland and Northern Ireland".

.

That was my reading of it too. What looked to have been agreed in December looked very different by March.

I wonder if the talks are about to completely break down over the NI issue, Mrs May comes back from the October summit and says that she’s sorry but can’t possibly accept any agreement that annexes NI so it’s going to be no deal and no £39bn, but we will spend the next six months making preparations to exit on good terms to the best of our abilities. If the EU want to come back to the table that’s up to them, and we could offer to work with an impartial arbitrator to solve the impasse, but the U.K. is the U.K. and can’t be divided.

That should have been what she said the day after Chequers was rejected. If not months beforehand.

That’s what I expected her to say last week to be honest.

Just about the only sensible option for a long term settled relationship is something based around the Canada arrangement - the U.K. doesn’t want a vassal state arrangement and the EU doesn’t want a huge Singapore off their shore. So it’s in everyone’s best interest to work towards that solution.

The above is, of course, based on the economics rather than the politics - and with the EU the two are inextricably linked. I don’t believe they’ve negotiated in good faith, they’ve been more concerned at seeing the U.K. “punished” for daring to leave The Project, than getting a mutually beneficial deal.

How is sticking to the negotiating criteria that they made clear at the very beginning of the negotiations not "negotiating in good faith"?

Both the concept and the sneakiness of the “NI backstop” for a start, alongside what’s now clearly the intention to run down the clock in the hope of last-minute concessions from the U.K. to avoid a crash out, and the refusal to talk about the future trading relationship as required by Article 50 of Lisbon.

Article 50 doesn't say anything about trade. It says the withdrawal should take account of the framework of the future relationship. That framework is determined by the UK's red lines.

FrancisUrquhart

The trouble with Labour’s employee share plan

https://capx.co/the-trouble-with-labours-employee-share-plan/

I think pretty much all points raised on here, except for the interesting tit bit from Germany.

"One study found that co-determined German firms were less likely to make the tough decision to restructure and as a result were more likely to fail altogether."

Sandpit

FrancisUrquhart said:

The trouble with Labour’s employee share plan

https://capx.co/the-trouble-with-labours-employee-share-plan/

I think pretty much all points raised on here, except for the interesting tit bit from Germany.

"One study found that co-determined German firms were less likely to make the tough decision to restructure and as a result were more likely to fail altogether."

I was just about to post the same. Whoever wrote that had exactly the same train of thought as those of us posting on here this morning.

OchEye

Philip_Thompson said:

GIN1138 said:

The question is will we have another Jezzgasm at the next election?

In the same was as we had a Cleggasm in 2010 (a surge in attention but they actually then lost seats) then probably.

We won't have a Rose Garden moment afterwards though.

Apart from the autumn weather being so unpredictable..?

Morris_Dancer

It's almost as if socialism is a shit idea and socialists don't know how to run the economy.

*cough*Venezuela*cough*

Sandpit

williamglenn said:

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

It says that because the United Kingdom is the party singing the agreement. The whole section in which paragraph 49 sits is titled "Ireland and Northern Ireland".

.

That was my reading of it too. What looked to have been agreed in December looked very different by March.

I wonder if the talks are about to completely break down over the NI issue, Mrs May comes back from the October summit and says that she’s sorry but can’t possibly accept any agreement that annexes NI so it’s going to be no deal and no £39bn, but we will spend the next six months making preparations to exit on good terms to the best of our abilities. If the EU want to come back to the table that’s up to them, and we could offer to work with an impartial arbitrator to solve the impasse, but the U.K. is the U.K. and can’t be divided.

That should have been what she said the day after Chequers was rejected. If not months beforehand.

That’s what I expected her to say last week to be honest.

Just about the only sensible option for a long term settled relationship is something based around the Canada arrangement - the U.K. doesn’t want a vassal state arrangement and the EU doesn’t want a huge Singapore off their shore. So it’s in everyone’s best interest to work towards that solution.

The above is, of course, based on the economics rather than the politics - and with the EU the two are inextricably linked. I don’t believe they’ve negotiated in good faith, they’ve been more concerned at seeing the U.K. “punished” for daring to leave The Project, than getting a mutually beneficial deal.

How is sticking to the negotiating criteria that they made clear at the very beginning of the negotiations not "negotiating in good faith"?

Both the concept and the sneakiness of the “NI backstop” for a start, alongside what’s now clearly the intention to run down the clock in the hope of last-minute concessions from the U.K. to avoid a crash out, and the refusal to talk about the future trading relationship as required by Article 50 of Lisbon.

Article 50 doesn't say anything about trade. It says the withdrawal should take account of the framework of the future relationship. That framework is determined by the UK's red lines.

The framework is just as much determined by the EU’s red lines, and the political imperative of discouraging others from going down the same path.

matt

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

It says that because the United Kingdom is the party singing the agreement. The whole section in which paragraph 49 sits is titled "Ireland and Northern Ireland".

.

That was my reading of it too. What looked to have been agreed in December looked very different by March.

I wonder if the talks are about to completely break down over the NI issue, Mrs May comes back from the October summit and says that she’s sorry but can’t possibly accept any agreement that annexes NI so it’s going to be no deal and no £39bn, but we will spend the next six months making preparations to exit on good terms to the best of our abilities. If the EU want to come back to the table that’s up to them, and we could offer to work with an impartial arbitrator to solve the impasse, but the U.K. is the U.K. and can’t be divided.

That should have been what she said the day after Chequers was rejected. If not months beforehand.

That’s what I expected her to say last week to be honest.

Just about the only sensible option for a long term settled relationship is something based around the Canada arrangement - the U.K. doesn’t want a vassal state arrangement and the EU doesn’t want a huge Singapore off their shore. So it’s in everyone’s best interest to work towards that solution.

The above is, of course, based on the economics rather than the politics - and with the EU the two are inextricably linked. I don’t believe they’ve negotiated in good faith, they’ve been more concerned at seeing the U.K. “punished” for daring to leave The Project, than getting a mutually beneficial deal.

How is sticking to the negotiating criteria that they made clear at the very beginning of the negotiations not "negotiating in good faith"?

Both the concept and the sneakiness of the “NI backstop” for a start, alongside what’s now clearly the intention to run down the clock in the hope of last-minute concessions from the U.K. to avoid a crash out, and the refusal to talk about the future trading relationship as required by Article 50 of Lisbon.

Perhaps we should look to litigate over this. Once we decide forum, governing law and whether good faith has any real legal meaning. Alternatively we could live in the world that Brexit enthusiasts have created, not the world they want to live in.

williamglenn

Sandpit said:

williamglenn said:

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

It says that because the United Kingdom is the party singing the agreement. The whole section in which paragraph 49 sits is titled "Ireland and Northern Ireland".

.

That was my reading of it too. What looked to have been agreed in December looked very different by March.

I wonder if the talks are about to completely break down over the NI issue, Mrs May comes back from the October summit and says that she’s sorry but can’t possibly accept any agreement that annexes NI so it’s going to be no deal and no £39bn, but we will spend the next six months making preparations to exit on good terms to the best of our abilities. If the EU want to come back to the table that’s up to them, and we could offer to work with an impartial arbitrator to solve the impasse, but the U.K. is the U.K. and can’t be divided.

That should have been what she said the day after Chequers was rejected. If not months beforehand.

That’s what I expected her to say last week to be honest.

Just about the only sensible option for a long term settled relationship is something based around the Canada arrangement - the U.K. doesn’t want a vassal state arrangement and the EU doesn’t want a huge Singapore off their shore. So it’s in everyone’s best interest to work towards that solution.

The above is, of course, based on the economics rather than the politics - and with the EU the two are inextricably linked. I don’t believe they’ve negotiated in good faith, they’ve been more concerned at seeing the U.K. “punished” for daring to leave The Project, than getting a mutually beneficial deal.

How is sticking to the negotiating criteria that they made clear at the very beginning of the negotiations not "negotiating in good faith"?

Both the concept and the sneakiness of the “NI backstop” for a start, alongside what’s now clearly the intention to run down the clock in the hope of last-minute concessions from the U.K. to avoid a crash out, and the refusal to talk about the future trading relationship as required by Article 50 of Lisbon.

Article 50 doesn't say anything about trade. It says the withdrawal should take account of the framework of the future relationship. That framework is determined by the UK's red lines.

The framework is just as much determined by the EU’s red lines, and the political imperative of discouraging others from going down the same path.

Is the EU refusing a Brexit based on the full SM/CU?

Philip_Thompson

williamglenn said:

Sandpit said:

The framework is just as much determined by the EU’s red lines, and the political imperative of discouraging others from going down the same path.

Is the EU refusing a Brexit based on the full SM/CU?

Full SM/CU is not Brexit.

TOPPING

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Sandpit said:

The framework is just as much determined by the EU’s red lines, and the political imperative of discouraging others from going down the same path.

Is the EU refusing a Brexit based on the full SM/CU?

Full SM/CU is not Brexit.

It is for Norway, etc

Edit: and of course this is the most corrosive thing the Brexiters have done to our country. Peddled the myth that EEA/EFTA is somehow not in keeping with the vote in 2016 which is of course absolute bolleaux and won't that invented idea well and truly f&ck the country.

OchEye

Found this, this morning, a quite sober look at the present Labour Party from the London Review of Books:

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n18/lorna-finlayson/corbyn-now

williamglenn

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Sandpit said:

The framework is just as much determined by the EU’s red lines, and the political imperative of discouraging others from going down the same path.

Is the EU refusing a Brexit based on the full SM/CU?

Full SM/CU is not Brexit.

Rees-Mogg once had a very broad definition of what would constitute 'Brexit'.

https://twitter.com/stephen_rth/status/1030849353894776832

Philip_Thompson

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Sandpit said:

The framework is just as much determined by the EU’s red lines, and the political imperative of discouraging others from going down the same path.

Is the EU refusing a Brexit based on the full SM/CU?

Full SM/CU is not Brexit.

It is for Norway, etc

Edit: and of course this is the most corrosive thing the Brexiters have done to our country. Peddled the myth that EEA/EFTA is somehow not in keeping with the vote in 2016 which is of course absolute bolleaux and won't that invented idea well and truly f&ck the country.

When did Norway etc join the CU?

EEA/EFTA would be in keeping with the vote (though not what either the Leave nor Remain campaigners said). SM/CU is not.

Philip_Thompson

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Sandpit said:

The framework is just as much determined by the EU’s red lines, and the political imperative of discouraging others from going down the same path.

Is the EU refusing a Brexit based on the full SM/CU?

Full SM/CU is not Brexit.

Rees-Mogg once had a very broad definition of what would constitute 'Brexit'.

https://twitter.com/stephen_rth/status/1030849353894776832

Which of Norway, Switzerland or Canada are in the Customs Union?

OchEye

A View from South of the Irish Border on Salzburg Chaos (?)

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2018/0921/995292-salzburg-chronic-misreading/

williamglenn

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Sandpit said:

The framework is just as much determined by the EU’s red lines, and the political imperative of discouraging others from going down the same path.

Is the EU refusing a Brexit based on the full SM/CU?

Full SM/CU is not Brexit.

It is for Norway, etc

Edit: and of course this is the most corrosive thing the Brexiters have done to our country. Peddled the myth that EEA/EFTA is somehow not in keeping with the vote in 2016 which is of course absolute bolleaux and won't that invented idea well and truly f&ck the country.

When did Norway etc join the CU?

Is Turkey in the EU?

Foxy

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

It says that because the United Kingdom is the party singing the agreement. The whole section in which paragraph 49 sits is titled "Ireland and Northern Ireland".

The title isn't the action, the text is the action. Because of the situation with regards to Ireland and Northern Ireland (the title) the agreement reached is crystal clear: In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North - South cooperation, the all - island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.

Both parties signed that. The backstop is that the UK would remain aligned. Nowhere does it say this is not a UK backstop. Nowhere does it say Northern Ireland alone would stay aligned. It specifically and explicitly says that the UK will remain aligned.

Only after the agreement was signed did Barnier reneg on what was signed and insist that the UK couldn't have a backstop and only Northern Ireland must. What was signed is that the UK would though.

Paragraph 46: "The commitments and principles outlined in this joint report will not pre-determine the outcome of wider discussions on the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom and are, as necessary, specific to the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland."

Yes they are specific to the circumstances on the island of Ireland but that doesn't vary what was agreed which is a UK wide backstop to address those circumstances. Otherwise are you suggesting Ireland is committed to losing its integrity with the rest of the EU? Why should the integrity of the EU be sacrosanct but the integrity of the UK goes up in smoke? It doesn't say anywhere that it does.

If you think paragraph 49 describes a UK-wide backstop, what exactly is the purpose of paragraph 50?

Article 50 emphasises the fact that its a UK-wide backstop by ruling out any variances unless Stormont approves. If Stormont believes that it becomes appropriate for Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK to diverge then Stormont retains that right, but Westminster does not have that right unilaterally. Only Stormont can approve any divergence.

So in the absence of any Article 50 Stormont-approved variances the Article 49 backstop remains UK-wide.

So if I understand things correctly, the problem with the EU position is that we cannot stay in the SM and CU?

Theres me thinking that Brexiteers wanted us out of these. How could I be so wrong?

williamglenn

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Sandpit said:

The framework is just as much determined by the EU’s red lines, and the political imperative of discouraging others from going down the same path.

Is the EU refusing a Brexit based on the full SM/CU?

Full SM/CU is not Brexit.

Rees-Mogg once had a very broad definition of what would constitute 'Brexit'.

https://twitter.com/stephen_rth/status/1030849353894776832

Which of Norway, Switzerland or Canada are in the Customs Union?

He also says we might have "entirely free trade" which implies a customs union.

Sandpit

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Sandpit said:

The framework is just as much determined by the EU’s red lines, and the political imperative of discouraging others from going down the same path.

Is the EU refusing a Brexit based on the full SM/CU?

Full SM/CU is not Brexit.

Rees-Mogg once had a very broad definition of what would constitute 'Brexit'.

https://twitter.com/stephen_rth/status/1030849353894776832

Which of Norway, Switzerland or Canada are in the Customs Union?

He also says we might have "entirely free trade" which implies a customs union.

There’s a very big difference between free trade and a customs union.

Mortimer

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Sandpit said:

The framework is just as much determined by the EU’s red lines, and the political imperative of discouraging others from going down the same path.

Is the EU refusing a Brexit based on the full SM/CU?

Full SM/CU is not Brexit.

It is for Norway, etc

Edit: and of course this is the most corrosive thing the Brexiters have done to our country. Peddled the myth that EEA/EFTA is somehow not in keeping with the vote in 2016 which is of course absolute bolleaux and won't that invented idea well and truly f&ck the country.

EEA countries are not in the Customs Union.

The Tory party has committed to end free movement from the EU. So it isn't consistent with government policy to remain in the SM.

williamglenn

Sandpit said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Sandpit said:

The framework is just as much determined by the EU’s red lines, and the political imperative of discouraging others from going down the same path.

Is the EU refusing a Brexit based on the full SM/CU?

Full SM/CU is not Brexit.

Rees-Mogg once had a very broad definition of what would constitute 'Brexit'.

https://twitter.com/stephen_rth/status/1030849353894776832

Which of Norway, Switzerland or Canada are in the Customs Union?

He also says we might have "entirely free trade" which implies a customs union.

There’s a very big difference between free trade and a customs union.

No, if you're talking about our deal with Europe, which he is, "entirely free trade" without rules of origin bureaucracy and other non-tariff barriers can only mean full participation in the single market *and* customs union.

Mortimer

OchEye said:

A View from South of the Irish Border on Salzburg Chaos (?)

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2018/0921/995292-salzburg-chronic-misreading/

More EU cherry picking.

The UK stays intact. Until they get that, we can't move forward.

steve_garner

Labour seem to be getting their knickers in a twist over this second referendum lark. It appears that Starmer thinks a stay in the EU option is still on the table whilst McCluskey and McDonnell seem to have ruled that out.Have Corbyn and Watson been too clever by half?

TOPPING

Mortimer said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Sandpit said:

The framework is just as much determined by the EU’s red lines, and the political imperative of discouraging others from going down the same path.

Is the EU refusing a Brexit based on the full SM/CU?

Full SM/CU is not Brexit.

It is for Norway, etc

Edit: and of course this is the most corrosive thing the Brexiters have done to our country. Peddled the myth that EEA/EFTA is somehow not in keeping with the vote in 2016 which is of course absolute bolleaux and won't that invented idea well and truly f&ck the country.

EEA countries are not in the Customs Union.

The Tory party has committed to end free movement from the EU. So it isn't consistent with government policy to remain in the SM.

Yes I appreciate that EEA countries are not in the CU. And it is entirely my point that the Tory Party decided that the vote meant that "the people" don't want FoM. Now of course many don't but so what? Brexit was always going to disappoint many people so I don't see why the fuckers decided that freedom of movement should be so important.

logical_song

Mortimer said:

OchEye said:

A View from South of the Irish Border on Salzburg Chaos (?)

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2018/0921/995292-salzburg-chronic-misreading/

More EU cherry picking.

The UK stays intact. Until they get that, we can't move forward.

Easy just stay in CU and SM.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-42412972

Gallowgate

Hi everyone. Just as an update, my operation was a success but I’m still in the hospital. Hopefully they will let me go home soon. Thanks for all your kind words prior!

TOPPING

Gallowgate said:

Hi everyone. Just as an update, my operation was a success but I’m still in the hospital. Hopefully they will let me go home soon. Thanks for all your kind words prior!

Here have a couple of kind words ex-post!

Delighted that all is well!

Mortimer

Gallowgate said:

Hi everyone. Just as an update, my operation was a success but I’m still in the hospital. Hopefully they will let me go home soon. Thanks for all your kind words prior!

Thats good to hear, Gallowgate!

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Gate, glad you're ok, and hope you can prise yourself free of the nurses' clutches soon.

RobD

logical_song said:

Mortimer said:

OchEye said:

A View from South of the Irish Border on Salzburg Chaos (?)

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2018/0921/995292-salzburg-chronic-misreading/

More EU cherry picking.

The UK stays intact. Until they get that, we can't move forward.

Easy just stay in CU and SM.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-42412972

So, basically, stay in the EU?

As for your link, what has that got to do with single market or customs union membership?

RobD

Gallowgate said:

Hi everyone. Just as an update, my operation was a success but I’m still in the hospital. Hopefully they will let me go home soon. Thanks for all your kind words prior!

Here’s to a speedy recovery!

Hertsmere_Pubgoer

Gallowgate said:

Hi everyone. Just as an update, my operation was a success but I’m still in the hospital. Hopefully they will let me go home soon. Thanks for all your kind words prior!

Good news to hear

Sandpit

Gallowgate said:

Hi everyone. Just as an update, my operation was a success but I’m still in the hospital. Hopefully they will let me go home soon. Thanks for all your kind words prior!

Good news, hope they let you out soon!

Sandpit

logical_song said:

Mortimer said:

OchEye said:

A View from South of the Irish Border on Salzburg Chaos (?)

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2018/0921/995292-salzburg-chronic-misreading/

More EU cherry picking.

The UK stays intact. Until they get that, we can't move forward.

Easy just stay in CU and SM.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-42412972

So we have to accept law we have no say on, have no ability to make trade deals and have to allow freedom of movement. In what conceivable way have we left the EU?

Sandpit

Interesting YouGov question...

oxfordsimon

steve_garner said:

Labour seem to be getting their knickers in a twist over this second referendum lark. It appears that Starmer thinks a stay in the EU option is still on the table whilst McCluskey and McDonnell seem to have ruled that out.Have Corbyn and Watson been too clever by half?

No one could ever accuse Corbyn of being clever

AlastairMeeks

Gallowgate said:

Hi everyone. Just as an update, my operation was a success but I’m still in the hospital. Hopefully they will let me go home soon. Thanks for all your kind words prior!

Get well soon but don't be in a hurry and overdo things. Listen to the medics.

philiph

oxfordsimon said:

steve_garner said:

Labour seem to be getting their knickers in a twist over this second referendum lark. It appears that Starmer thinks a stay in the EU option is still on the table whilst McCluskey and McDonnell seem to have ruled that out.Have Corbyn and Watson been too clever by half?

No one could ever accuse Corbyn of being clever

I disagree.

It wouldn't shock me at all to find politicians calling him clever, even some journalists from the disreputable wing of the profession could do so without causing shock..

Philip_Thompson

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Sandpit said:

The framework is just as much determined by the EU’s red lines, and the political imperative of discouraging others from going down the same path.

Is the EU refusing a Brexit based on the full SM/CU?

Full SM/CU is not Brexit.

It is for Norway, etc

Edit: and of course this is the most corrosive thing the Brexiters have done to our country. Peddled the myth that EEA/EFTA is somehow not in keeping with the vote in 2016 which is of course absolute bolleaux and won't that invented idea well and truly f&ck the country.

When did Norway etc join the CU?

Is Turkey in the EU?

Is it in the Single Market?

AlastairMeeks

On topic, Jeremy Corbyn isn't courting public popularity at present, he's focusing on tightening his grip on the Labour party. Past experience has shown when he does apply himself to courting public popularity he's rather good at it. I would be wary of reading too much into such polls for those reasons.

Big_G_NorthWales

BBC saying oil price is rising and could go to 100 dollars a barrel - Brent 80.48 today

Hammond will need to forget his price increase

Sean_F

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

It says that because the United Kingdom is the party singing the agreement. The whole section in which paragraph 49 sits is titled "Ireland and Northern Ireland".

The title isn't the action, the text is the action. Because of the situation with regards to Ireland and Northern Ireland (the title) the agreement reached is crystal clear: In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North - South cooperation, the all - island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.

Both parties signed that. The backstop is that the UK would remain aligned. Nowhere does it say this is not a UK backstop. Nowhere does it say Northern Ireland alone would stay aligned. It specifically and explicitly says that the UK will remain aligned.

Only after the agreement was signed did Barnier reneg on what was signed and insist that the UK couldn't have a backstop and only Northern Ireland must. What was signed is that the UK would though.

Paragraph 46: "The commitments and principles outlined in this joint report will not pre-determine the outcome of wider discussions on the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom and are, as necessary, specific to the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland."

Either the wording is deliberately ambiguous, or it's unintentionally ambiguous.

Philip_Thompson

Foxy said:

So if I understand things correctly, the problem with the EU position is that we cannot stay in the SM and CU?

Theres me thinking that Brexiteers wanted us out of these. How could I be so wrong?

It doesn't say we will be in the SM and CU it says we will be aligned to them. Which is what May has proposed with Chequers and they're calling cherrypicking.

TheScreamingEagles

Here we go.

https://twitter.com/marshallcohen/status/1044236933046706176?s=21

FrancisUrquhart

Sandpit said:

Interesting YouGov question...

They need "its complicated" option. I wouldn't call Jezza a racist, but he has a more unbalanced opinion when it comes to Israel and Jews than Adonis on Brexit. But I don't think he sees it that way.

Same with the parties, I don't think the Tories are a racist party in that the people who really make decisions aren't, but I am fairly certain there is a proportion of bigoted members especially when it comes to Muslims.

The difference we have seen with Labour is all the anti-Semitic stuff isn't just the equivalent of the Tory local councillor golf club bore it is much higher up and it has become more emboldened since Labour has been under new management.

TheScreamingEagles

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1044238981486051330?s=21

TheScreamingEagles

I’ll never forget the 2014 Tory conference.

https://twitter.com/yougov/status/1044168115653922816?s=21

Foxy

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

So if I understand things correctly, the problem with the EU position is that we cannot stay in the SM and CU?

Theres me thinking that Brexiteers wanted us out of these. How could I be so wrong?

It doesn't say we will be in the SM and CU it says we will be aligned to them. Which is what May has proposed with Chequers and they're calling cherrypicking.

Total alignment is surely just a euphemism for participation, and partial alignment is like being partially pregnant. If partially aligned then there needs to be customs/checks.

NorthofStoke

philiph said:

oxfordsimon said:

steve_garner said:

Labour seem to be getting their knickers in a twist over this second referendum lark. It appears that Starmer thinks a stay in the EU option is still on the table whilst McCluskey and McDonnell seem to have ruled that out.Have Corbyn and Watson been too clever by half?

No one could ever accuse Corbyn of being clever

I disagree.

It wouldn't shock me at all to find politicians calling him clever, even some journalists from the disreputable wing of the profession could do so without causing shock..

Crafty and clever are slightly different.

matt

TOPPING said:

Mortimer said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Sandpit said:

The framework is just as much determined by the EU’s red lines, and the political imperative of discouraging others from going down the same path.

Is the EU refusing a Brexit based on the full SM/CU?

Full SM/CU is not Brexit.

It is for Norway, etc

Edit: and of course this is the most corrosive thing the Brexiters have done to our country. Peddled the myth that EEA/EFTA is somehow not in keeping with the vote in 2016 which is of course absolute bolleaux and won't that invented idea well and truly f&ck the country.

EEA countries are not in the Customs Union.

The Tory party has committed to end free movement from the EU. So it isn't consistent with government policy to remain in the SM.

Yes I appreciate that EEA countries are not in the CU. And it is entirely my point that the Tory Party decided that the vote meant that "the people" don't want FoM. Now of course many don't but so what? Brexit was always going to disappoint many people so I don't see why the fuckers decided that freedom of movement should be so important.

When your bandwagon was driven by racists, nostalgists and the economically inactive (a non-exclusive set) you adopt positions self-justify later.

DecrepitJohnL

Gallowgate said:

Hi everyone. Just as an update, my operation was a success but I’m still in the hospital. Hopefully they will let me go home soon. Thanks for all your kind words prior!

Good news. While you are there, you might as well see if you can get anything else lopped off. The NHS here has just today stuck a leaflet through the door advertising hip replacements.

TheScreamingEagles

Some more Brexit no deal papers have been published

https://twitter.com/jameserothwell/status/1044241316513796097?s=21

TheScreamingEagles

Gallowgate said:

Hi everyone. Just as an update, my operation was a success but I’m still in the hospital. Hopefully they will let me go home soon. Thanks for all your kind words prior!

Once you’re out of hospital I’ll do a thread on AV in your honour.

How’s that for an incentive.

Anorak

Get 'em when they're young.
https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1044239128236298240

oxfordsimon

Ignoring the content of what he is saying for just a moment...

If he really is a teacher, why isn't he in the classroom today? Time off to attend a party conference - not allowed according to all the teachers I know

https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1044239128236298240

And having seen this, would any parent want him teaching when he is clearly intent on indoctrination rather than a rounded education.

This sort of thinking renders someone unfit to be a teacher.

Big_G_NorthWales

Anorak said:

Get 'em when they're young.
https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1044239128236298240

They are already doing it

DecrepitJohnL

TheScreamingEagles said:

Some more Brexit no deal papers have been published

twitter.com/jameserothwell/status/1044241316513796097?s=21

"Complete and utter chaos" -- and if things are that bad under the Tories, imagine the mess if those Labour muppets were running Brexit.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Anorak, indoctrination begins early.

A study of religion in the US found the biggest single determining factor for religious belief was that of the parents.

Of course, adopting a religious approach to politics leads to cults. Which is not a healthy situation.

AndyJS

"Europe Elects
‏ @EuropeElects
1h1 hour ago

Germany, INSA poll:

CDU/CSU-EPP: 27% (-1)
AfD-EFDD: 18%
SPD-S&D: 16% (-1)
GRÜNE-G/EFA: 15%
LINKE-LEFT: 12% (+1)
FDP-ALDE: 10%

Field work: 21-24/09/18
Sample size: 2,051"

WhisperingOracle

The Tory antisemitism crisis continues ... when will May get a grip ?

"Hungarian PM Viktor Orban thanks Tory MEPs who voted against sanctions"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/24/hungarian-pm-viktor-orban-thanks-uk-tory-meps-who-voted-against-sanctions

TheScreamingEagles

oxfordsimon said:

Ignoring the content of what he is saying for just a moment...

If he really is a teacher, why isn't he in the classroom today? Time off to attend a party conference - not allowed according to all the teachers I know

https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1044239128236298240

And having seen this, would any parent want him teaching when he is clearly intent on indoctrination rather than a rounded education.

This sort of thinking renders someone unfit to be a teacher.

If he’s a union delegate then he’d be allowed to attend a few events like this.

But teachers like most of us are allowed to take (unpaid) holiday.

Anorak

WhisperingOracle said:

The Tory antisemitism crisis continues ... when will May get a grip ?

"Hungarian PM Viktor Orban thanks Tory MEPs who voted against sanctions"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/24/hungarian-pm-viktor-orban-thanks-uk-tory-meps-who-voted-against-sanctions

Utterly shameful of the government.

Big_G_NorthWales

Stella Creasy on Sky - the sane wing

oxfordsimon

TheScreamingEagles said:

oxfordsimon said:

Ignoring the content of what he is saying for just a moment...

If he really is a teacher, why isn't he in the classroom today? Time off to attend a party conference - not allowed according to all the teachers I know

https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1044239128236298240

And having seen this, would any parent want him teaching when he is clearly intent on indoctrination rather than a rounded education.

This sort of thinking renders someone unfit to be a teacher.

If he’s a union delegate then he’d be allowed to attend a few events like this.

But teachers like most of us are allowed to take (unpaid) holiday.

Teaching union conferences are scheduled during holidays so that they don't impact on teaching time.

But attending a party conference is not the same thing as attending your own union event.

Teachers need a really good reason to take time off in term. He must have a very, very understanding Head to allow this.

Big_G_NorthWales

Anorak said:

WhisperingOracle said:

The Tory antisemitism crisis continues ... when will May get a grip ?

"Hungarian PM Viktor Orban thanks Tory MEPs who voted against sanctions"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/24/hungarian-pm-viktor-orban-thanks-uk-tory-meps-who-voted-against-sanctions

Utterly shameful of the government.

I cannot say how much I condemn them for a cock eyed view that they will vote for anything that could damage the EU

The good news is that both they and Farage will be unemployed from March 2019