Does anyone have any idea what Labour's negotiating stance would be with the EU? As far as I can see that want all the benefits of the EU otherwise they would never agree to any deal that May achieves.
JC will do, and be, whatever you wish. Whatever the Tories can do, new Improved Labour can do better.
Opposition is about what you wouldn’t do. Government is about what you wouldn’t have done, and what you are now doing to fix it. Oppositions never say what they would really do in government, because they can’t predict precisely what damage the current government will do between today and when they, as new incoming government, will have to work out how to fix it.
If Labour really thinks it can negotiate Brexit better than the Tories then they should be able to spell out which of the current government's red lines would no longer be red lines for a Labour government. We know what the EU's red lines are. So which, if any, would be Labour's?
They really should be able to tell us whether or not they want any or all of the following:-
- FoM - Membership of the CU - Membership of the SM - Jurisdiction of the ECJ - NI within the CU - NI within the SM - A customs/regulatory border between NI and the rest of the UK
- and so on.
If in reality they want the same things as the Tories, then however charmingly they behave, they will get the same answer from the EU as Mrs May has.
If Labour cannot now give straight answers to these questions then they are simply talking out of their arse.
The difficulties of the negotiations have little to do with personalities or negotiating styles and everything to do with the substance of what the British government wants and this being unacceptable to the EU given their own red lines.
What would the benefit be for the Labour Party (or indeed the country) if they did this? I’m struggling to see any.
They wouldn't look like a bunch of dishonest shits?
I reckon the group who would be concerned that Labour look like dishonest shits is smaller than either the group who would see them as ‘thwarting the Will of the British People’ or the group who think they are ‘opting for economic ruin to pacify xenophobes’ if they have a more definite position. Indefinite criticism’s way less risky than a defined specific alternative.
1. Many Labour voters are Leave voters. "We will back a Brexit deal" is a clear message. 2. Most Labour members are Remain voters. "We won't let May crash us out or deliver a right wing wet dream deal" keeps them on board - he has to respect the majority view of the membership 3. Labour will back a move to ban the government accepting crash Brexit. I expect the meaningful vote that MPs get will do this 4. Labour will also reject whatever fudged version of Brexit May tries to cobble together - something that pro-Brexit voters also support
The calculation is that in both Blocking crash Brexit AND blocking a bullshit Brexit we can retain enough credit with both sides whilst bringing the government to a grinding halt. At which point either a fresh election or a referendum become necessary to make progress.
The flaw in that is 3. It's like voting to ban the incoming tide.
Did we ever get to the bottom of whether there is still a meaningful vote if there is never any meaningful agreed deal to vote on?
Presumably it would be a meaningless meaningful vote confirming we don't want to accept something which hasn't been offered,
That it is a meaningless meaningful vote may not be good reason to stop MPs debating it for three meaningless days.... I suspect the Speaker will be happy to let that happen.
Does anyone have any idea what Labour's negotiating stance would be with the EU? As far as I can see that want all the benefits of the EU otherwise they would never agree to any deal that May achieves.
The big difference is Labour is fine with the customs union. On the single market, more tricky, bit more cakeism. But they have a more room to negotiate because they don't care about trade deals. The issue would be FOM I think.
As there won't be any trade deals that won't pose a problem. I know that Liam Fox says we will get much better trade deals than the one we have as part of the EU but as anyone with a brain can see you don't give preferential terms to the smaller party (us) than you do the bigger party (the EU).
FOM is the big Labour issue. A LOT of Labour voters genuinely fed up with foreign workers reducing wages. Or in some cases just fed up with foreigners. That even the crash Brexit people say there won't be any significant change in migration must really hack them off. How any politician in any party squares off expectations with practical reality is beyond me.
Yes but the Tories have to maintain a fiction on trade deals, Labour don't. It's just much less of a problem for them.
On FOM, my suspicion would be that Labour would get rid of it/try to introduce some restriction on low-skilled labour. I think they would be more relaxed about promising regulatory alignment with the EU, which would hopefully facilitate greater single market access even if they weren't able to sign up to the whole thing in the end.
I could be wrong though, and perhaps the single marketeers would win out, and say we have to swallow FOM. You're absolutely right though that it's very difficult for any politician to deliver on this.
The discussion about Labour abstaining on critical votes is going to gather steam. JC has always wanted to leave the EU, and could do so without having to take any responsibility for it if it takes care; firstly when there is a binary vote Labour would propose an amendment which it is sure to lose, giving it cover for abstaining on the main vote, eg a vote between a Brexit WA they don't like and a no deal Brexit. As it is the opposition the fact it has no coherent policy does not matter. Sadly the government doesn't either but that's another story.
Yes, eventually there’s going to be a crunch vote, whereby either the deal on the table is agreed or we crash out.
Everyone and his dog will try and amend the Bill, but it will come down in the end to “Vote for this Brexit Bill or we crash out with no deal and the planes stop flying”, at which point Labour will almost certainly have to abstain.
I was amazed to read that 47% of Greater London itself is green space (this does not include the vast open spaces like Epping Forest and Windsor Great Park which are mostly just outside the boundary). I knew London was a very green city (and I live a couple of miles from the edge of open countryside) but was surprised to read the ratio was that high.
There is a very small proportion of Greater London which is actually classified as rural:
@Tykejohnno might be interested to know that Leeds/Bradford is problematic for creating the built-up areas. The algorithms used by Ordnance Survey treat spaces enclosed by built-up areas as part of that built-up area. So Hyde Park gets counted as being in the London built-up area. The bit between Leeds and Bradford is enclosed by the same built-up area which means it too counts as being that built-up area, even though it is a rural area.
That's a very long research document – which part is rural – I would guess somewhere in the far north east, north of Chingford perhaps, that small part of Epping Forest which is in London or maybe in the far south-east towards Box Hill, Kent borders??
There used to be an Enfield Chace Hunt (now amalgamated with The Cambridgeshire).
1. Many Labour voters are Leave voters. "We will back a Brexit deal" is a clear message. 2. Most Labour members are Remain voters. "We won't let May crash us out or deliver a right wing wet dream deal" keeps them on board - he has to respect the majority view of the membership 3. Labour will back a move to ban the government accepting crash Brexit. I expect the meaningful vote that MPs get will do this 4. Labour will also reject whatever fudged version of Brexit May tries to cobble together - something that pro-Brexit voters also support
The calculation is that in both Blocking crash Brexit AND blocking a bullshit Brexit we can retain enough credit with both sides whilst bringing the government to a grinding halt. At which point either a fresh election or a referendum become necessary to make progress.
Is it really possible to block a crash Brexit? I thought that as A50 is still running it will take us out automatically on 29th March.
It forces the government to go back to the negotiating table. I take Richard's point about the tide, but it would at least compel the government to do something more than sit sulkily in London shouting obscenities about foreigners. Which is what the Tory party will do otherwise having utterly screwed this up.
BTW Labour will not abstain. There would be an uprising against Corbyn and not just from the MPs. Members are very clear in their views on this one...
And if the Govt. says, right-o, we'll start renegotiating with the EU on, say April 1st...?
1. Many Labour voters are Leave voters. "We will back a Brexit deal" is a clear message. 2. Most Labour members are Remain voters. "We won't let May crash us out or deliver a right wing wet dream deal" keeps them on board - he has to respect the majority view of the membership 3. Labour will back a move to ban the government accepting crash Brexit. I expect the meaningful vote that MPs get will do this 4. Labour will also reject whatever fudged version of Brexit May tries to cobble together - something that pro-Brexit voters also support
The calculation is that in both Blocking crash Brexit AND blocking a bullshit Brexit we can retain enough credit with both sides whilst bringing the government to a grinding halt. At which point either a fresh election or a referendum become necessary to make progress.
Is it really possible to block a crash Brexit? I thought that as A50 is still running it will take us out automatically on 29th March.
The way to block Crash Brexit is via A50 extension. That might well bring down the May government, but I suspect that that result wouldn't keep Jezza awake all night.
I think Thornberry has said Labour would seek an A50 extension if they came to power. I'd imagine the EU member countries would grant that, given the undesirability of 'no deal', and the potential offered by having a new government to negotiate with.
1. Many Labour voters are Leave voters. "We will back a Brexit deal" is a clear message. 2. Most Labour members are Remain voters. "We won't let May crash us out or deliver a right wing wet dream deal" keeps them on board - he has to respect the majority view of the membership 3. Labour will back a move to ban the government accepting crash Brexit. I expect the meaningful vote that MPs get will do this 4. Labour will also reject whatever fudged version of Brexit May tries to cobble together - something that pro-Brexit voters also support
The calculation is that in both Blocking crash Brexit AND blocking a bullshit Brexit we can retain enough credit with both sides whilst bringing the government to a grinding halt. At which point either a fresh election or a referendum become necessary to make progress.
Is it really possible to block a crash Brexit? I thought that as A50 is still running it will take us out automatically on 29th March.
It forces the government to go back to the negotiating table. I take Richard's point about the tide, but it would at least compel the government to do something more than sit sulkily in London shouting obscenities about foreigners. Which is what the Tory party will do otherwise having utterly screwed this up.
BTW Labour will not abstain. There would be an uprising against Corbyn and not just from the MPs. Members are very clear in their views on this one...
Going back to the negotiating table is all very well but it does not change the legal reality. MPs cannot just keep saying no to everything or a crash out will be unavaoidable as we run out of time. I cannot believe that someone as controlling or cautious as Mrs May would countenance a crash out in a month of Sundays. In extremis she will sue for EEA and push it through with cross party support.
1. Many Labour voters are Leave voters. "We will back a Brexit deal" is a clear message. 2. Most Labour members are Remain voters. "We won't let May crash us out or deliver a right wing wet dream deal" keeps them on board - he has to respect the majority view of the membership 3. Labour will back a move to ban the government accepting crash Brexit. I expect the meaningful vote that MPs get will do this 4. Labour will also reject whatever fudged version of Brexit May tries to cobble together - something that pro-Brexit voters also support
The calculation is that in both Blocking crash Brexit AND blocking a bullshit Brexit we can retain enough credit with both sides whilst bringing the government to a grinding halt. At which point either a fresh election or a referendum become necessary to make progress.
The flaw in that is 3. It's like voting to ban the incoming tide.
Corbyn seems to be assuming that a) he can get all his MPs to vote the way he wants and that b) the LDs and SNP will do the same.
My view is that if May gets a deal it will be voted through the Commons. If it is something along the lines of Chequers, the ERG will vote against but enough LD, SNP and Lab remainers will back it. If it is Canada, the remainers will vote against but the ERG will be back on board
The discussion about Labour abstaining on critical votes is going to gather steam. JC has always wanted to leave the EU, and could do so without having to take any responsibility for it if it takes care; firstly when there is a binary vote Labour would propose an amendment which it is sure to lose, giving it cover for abstaining on the main vote, eg a vote between a Brexit WA they don't like and a no deal Brexit. As it is the opposition the fact it has no coherent policy does not matter. Sadly the government doesn't either but that's another story.
Yes, eventually there’s going to be a crunch vote, whereby either the deal on the table is agreed or we crash out.
Everyone and his dog will try and amend the Bill, but it will come down in the end to “Vote for this Brexit Bill or we crash out with no deal and the planes stop flying”, at which point Labour will almost certainly have to abstain.
Thats assuming that there is a deal to vote on. Someone is going to have to massively compromise. It won't be the EU, and I doubt that May could get a massive compromise through the cabinet never mind her party.
I was amazed to read that 47% of Greater London itself is green space (this does not include the vast open spaces like Epping Forest and Windsor Great Park which are mostly just outside the boundary). I knew London was a very green city (and I live a couple of miles from the edge of open countryside) but was surprised to read the ratio was that high.
There is a very small proportion of Greater London which is actually classified as rural:
@Tykejohnno might be interested to know that Leeds/Bradford is problematic for creating the built-up areas. The algorithms used by Ordnance Survey treat spaces enclosed by built-up areas as part of that built-up area. So Hyde Park gets counted as being in the London built-up area. The bit between Leeds and Bradford is enclosed by the same built-up area which means it too counts as being that built-up area, even though it is a rural area.
That's a very long research document – which part is rural – I would guess somewhere in the far north east, north of Chingford perhaps, that small part of Epping Forest which is in London or maybe in the far south-east towards Box Hill, Kent borders??
The latter, I think.
Botany Bay is separated from both Enfield Town and Potters Bar by farmland, so would probably count as rural.
And quite a few oceans. Is it not about 10,500 miles away?
I don't know whether it is named after the Australian bay, or whether the bay is named after the village.
I would have thought Botany Bay along the Enfield Ridgeway had been around for longer than we discovered Australia
Yes, but places get renamed, e.g. Enham Alamein in Hampshire. The Australian place was so named because Cook's first visit there found lots and lots of previously unknown plant species.
The discussion about Labour abstaining on critical votes is going to gather steam. JC has always wanted to leave the EU, and could do so without having to take any responsibility for it if it takes care; firstly when there is a binary vote Labour would propose an amendment which it is sure to lose, giving it cover for abstaining on the main vote, eg a vote between a Brexit WA they don't like and a no deal Brexit. As it is the opposition the fact it has no coherent policy does not matter. Sadly the government doesn't either but that's another story.
Yes, eventually there’s going to be a crunch vote, whereby either the deal on the table is agreed or we crash out.
Everyone and his dog will try and amend the Bill, but it will come down in the end to “Vote for this Brexit Bill or we crash out with no deal and the planes stop flying”, at which point Labour will almost certainly have to abstain.
Thats assuming that there is a deal to vote on. Someone is going to have to massively compromise. It won't be the EU, and I doubt that May could get a massive compromise through the cabinet never mind her party.
From where we are now, both sides need to make concessions to get to a deal. It’s going to come down to whether or not an electronic border in NI is acceptable to the EU, or if they decide a physical one is required instead. If there’s no agreement then it’s the physical border they insist they don’t want.
The discussion about Labour abstaining on critical votes is going to gather steam. JC has always wanted to leave the EU, and could do so without having to take any responsibility for it if it takes care; firstly when there is a binary vote Labour would propose an amendment which it is sure to lose, giving it cover for abstaining on the main vote, eg a vote between a Brexit WA they don't like and a no deal Brexit. As it is the opposition the fact it has no coherent policy does not matter. Sadly the government doesn't either but that's another story.
Yes, eventually there’s going to be a crunch vote, whereby either the deal on the table is agreed or we crash out.
Everyone and his dog will try and amend the Bill, but it will come down in the end to “Vote for this Brexit Bill or we crash out with no deal and the planes stop flying”, at which point Labour will almost certainly have to abstain.
Thats assuming that there is a deal to vote on. Someone is going to have to massively compromise. It won't be the EU, and I doubt that May could get a massive compromise through the cabinet never mind her party.
The known unknown is whether, at the death, the EU will in fact compromise. eg. Nick P says that is in their DNA. It's a question of whether they will do so in this instance. The alternative is increasingly (I previously had it down as a 20% chance) for a customs border down in the Irish Sea which will be called something entirely different.
Whether it is entirely out of sight out of mind (it will be to the country, it might not be to the ERG), it is moreso than the other options (all UK in SM/CU; or NI-only in SM/CU).
I think Thornberry has said Labour would seek an A50 extension if they came to power. I'd imagine the EU member countries would grant that, given the undesirability of 'no deal', and the potential offered by having a new government to negotiate with.
Doesn't that cause a problem? If we don't leave by end of April 2019, we have to vote in EU Parliament elections.
I think Thornberry has said Labour would seek an A50 extension if they came to power. I'd imagine the EU member countries would grant that, given the undesirability of 'no deal', and the potential offered by having a new government to negotiate with.
Doesn't that cause a problem? If we don't leave by end of April 2019, we have to vote in EU Parliament elections.
That is surely a good thing as it means we can bet on Nigel Farage being reelected.
The discussion about Labour abstaining on critical votes is going to gather steam. JC has always wanted to leave the EU, and could do so without having to take any responsibility for it if it takes care; firstly when there is a binary vote Labour would propose an amendment which it is sure to lose, giving it cover for abstaining on the main vote, eg a vote between a Brexit WA they don't like and a no deal Brexit. As it is the opposition the fact it has no coherent policy does not matter. Sadly the government doesn't either but that's another story.
Yes, eventually there’s going to be a crunch vote, whereby either the deal on the table is agreed or we crash out.
Everyone and his dog will try and amend the Bill, but it will come down in the end to “Vote for this Brexit Bill or we crash out with no deal and the planes stop flying”, at which point Labour will almost certainly have to abstain.
Thats assuming that there is a deal to vote on. Someone is going to have to massively compromise. It won't be the EU, and I doubt that May could get a massive compromise through the cabinet never mind her party.
From where we are now, both sides need to make concessions to get to a deal. It’s going to come down to whether or not an electronic border in NI is acceptable to the EU, or if they decide a physical one is required instead. If there’s no agreement then it’s the physical border they insist they don’t want.
And I can see that providing the cover for some kind of compromise on both sides. Lets face it, the Tories especially ERG Tories haven't a clue how the WTO actually works. As you say, no deal and two different arrangements on the Island of Ireland mandates a physical border under WTO rules.
So for an EU and ROI government negotiating forcefully to avoid such a thing, a failed negotiation brings about the thing they don't want. The question is of course is the damage that this failure would bring about be bigger or smaller than the damage that a favoured deal for the UK encouraging other countries would do...?
The biggest downside to conference, it must be said, is all the pathetic conspiracism you can’t help but hear, epitomised by the persistent presence of such groups as Labour Against the Witch Hunt. At one of their events, Chris Williamson explained that party disciplinary action against antisemitism was “McCarthyism”.
On a closely related note, I could live without people wittering knowingly about the “deep state”. The “deep state” is Labour’s broken metatarsal – the preloaded explanation you have before the World Cup has even kicked off for why England aren’t going to fulfil their potential. It won’t be because you’re a long ball team, or because your egos are writing cheques your body can’t cash, or because there isn’t money to pay for any of this stuff. It’ll be because of the deep state. In America, this phrase is the preserve of alt-right MAGA wingnuts. Over here, no one is doing more to make “deep state” happen than Andrew Murray, Corbyn adviser, Unite chief of staff, and former chair of the Stop This Particular War coalition.
1. Many Labour voters are Leave voters. "We will back a Brexit deal" is a clear message. 2. Most Labour members are Remain voters. "We won't let May crash us out or deliver a right wing wet dream deal" keeps them on board - he has to respect the majority view of the membership 3. Labour will back a move to ban the government accepting crash Brexit. I expect the meaningful vote that MPs get will do this 4. Labour will also reject whatever fudged version of Brexit May tries to cobble together - something that pro-Brexit voters also support
The calculation is that in both Blocking crash Brexit AND blocking a bullshit Brexit we can retain enough credit with both sides whilst bringing the government to a grinding halt. At which point either a fresh election or a referendum become necessary to make progress.
The flaw in that is 3. It's like voting to ban the incoming tide.
Did we ever get to the bottom of whether there is still a meaningful vote if there is never any meaningful agreed deal to vote on?
Presumably it would be a meaningless meaningful vote confirming we don't want to accept something which hasn't been offered,
I really struggle to see how the meaningful vote is going to be the deal that the government has negotiated, warts and all, or no deal at all. I don't really see how Article 50 allows for anything else. Even if Parliament wanted to remain (because the deal was so bad) it is not in their power to decide that is what will happen because it would need the unanimous consent of the 27 which would be uncertain at the very least.
So May's logic that a bad deal is worse than no deal will be tested to its limits and, in my view, found to be wrong.
I was amazed to read that 47% of Greater London itself is green space (this does not include the vast open spaces like Epping Forest and Windsor Great Park which are mostly just outside the boundary). I knew London was a very green city (and I live a couple of miles from the edge of open countryside) but was surprised to read the ratio was that high.
About a third of Enfield is open countryside.
I was over there just the other day garden plant shopping! It has a bizarre gardening enclave around Crews Hill which I am sure you are familiar with (a landscaper friend claims its the biggest gardening retail district in Europe??). As you say, much of the area is open countryside. I saw some grouse and pheasant after the shopping trip as we took a walk out along the lanes.
Almost certainly not grouse! (Partridge?)
Maybe, I am no expert as you have already gathered
They were brown and hopped around a lot. The pheasant obviously are distinctive even to a layman.
They could perhaps have been female pheasants? They basically wear light brown camo...
In which case I guess that is most likely. I didn’t even know that the coloured ones were only the males! I really need to learn more about this! Thanks.
1. Many Labour voters are Leave voters. "We will back a Brexit deal" is a clear message. 2. Most Labour members are Remain voters. "We won't let May crash us out or deliver a right wing wet dream deal" keeps them on board - he has to respect the majority view of the membership 3. Labour will back a move to ban the government accepting crash Brexit. I expect the meaningful vote that MPs get will do this 4. Labour will also reject whatever fudged version of Brexit May tries to cobble together - something that pro-Brexit voters also support
The calculation is that in both Blocking crash Brexit AND blocking a bullshit Brexit we can retain enough credit with both sides whilst bringing the government to a grinding halt. At which point either a fresh election or a referendum become necessary to make progress.
The flaw in that is 3. It's like voting to ban the incoming tide.
Did we ever get to the bottom of whether there is still a meaningful vote if there is never any meaningful agreed deal to vote on?
Presumably it would be a meaningless meaningful vote confirming we don't want to accept something which hasn't been offered,
I really struggle to see how the meaningful vote is going to be the deal that the government has negotiated, warts and all, or no deal at all. I don't really see how Article 50 allows for anything else. Even if Parliament wanted to remain (because the deal was so bad) it is not in their power to decide that is what will happen because it would need the unanimous consent of the 27 which would be uncertain at the very least.
So May's logic that a bad deal is worse than no deal will be tested to its limits and, in my view, found to be wrong.
Do we know when to expect this legal ruling on whether A50 can be revoked? If it's before the meaningful vote and affirms that you can unilaterally withdraw, then it'll undercut everything May is saying. I doubt it will, but that is well worth keeping an eye on.
You would think for any normal politician that would be the end of him. Taking money from a regime like that after he was supposedly disgusted by their behaviour in an election (if not so concerned about the torture of a UK journalist).
It is really beyond belief that this sort of thing is passed by.
1. Many Labour voters are Leave voters. "We will back a Brexit deal" is a clear message. 2. Most Labour members are Remain voters. "We won't let May crash us out or deliver a right wing wet dream deal" keeps them on board - he has to respect the majority view of the membership 3. Labour will back a move to ban the government accepting crash Brexit. I expect the meaningful vote that MPs get will do this 4. Labour will also reject whatever fudged version of Brexit May tries to cobble together - something that pro-Brexit voters also support
The calculation is that in both Blocking crash Brexit AND blocking a bullshit Brexit we can retain enough credit with both sides whilst bringing the government to a grinding halt. At which point either a fresh election or a referendum become necessary to make progress.
The flaw in that is 3. It's like voting to ban the incoming tide.
Did we ever get to the bottom of whether there is still a meaningful vote if there is never any meaningful agreed deal to vote on?
Presumably it would be a meaningless meaningful vote confirming we don't want to accept something which hasn't been offered,
I really struggle to see how the meaningful vote is going to be the deal that the government has negotiated, warts and all, or no deal at all. I don't really see how Article 50 allows for anything else. Even if Parliament wanted to remain (because the deal was so bad) it is not in their power to decide that is what will happen because it would need the unanimous consent of the 27 which would be uncertain at the very least.
So May's logic that a bad deal is worse than no deal will be tested to its limits and, in my view, found to be wrong.
Do we know when to expect this legal ruling on whether A50 can be revoked? If it's before the meaningful vote and affirms that you can unilaterally withdraw, then it'll undercut everything May is saying. I doubt it will, but that is well worth keeping an eye on.
I am not sure we will ever get it. I expect the government to appeal the IH decision to the Supreme Court which will effectively knock the question into touch as there will be no opportunity for the CJEU to rule on it.
He really should have plenty of money to throw about. Whether he chooses to do so or not will presumably depend on his assessment of the prospects of a Brexit deal in November. Knowing our Chancellor I think he will play safe.
Does anyone have any idea what Labour's negotiating stance would be with the EU? As far as I can see that want all the benefits of the EU otherwise they would never agree to any deal that May achieves.
The big difference is Labour is fine with the customs union. On the single market, more tricky, bit more cakeism. But they have a more room to negotiate because they don't care about trade deals. The issue would be FOM I think.
As there won't be any trade deals that won't pose a problem. I know that Liam Fox says we will get much better trade deals than the one we have as part of the EU but as anyone with a brain can see you don't give preferential terms to the smaller party (us) than you do the bigger party (the EU).
FOM is the big Labour issue. A LOT of Labour voters genuinely fed up with foreign workers reducing wages. Or in some cases just fed up with foreigners. That even the crash Brexit people say there won't be any significant change in migration must really hack them off. How any politician in any party squares off expectations with practical reality is beyond me.
Yes but the Tories have to maintain a fiction on trade deals, Labour don't. It's just much less of a problem for them.
On FOM, my suspicion would be that Labour would get rid of it/try to introduce some restriction on low-skilled labour. I think they would be more relaxed about promising regulatory alignment with the EU, which would hopefully facilitate greater single market access even if they weren't able to sign up to the whole thing in the end.
I could be wrong though, and perhaps the single marketeers would win out, and say we have to swallow FOM. You're absolutely right though that it's very difficult for any politician to deliver on this.
I’m sure Corbyn has been in record of wanting to be out the single market but have free movement.
Does anyone have any idea what Labour's negotiating stance would be with the EU? As far as I can see that want all the benefits of the EU otherwise they would never agree to any deal that May achieves.
JC will do, and be, whatever you wish. Whatever the Tories can do, new Improved Labour can do better.
Opposition is about what you wouldn’t do. Government is about what you wouldn’t have done, and what you are now doing to fix it. Oppositions never say what they would really do in government, because they can’t predict precisely what damage the current government will do between today and when they, as new incoming government, will have to work out how to fix it.
If Labour really thinks it can negotiate Brexit better than the Tories then they should be able to spell out which of the current government's red lines would no longer be red lines for a Labour government. We know what the EU's red lines are. So which, if any, would be Labour's?
They really should be able to tell us whether or not they want any or all of the following:-
- FoM - Membership of the CU - Membership of the SM - Jurisdiction of the ECJ - NI within the CU - NI within the SM - A customs/regulatory border between NI and the rest of the UK
- and so on.
If in reality they want the same things as the Tories, then however charmingly they behave, they will get the same answer from the EU as Mrs May has.
If Labour cannot now give straight answers to these questions then they are simply talking out of their arse.
The difficulties of the negotiations have little to do with personalities or negotiating styles and everything to do with the substance of what the British government wants and this being unacceptable to the EU given their own red lines.
What would the benefit be for the Labour Party (or indeed the country) if they did this? I’m struggling to see any.
They're the opposition who say they want a GE so as to get rid of this useless government. They also say they will be better at negotiating Brexit. So I think voters are entitled to know how they will do so and what their negotiating red lines would be. That would be a benefit to the country.
There is a non-negligible chance that the government might fall with Labour forming a government. Isn't the country entitled to know what Labour would do re the NI hard border or the SM or the CU or FoM or any of the myriad other issues involved in Brexit?
The deficit, yes, certainly. But debt? So, he's going to pay the £50bn odd in interest payments and run an annual surplus, and use that to decrease overall debt.
Right. I am certainly convinced. As convinced as convinced can be.
I think Thornberry has said Labour would seek an A50 extension if they came to power. I'd imagine the EU member countries would grant that, given the undesirability of 'no deal', and the potential offered by having a new government to negotiate with.
Doesn't that cause a problem? If we don't leave by end of April 2019, we have to vote in EU Parliament elections.
Is that such a big issue? Our MEPs would presumably continue until we leave...
The deficit, yes, certainly. But debt? So, he's going to pay the £50bn odd in interest payments and run an annual surplus, and use that to decrease overall debt.
Right. I am certainly convinced. As convinced as convinced can be.
Debt is now falling as a share of GDP. But it is obviously still increasing in absolute terms.
Apparently the definition of "woman" from a dictionary is, according to some doctor in Sunderland (not himself a trans woman) hate speech towards men who think they are women. He complained and the company which put up the billboard caved in instead of growing a pair and telling him to get a life.
The irony of a man telling women that he knows better than them what it is to be a woman is, presumably, lost on this bellend.
Apparently the definition of "woman" from a dictionary is, according to some doctor in Sunderland (not himself a trans woman) hate speech towards men who think they are women. He complained and the company which put up the billboard caved in instead of growing a pair and telling him to get a life.
The irony of a man telling women that he knows better than them what it is to be a woman is, presumably, lost on this bellend.
Horrific indeed, though why she went to over 10 of these parties is a mystery.
Clearly this is another level of seriousness to the previous allegations but the question comes to mind, if these allegations are true, why did no-one go to the police at the time?
Afternoon all. I've been away on a jaunt to Lisbon (which was very pleasant), so I missed the excitement of the Labour conference.
I've just been reading Corbyn's speech, which looks a very professionally-written job.
The Brexit positioning is interesting. Since Labour are (not unreasonably) saying that No Deal would be a disaster, how are they going to vote against any deal Theresa May might come back with? Won't they own the disaster if they do so? The implication is that they are preparing the ground to accept any deal, or at least to abstain on it, whilst no doubt saying they could have done better.
Was you trip work or pleasure? I'm going there in early November and would appreciate a few tips.
Surely he is now toast. Even if he gets confirmed, the case for impeaching him must be pretty strong afterwards if any of these allegations are substantiated.
Horrific indeed, though why she went to over 10 of these parties is a mystery.
Clearly this is another level of seriousness to the previous allegations but the question comes to mind, if these allegations are true, why did no-one go to the police at the time?
While I can understand ‘why' in the first case I’m getting more and more puzzled about the rest.
Horrific indeed, though why she went to over 10 of these parties is a mystery.
Clearly this is another level of seriousness to the previous allegations but the question comes to mind, if these allegations are true, why did no-one go to the police at the time?
These were high school parties, with underage drinking and doubtless plenty of consensual sexual interactions as well. The kind of pupils who would have been attending [and their parents] would not want to be caught up in anything to do with the police, even as alleged victims. On top of that the early 1980s were a very different world in terms of consent, and the seriousness with which sexual allegations were treated.
I'm not one for automatically believing every accuser, and the exceptionally high political stakes here make that even less advisable. But collectively these allegations are looking very bad for Kavanaugh.
(One ought to note that Avenatti has a huge dog in this fight as well: he is trying to parlay his legal fights against Trump & Kavanuagh into the Democratic candidacy in 2020).
You would think for any normal politician that would be the end of him. Taking money from a regime like that after he was supposedly disgusted by their behaviour in an election (if not so concerned about the torture of a UK journalist).
It is really beyond belief that this sort of thing is passed by.
When does his suspension for undeclared trips start?
Horrific indeed, though why she went to over 10 of these parties is a mystery.
Clearly this is another level of seriousness to the previous allegations but the question comes to mind, if these allegations are true, why did no-one go to the police at the time?
Probably because it was the 80's, times were different, and people/the police would just say it was their fault for getting drunk.
I mean surely we've now seen enough celebrities etc. found guilty of rape and other crimes from ages ago to accept that the police simply didn't do a good enough job on this stuff way back when.
I think Thornberry has said Labour would seek an A50 extension if they came to power. I'd imagine the EU member countries would grant that, given the undesirability of 'no deal', and the potential offered by having a new government to negotiate with.
Doesn't that cause a problem? If we don't leave by end of April 2019, we have to vote in EU Parliament elections.
Is that such a big issue? Our MEPs would presumably continue until we leave...
I imagine it’s a pretty big deal because if we were (God help us) still legally “in” and we hadn’t had the Euro elections here in May ( and by the time you get to March 29 there must be a thicket of rules applicable, or about to become so, about time by which you must call elections by, campaign times, funding etc) surely the European Parliament would not be legally constituted because a member state (and a big one) wouldn’t have duly elected representatives. So for starters how do you annoint the Spitzenkandidat?
So I imagine, notwithstanding anything else from all sides it’s nigh on impossible (even if it’s possible legally anyway - and that would be a whole different bun fight of claims and delays etc) to push matter beyond May anyway because of this,
Afternoon all. I've been away on a jaunt to Lisbon (which was very pleasant), so I missed the excitement of the Labour conference.
I've just been reading Corbyn's speech, which looks a very professionally-written job.
The Brexit positioning is interesting. Since Labour are (not unreasonably) saying that No Deal would be a disaster, how are they going to vote against any deal Theresa May might come back with? Won't they own the disaster if they do so? The implication is that they are preparing the ground to accept any deal, or at least to abstain on it, whilst no doubt saying they could have done better.
Was you trip work or pleasure? I'm going there in early November and would appreciate a few tips.
Pleasure.
Delighted to give a few tips - send me a Vanilla mail with any questions. It's generally a fairly easy city but there a few gotchas. It was extremely busy with tourists last weekend, so lots of queues, but I imagine that won't be a problem in November.
Horrific indeed, though why she went to over 10 of these parties is a mystery.
Clearly this is another level of seriousness to the previous allegations but the question comes to mind, if these allegations are true, why did no-one go to the police at the time?
Probably because it was the 80's, times were different, and people/the police would just say it was their fault for getting drunk.
I mean surely we've now seen enough celebrities etc. found guilty of rape and other crimes from ages ago to accept that the police simply didn't do a good enough job on this stuff way back when.
And you really don't have to look far for sexual assault survivors' stories as to why they felt unable to report their assault at the time.
One of the trained assassins wanted for poisoning Sergei Skripal is a decorated colonel in Russian military intelligence given the country’s highest award by Vladimir Putin.
The real identity of one of the wanted men in the nerve agent attack - named by counter-terrorism police as Ruslan Boshirov - can be disclosed as Colonel Anatoliy Vladimirovich Chepiga.
One of the trained assassins wanted for poisoning Sergei Skripal is a decorated colonel in Russian military intelligence given the country’s highest award by Vladimir Putin.
The real identity of one of the wanted men in the nerve agent attack - named by counter-terrorism police as Ruslan Boshirov - can be disclosed as Colonel Anatoliy Vladimirovich Chepiga.
One of the trained assassins wanted for poisoning Sergei Skripal is a decorated colonel in Russian military intelligence given the country’s highest award by Vladimir Putin.
The real identity of one of the wanted men in the nerve agent attack - named by counter-terrorism police as Ruslan Boshirov - can be disclosed as Colonel Anatoliy Vladimirovich Chepiga.
One of the trained assassins wanted for poisoning Sergei Skripal is a decorated colonel in Russian military intelligence given the country’s highest award by Vladimir Putin.
The real identity of one of the wanted men in the nerve agent attack - named by counter-terrorism police as Ruslan Boshirov - can be disclosed as Colonel Anatoliy Vladimirovich Chepiga.
Apparently the definition of "woman" from a dictionary is, according to some doctor in Sunderland (not himself a trans woman) hate speech towards men who think they are women. He complained and the company which put up the billboard caved in instead of growing a pair and telling him to get a life.
The irony of a man telling women that he knows better than them what it is to be a woman is, presumably, lost on this bellend.
The discussion about Labour abstaining on critical votes is going to gather steam. JC has always wanted to leave the EU, and could do so without having to take any responsibility for it if it takes care; firstly when there is a binary vote Labour would propose an amendment which it is sure to lose, giving it cover for abstaining on the main vote, eg a vote between a Brexit WA they don't like and a no deal Brexit. As it is the opposition the fact it has no coherent policy does not matter. Sadly the government doesn't either but that's another story.
Yes, eventually there’s going to be a crunch vote, whereby either the deal on the table is agreed or we crash out.
Everyone and his dog will try and amend the Bill, but it will come down in the end to “Vote for this Brexit Bill or we crash out with no deal and the planes stop flying”, at which point Labour will almost certainly have to abstain.
Thats assuming that there is a deal to vote on. Someone is going to have to massively compromise. It won't be the EU, and I doubt that May could get a massive compromise through the cabinet never mind her party.
From where we are now, both sides need to make concessions to get to a deal. It’s going to come down to whether or not an electronic border in NI is acceptable to the EU, or if they decide a physical one is required instead. If there’s no agreement then it’s the physical border they insist they don’t want.
It's really not complicated - depite the continual disingenuousness of Brexiters. If we want a porous border in Ireland, we must have a Swiss or Norway type deal. If May won't accept such a deal, then the border in Ireland will be far from porous. (Though there is the possibility that 10 or 20 years down the line, that might change as technology progresses.) The EU cannot and will not concede on this point. The ball remains, where it's always been, in our court.
The discussion about Labour abstaining on critical votes is going to gather steam. JC has always wanted to leave the EU, and could do so without having to take any responsibility for it if it takes care; firstly when there is a binary vote Labour would propose an amendment which it is sure to lose, giving it cover for abstaining on the main vote, eg a vote between a Brexit WA they don't like and a no deal Brexit. As it is the opposition the fact it has no coherent policy does not matter. Sadly the government doesn't either but that's another story.
Yes, eventually there’s going to be a crunch vote, whereby either the deal on the table is agreed or we crash out.
Everyone and his dog will try and amend the Bill, but it will come down in the end to “Vote for this Brexit Bill or we crash out with no deal and the planes stop flying”, at which point Labour will almost certainly have to abstain.
Thats assuming that there is a deal to vote on. Someone is going to have to massively compromise. It won't be the EU, and I doubt that May could get a massive compromise through the cabinet never mind her party.
From where we are now, both sides need to make concessions to get to a deal. It’s going to come down to whether or not an electronic border in NI is acceptable to the EU, or if they decide a physical one is required instead. If there’s no agreement then it’s the physical border they insist they don’t want.
It's really not complicated - depite the continual disingenuousness of Brexiters. If we want a porous border in Ireland, we must have a Swiss or Norway type deal. If May won't accept such a deal, then the border in Ireland will be far from porous. (Though there is the possibility that 10 or 20 years down the line, that might change as technology progresses.) The EU cannot and will not concede on this point. The ball remains, where it's always been, in our court.
Or the UK could accept a Canada style FTA with a border in the Irish Sea and ignore the DUP but that probably needs a Tory majority
The discussion about Labour abstaining on critical votes is going to gather steam. JC has always wanted to leave the EU, and could do so without having to take any responsibility for it if it takes care; firstly when there is a binary vote Labour would propose an amendment which it is sure to lose, giving it cover for abstaining on the main vote, eg a vote between a Brexit WA they don't like and a no deal Brexit. As it is the opposition the fact it has no coherent policy does not matter. Sadly the government doesn't either but that's another story.
Yes, eventually there’s going to be a crunch vote, whereby either the deal on the table is agreed or we crash out.
Everyone and his dog will try and amend the Bill, but it will come down in the end to “Vote for this Brexit Bill or we crash out with no deal and the planes stop flying”, at which point Labour will almost certainly have to abstain.
Thats assuming that there is a deal to vote on. Someone is going to have to massively compromise. It won't be the EU, and I doubt that May could get a massive compromise through the cabinet never mind her party.
The known unknown is whether, at the death, the EU will in fact compromise. eg. Nick P says that is in their DNA. It's a question of whether they will do so in this instance. The alternative is increasingly (I previously had it down as a 20% chance) for a customs border down in the Irish Sea which will be called something entirely different.
Whether it is entirely out of sight out of mind (it will be to the country, it might not be to the ERG), it is moreso than the other options (all UK in SM/CU; or NI-only in SM/CU).
Might an administratively, if not politically, pragmatic solution be 'a' Customs Union between the UK and RoI? Given the RoI trades more with the UK than across it this would minimise impact on Ireland. Ireland would, of course, retain SM and EZ, but might bear a heavier Rules of Origin burden. We could include free ports for Irish goods to export to the EU with minimal burden - Rosslare certainly, but perhaps also a dedicated Irish lane at a smaller English channel port or two.
Initially tarriffs would not diverge from the EUs, meaning little barrier between RoI and EU. This would give time for RoI to decide whether to go fully with a joint UK/RoI tarriffs schedule or to stay with EU tarriffs rate, diverging from the UK and operating a private tarriff forwarding system between itself the UK, whilst semi retaining a customs link to the EU - the RoI would then become a sort of intermediate customs territory.
Like I say, this probably wouldn't fly politically, except in no deal crisis resolution, but is there any merit at all in thinking this might be a solution to the various border issues.
I think Thornberry has said Labour would seek an A50 extension if they came to power. I'd imagine the EU member countries would grant that, given the undesirability of 'no deal', and the potential offered by having a new government to negotiate with.
Doesn't that cause a problem? If we don't leave by end of April 2019, we have to vote in EU Parliament elections.
Is that such a big issue? Our MEPs would presumably continue until we leave...
Not necessarily. There’s a school of EU legal thought that says they are elected for the five years of the EU Parliamentry cycle, irrespective of a country’s membership or otherwise as it’s not mentioned anywhere in the Treaties. One assumes that the EU court would agree with the obvious solution, but they could be challenged by, for example, MEPs and their staff wanting to be paid for the full term.
One of the trained assassins wanted for poisoning Sergei Skripal is a decorated colonel in Russian military intelligence given the country’s highest award by Vladimir Putin.
The real identity of one of the wanted men in the nerve agent attack - named by counter-terrorism police as Ruslan Boshirov - can be disclosed as Colonel Anatoliy Vladimirovich Chepiga.
The discussion about Labour abstaining on critical votes is going to gather steam. JC has always wanted to leave the EU, and could do so without having to take any responsibility for it if it takes care; firstly when there is a binary vote Labour would propose an amendment which it is sure to lose, giving it cover for abstaining on the main vote, eg a vote between a Brexit WA they don't like and a no deal Brexit. As it is the opposition the fact it has no coherent policy does not matter. Sadly the government doesn't either but that's another story.
Yes, eventually there’s going to be a crunch vote, whereby either the deal on the table is agreed or we crash out.
Everyone and his dog will try and amend the Bill, but it will come down in the end to “Vote for this Brexit Bill or we crash out with no deal and the planes stop flying”, at which point Labour will almost certainly have to abstain.
Thats assuming that there is a deal to vote on. Someone is going to have to massively compromise. It won't be the EU, and I doubt that May could get a massive compromise through the cabinet never mind her party.
From where we are now, both sides need to make concessions to get to a deal. It’s going to come down to whether or not an electronic border in NI is acceptable to the EU, or if they decide a physical one is required instead. If there’s no agreement then it’s the physical border they insist they don’t want.
It's really not complicated - depite the continual disingenuousness of Brexiters. If we want a porous border in Ireland, we must have a Swiss or Norway type deal. If May won't accept such a deal, then the border in Ireland will be far from porous. (Though there is the possibility that 10 or 20 years down the line, that might change as technology progresses.) The EU cannot and will not concede on this point. The ball remains, where it's always been, in our court.
The issue is that the border is no problem at all for the U.K. - we are happy to police it with technology given that people are free to cross under the CTA which remains in place. It’s only a problem for the EU.
The discussion about Labour abstaining on critical votes is going to gather steam. JC has always wanted to leave the EU, and could do so without having to take any responsibility for it if it takes care; firstly when there is a binary vote Labour would propose an amendment which it is sure to lose, giving it cover for abstaining on the main vote, eg a vote between a Brexit WA they don't like and a no deal Brexit. As it is the opposition the fact it has no coherent policy does not matter. Sadly the government doesn't either but that's another story.
Yes, eventually there’s going to be a crunch vote, whereby either the deal on the table is agreed or we crash out.
Everyone and his dog will try and amend the Bill, but it will come down in the end to “Vote for this Brexit Bill or we crash out with no deal and the planes stop flying”, at which point Labour will almost certainly have to abstain.
Thats assuming that there is a deal to vote on. Someone is going to have to massively compromise. It won't be the EU, and I doubt that May could get a massive compromise through the cabinet never mind her party.
From where we are now, both sides need to make concessions to get to a deal. It’s going to come down to whether or not an electronic border in NI is acceptable to the EU, or if they decide a physical one is required instead. If there’s no agreement then it’s the physical border they insist they don’t want.
It's really not complicated - depite the continual disingenuousness of Brexiters. If we want a porous border in Ireland, we must have a Swiss or Norway type deal. If May won't accept such a deal, then the border in Ireland will be far from porous. (Though there is the possibility that 10 or 20 years down the line, that might change as technology progresses.) The EU cannot and will not concede on this point. The ball remains, where it's always been, in our court.
The issue is that the border is no problem at all for the U.K. - we are happy to police it with technology given that people are free to cross under the CTA which remains in place. It’s only a problem for the EU.
The Irish border being at NI/RoI simply isn’t an issue for the UK.
It’s an EU compromise to make. And they either do, or they get their worst of all possible worlds, a hard border.
The discussion about Labour abstaining on critical votes is going to gather steam. JC has always wanted to leave the EU, and could do so without having to take any responsibility for it if it takes care; firstly when there is a binary vote Labour would propose an amendment which it is sure to lose, giving it cover for abstaining on the main vote, eg a vote between a Brexit WA they don't like and a no deal Brexit. As it is the opposition the fact it has no coherent policy does not matter. Sadly the government doesn't either but that's another story.
Yes, eventually there’s going to be a crunch vote, whereby either the deal on the table is agreed or we crash out.
Everyone and his dog will try and amend the Bill, but it will come down in the end to “Vote for this Brexit Bill or we crash out with no deal and the planes stop flying”, at which point Labour will almost certainly have to abstain.
Thats assuming that there is a deal to vote on. Someone is going to have to massively compromise. It won't be the EU, and I doubt that May could get a massive compromise through the cabinet never mind her party.
From where we are now, both sides need to make concessions to get to a deal. It’s going to come down to whether or not an electronic border in NI is acceptable to the EU, or if they decide a physical one is required instead. If there’s no agreement then it’s the physical border they insist they don’t want.
It's really not complicated - depite the continual disingenuousness of Brexiters. If we want a porous border in Ireland, we must have a Swiss or Norway type deal. If May won't accept such a deal, then the border in Ireland will be far from porous. (Though there is the possibility that 10 or 20 years down the line, that might change as technology progresses.) The EU cannot and will not concede on this point. The ball remains, where it's always been, in our court.
The issue is that the border is no problem at all for the U.K. - we are happy to police it with technology given that people are free to cross under the CTA which remains in place. It’s only a problem for the EU.
Clearly we're not happy to police it with technology given that we passed a law to rule that out.
The discussion about Labour abstaining on critical votes is going to gather steam. JC has always wanted to leave the EU, and could do so without having to take any responsibility for it if it takes care; firstly when there is a binary vote Labour would propose an amendment which it is sure to lose, giving it cover for abstaining on the main vote, eg a vote between a Brexit WA they don't like and a no deal Brexit. As it is the opposition the fact it has no coherent policy does not matter. Sadly the government doesn't either but that's another story.
Yes, eventually there’s going to be a crunch vote, whereby either the deal on the table is agreed or we crash out.
Everyone and his
Thats assuming that there i.
The known unknown is whether, at the death, the EU will in fact compromise. eg. Nick P says that is in their DNA. It's a question of whether they will do so in this instance. The alternative is increasingly (I previously had it down as a 20% chance) for a customs border down in the Irish Sea which will be called something entirely different.
Whether it is entirely out of sight out of mind (it will be to the country, it might not be to the ERG), it is moreso than the other options (all UK in SM/CU; or NI-only in SM/CU).
Might an administratively, if not politically, pragmatic solution be 'a' Customs Union between the UK and RoI? Given the RoI trades more with the UK than across it this would minimise impact on Ireland. Ireland would, of course, retain SM and EZ, but might bear a heavier Rules of Origin burden. We could include free ports for Irish goods to export to the EU with minimal burden - Rosslare certainly, but perhaps also a dedicated Irish lane at a smaller English channel port or two.
Initially tarriffs would not diverge from the EUs, meaning little barrier between RoI and EU. This would give time for RoI to decide whether to go fully with a joint UK/RoI tarriffs schedule or to stay with EU tarriffs rate, diverging from the UK and operating a private tarriff forwarding system between itself the UK, whilst semi retaining a customs link to the EU - the RoI would then become a sort of intermediate customs territory.
Like I say, this probably wouldn't fly politically, except in no deal crisis resolution, but is there any merit at all in thinking this might be a solution to the various border issues.
What an excellent Idea. The arrangement could be administered by a British Viceroy in Dublin, and we could create a natty black and tan uniform for the customs officers required.
Apparently the definition of "woman" from a dictionary is, according to some doctor in Sunderland (not himself a trans woman) hate speech towards men who think they are women. He complained and the company which put up the billboard caved in instead of growing a pair and telling him to get a life.
The irony of a man telling women that he knows better than them what it is to be a woman is, presumably, lost on this bellend.
Though it is amusing how it is preposterous to say the ad was an attack on trans women while at the same time the person behind this ad will coincidentally now rant against transgenderism and how trans women aren't real women.
The discussion about Labour abstaining on critical votes is going to gather steam. JC has always wanted to leave the EU, and could do so without having to take any responsibility for it if it takes care; firstly when there is a binary vote Labour would propose an amendment which it is sure to lose, giving it cover for abstaining on the main vote, eg a vote between a Brexit WA they don't like and a no deal Brexit. As it is the opposition the fact it has no coherent policy does not matter. Sadly the government doesn't either but that's another story.
Yes, eventually there’s going to be a crunch vote, whereby either the deal on the table is agreed or we crash out.
Everyone and his dog will try and amend the Bill, but it will come down in the end to “Vote for this Brexit Bill or we crash out with no deal and the planes stop flying”, at which point Labour will almost certainly have to abstain.
Thats assuming that there is a deal to vote on. Someone is going to have to massively compromise. It won't be the EU, and I doubt that May could get a massive compromise through the cabinet never mind her party.
From where we are now, both sides need to make concessions to get to a deal. It’s going to come down to whether or not an electronic border in NI is acceptable to the EU, or if they decide a physical one is required instead. If there’s no agreement then it’s the physical border they insist they don’t want.
It's really not complicated - depite the continual disingenuousness of Brexiters. If we want a porous border in Ireland, we must have a Swiss or Norway type deal. If May won't accept such a deal, then the border in Ireland will be far from porous. (Though there is the possibility that 10 or 20 years down the line, that might change as technology progresses.) The EU cannot and will not concede on this point. The ball remains, where it's always been, in our court.
The issue is that the border is no problem at all for the U.K. - we are happy to police it with technology given that people are free to cross under the CTA which remains in place. It’s only a problem for the EU.
Clearly we're not happy to police it with technology given that we passed a law to rule that out.
Did we? I await to be enlightened.
We did pass a law that says it’s not allowed to treat NI any differently from the rest of the U.K. though.
The discussion about Labour abstaining on critical votes is going to gather steam. JC has always wanted to leave the EU, and could do so without having to take any responsibility for it if it takes care; firstly when there is a binary vote Labour would propose an amendment which it is sure to lose, giving it cover for abstaining on the main vote, eg a vote between a Brexit WA they don't like and a no deal Brexit. As it is the opposition the fact it has no coherent policy does not matter. Sadly the government doesn't either but that's another story.
Yes, eventually there’s going to be a crunch vote, whereby either the deal on the table is agreed or we crash out.
Everyone and his dog will try and amend the Bill, but it will come down in the end to “Vote for this Brexit Bill or we crash out with no deal and the planes stop flying”, at which point Labour will almost certainly have to abstain.
Thats assuming that there is a deal to vote on. Someone is going to have to massively compromise. It won't be the EU, and I doubt that May could get a massive compromise through the cabinet never mind her party.
From where we are now, both sides need to make concessions to get to a deal. It’s going to come down to whether or not an electronic border in NI is acceptable to the EU, or if they decide a physical one is required instead. If there’s no agreement then it’s the physical border they insist they don’t want.
It's really not complicated - depite the continual disingenuousness of Brexiters. If we want a porous border in Ireland, we must have a Swiss or Norway type deal. If May won't accept such a deal, then the border in Ireland will be far from porous. (Though there is the possibility that 10 or 20 years down the line, that might change as technology progresses.) The EU cannot and will not concede on this point. The ball remains, where it's always been, in our court.
The issue is that the border is no problem at all for the U.K. - we are happy to police it with technology given that people are free to cross under the CTA which remains in place. It’s only a problem for the EU.
Clearly we're not happy to police it with technology given that we passed a law to rule that out.
Did we? I await to be enlightened.
We did pass a law that says it’s not allowed to treat NI any differently from the rest of the U.K. though.
The EU Withdrawal Act has a whole section on the prevention of new border arrangements.
Apparently the definition of "woman" from a dictionary is, according to some doctor in Sunderland (not himself a trans woman) hate speech towards men who think they are women. He complained and the company which put up the billboard caved in instead of growing a pair and telling him to get a life.
The irony of a man telling women that he knows better than them what it is to be a woman is, presumably, lost on this bellend.
Though it is amusing how it is preposterous to say the ad was an attack on trans women while at the same time the person behind this ad will coincidentally now rant against transgenderism and how trans women aren't real women.
I think the issue is with self-id, rather than being against transgender folk generally.
Apparently the definition of "woman" from a dictionary is, according to some doctor in Sunderland (not himself a trans woman) hate speech towards men who think they are women. He complained and the company which put up the billboard caved in instead of growing a pair and telling him to get a life.
The irony of a man telling women that he knows better than them what it is to be a woman is, presumably, lost on this bellend.
Though it is amusing how it is preposterous to say the ad was an attack on trans women while at the same time the person behind this ad will coincidentally now rant against transgenderism and how trans women aren't real women.
The person behind the ad and Dr who complained were on Sky and the whole ding dong was from the Dr "You are running a hate campaign against trans women." Poster maker "You are a misogynist why do you hate women?"
Thats assuming that there is a deal to vote on. Someone is going to have to massively compromise. It won't be the EU, and I doubt that May could get a massive compromise through the cabinet never mind her party.
From where we are now, both sides need to make concessions to get to a deal. It’s going to come down to whether or not an electronic border in NI is acceptable to the EU, or if they decide a physical one is required instead. If there’s no agreement then it’s the physical border they insist they don’t want.
It's really not complicated - depite the continual disingenuousness of Brexiters. If we want a porous border in Ireland, we must have a Swiss or Norway type deal. If May won't accept such a deal, then the border in Ireland will be far from porous. (Though there is the possibility that 10 or 20 years down the line, that might change as technology progresses.) The EU cannot and will not concede on this point. The ball remains, where it's always been, in our court.
The issue is that the border is no problem at all for the U.K. - we are happy to police it with technology given that people are free to cross under the CTA which remains in place. It’s only a problem for the EU.
Clearly we're not happy to police it with technology given that we passed a law to rule that out.
Did we? I await to be enlightened.
We did pass a law that says it’s not allowed to treat NI any differently from the rest of the U.K. though.
The EU Withdrawal Act has a whole section on the prevention of new border arrangements.
The language there reflects the UK government’s interpretation of the December agreement, and says that we won’t put any new infrastructure at the border itself. Which we won’t. All we’ll be doing is making use of existing ANPR technology that’s already reading number plates of vehicles close to (but not at) the border.
Apparently the definition of "woman" from a dictionary is, according to some doctor in Sunderland (not himself a trans woman) hate speech towards men who think they are women. He complained and the company which put up the billboard caved in instead of growing a pair and telling him to get a life.
The irony of a man telling women that he knows better than them what it is to be a woman is, presumably, lost on this bellend.
Though it is amusing how it is preposterous to say the ad was an attack on trans women while at the same time the person behind this ad will coincidentally now rant against transgenderism and how trans women aren't real women.
I think the issue is with self-id, rather than being against transgender folk generally.
No, it's against transgender folks generally.
In the language of TERFs this putting up a poster 'defining' what a woman is about denying trans women and men personhood and agency.
Apparently the definition of "woman" from a dictionary is, according to some doctor in Sunderland (not himself a trans woman) hate speech towards men who think they are women. He complained and the company which put up the billboard caved in instead of growing a pair and telling him to get a life.
The irony of a man telling women that he knows better than them what it is to be a woman is, presumably, lost on this bellend.
Though it is amusing how it is preposterous to say the ad was an attack on trans women while at the same time the person behind this ad will coincidentally now rant against transgenderism and how trans women aren't real women.
I think the issue is with self-id, rather than being against transgender folk generally.
No, it's against transgender folks generally.
In the language of TERFs this putting up a poster 'defining' what a woman is is denying trams women and men personhood and agency.
Thats assuming that there is a deal to vote on. Someone is going to have to massively compromise. It won't be the EU, and I doubt that May could get a massive compromise through the cabinet never mind her party.
From where we are now, both sides need to make concessions to get to a deal. It’s going to come down to whether or not an electronic border in NI is acceptable to the EU, or if they decide a physical one is required instead. If there’s no agreement then it’s the physical border they insist they don’t want.
It's really not complicated - depite the continual disingenuousness of Brexiters. If we want a porous border in Ireland, we must have a Swiss or Norway type deal. If May won't accept such a deal, then the border in Ireland will be far from porous. (Though there is the possibility that 10 or 20 years down the line, that might change as technology progresses.) The EU cannot and will not concede on this point. The ball remains, where it's always been, in our court.
The issue is that the border is no problem at all for the U.K. - we are happy to police it with technology given that people are free to cross under the CTA which remains in place. It’s only a problem for the EU.
Clearly we're not happy to police it with technology given that we passed a law to rule that out.
Did we? I await to be enlightened.
We did pass a law that says it’s not allowed to treat NI any differently from the rest of the U.K. though.
The EU Withdrawal Act has a whole section on the prevention of new border arrangements.
The language there reflects the UK government’s interpretation of the December agreement, and says that we won’t put any new infrastructure at the border itself. Which we won’t. All we’ll be doing is making use of existing ANPR technology that’s already reading number plates of vehicles close to (but not at) the border.
Apparently the definition of "woman" from a dictionary is, according to some doctor in Sunderland (not himself a trans woman) hate speech towards men who think they are women. He complained and the company which put up the billboard caved in instead of growing a pair and telling him to get a life.
The irony of a man telling women that he knows better than them what it is to be a woman is, presumably, lost on this bellend.
Though it is amusing how it is preposterous to say the ad was an attack on trans women while at the same time the person behind this ad will coincidentally now rant against transgenderism and how trans women aren't real women.
The person behind the ad and Dr who complained were on Sky and the whole ding dong was from the Dr "You are running a hate campaign against trans women." Poster maker "You are a misogynist why do you hate women?"
Can we put to bed the idea that a new border will only exist on the EC side? This is a complete fallacy from Brexiters. In my experience it is the UK customs who are and will always be hard to please.
Today I just received some labels I ordered from the USA that had been stick in customs for 2 days. We have started to import goods from the USA via Holland just to bypass UK customs.
Someone explain how the following issue will be handled. A German company receives an order for automatic rifles from a Mr Billy aka UDA Boss. As the UK now no longer falls under the EC system to control arms the goods are packed up and sent to Dublin as export only. They get sent up to Armagh where the UK lets them in but asks Billy to send some paperwork later on and tells him they will go up to the Shankhill road later to check on them.
Comments
On FOM, my suspicion would be that Labour would get rid of it/try to introduce some restriction on low-skilled labour. I think they would be more relaxed about promising regulatory alignment with the EU, which would hopefully facilitate greater single market access even if they weren't able to sign up to the whole thing in the end.
I could be wrong though, and perhaps the single marketeers would win out, and say we have to swallow FOM. You're absolutely right though that it's very difficult for any politician to deliver on this.
Everyone and his dog will try and amend the Bill, but it will come down in the end to “Vote for this Brexit Bill or we crash out with no deal and the planes stop flying”, at which point Labour will almost certainly have to abstain.
My view is that if May gets a deal it will be voted through the Commons. If it is something along the lines of Chequers, the ERG will vote against but enough LD, SNP and Lab remainers will back it. If it is Canada, the remainers will vote against but the ERG will be back on board
https://order-order.com/2018/09/26/proof-corbyn-lied-press-tv-appearances/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botany_Bay,_London
Whether it is entirely out of sight out of mind (it will be to the country, it might not be to the ERG), it is moreso than the other options (all UK in SM/CU; or NI-only in SM/CU).
https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1044957766954115077
Former Macron aide shown pointing gun at waiter for selfie pose
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/26/former-macron-aide-alexandre-benalla-shown-pointing-gun-at-waiter-for-selfie-pose
So for an EU and ROI government negotiating forcefully to avoid such a thing, a failed negotiation brings about the thing they don't want. The question is of course is the damage that this failure would bring about be bigger or smaller than the damage that a favoured deal for the UK encouraging other countries would do...?
https://twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/1043916756522283008
On a closely related note, I could live without people wittering knowingly about the “deep state”. The “deep state” is Labour’s broken metatarsal – the preloaded explanation you have before the World Cup has even kicked off for why England aren’t going to fulfil their potential. It won’t be because you’re a long ball team, or because your egos are writing cheques your body can’t cash, or because there isn’t money to pay for any of this stuff. It’ll be because of the deep state. In America, this phrase is the preserve of alt-right MAGA wingnuts. Over here, no one is doing more to make “deep state” happen than Andrew Murray, Corbyn adviser, Unite chief of staff, and former chair of the Stop This Particular War coalition.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/26/labour-conference-momentum-deep-state-paranoia
She will be off to the gulag in the near future...
And got the publicity she wanted.
So May's logic that a bad deal is worse than no deal will be tested to its limits and, in my view, found to be wrong.
It is really beyond belief that this sort of thing is passed by.
Thinks wʊmən says women...
https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/1044968048141193216?s=19
I'm getting confused. Is that a real budget or just a financial statement?
https://twitter.com/PhilipHammondUK/status/1044964926073245696
He really should have plenty of money to throw about. Whether he chooses to do so or not will presumably depend on his assessment of the prospects of a Brexit deal in November. Knowing our Chancellor I think he will play safe.
There is a non-negligible chance that the government might fall with Labour forming a government. Isn't the country entitled to know what Labour would do re the NI hard border or the SM or the CU or FoM or any of the myriad other issues involved in Brexit?
Getting debt down?
The deficit, yes, certainly. But debt? So, he's going to pay the £50bn odd in interest payments and run an annual surplus, and use that to decrease overall debt.
Right. I am certainly convinced. As convinced as convinced can be.
It tells the truth.
Apparently the definition of "woman" from a dictionary is, according to some doctor in Sunderland (not himself a trans woman) hate speech towards men who think they are women. He complained and the company which put up the billboard caved in instead of growing a pair and telling him to get a life.
The irony of a man telling women that he knows better than them what it is to be a woman is, presumably, lost on this bellend.
(The 5/6 on No is still there at PP).
Even if he gets confirmed, the case for impeaching him must be pretty strong afterwards if any of these allegations are substantiated.
https://twitter.com/GeorgeTrefgarne/status/1044971252262285313
I'm not one for automatically believing every accuser, and the exceptionally high political stakes here make that even less advisable. But collectively these allegations are looking very bad for Kavanaugh.
E.g:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2014/11/18/1345720/-What-It-Was-Like-To-Report-Sexual-Harrassment-Rape-in-the-1980-s
I mean surely we've now seen enough celebrities etc. found guilty of rape and other crimes from ages ago to accept that the police simply didn't do a good enough job on this stuff way back when.
So I imagine, notwithstanding anything else from all sides it’s nigh on impossible (even if it’s possible legally anyway - and that would be a whole different bun fight of claims and delays etc) to push matter beyond May anyway because of this,
Delighted to give a few tips - send me a Vanilla mail with any questions. It's generally a fairly easy city but there a few gotchas. It was extremely busy with tourists last weekend, so lots of queues, but I imagine that won't be a problem in November.
The real identity of one of the wanted men in the nerve agent attack - named by counter-terrorism police as Ruslan Boshirov - can be disclosed as Colonel Anatoliy Vladimirovich Chepiga.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/26/skripal-hitman-unmasked-gru-colonel-awarded-russias-highest/
https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1044840653199429632
Time to buy shares in brazier manufacturers and duffel coat suppliers too as a Tory Clarke-ite capitalist at the same time!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqAyz1coj44
Initially tarriffs would not diverge from the EUs, meaning little barrier between RoI and EU. This would give time for RoI to decide whether to go fully with a joint UK/RoI tarriffs schedule or to stay with EU tarriffs rate, diverging from the UK and operating a private tarriff forwarding system between itself the UK, whilst semi retaining a customs link to the EU - the RoI would then become a sort of intermediate customs territory.
Like I say, this probably wouldn't fly politically, except in no deal crisis resolution, but is there any merit at all in thinking this might be a solution to the various border issues.
Brilliant....
It’s an EU compromise to make. And they either do, or they get their worst of all possible worlds, a hard border.
dreams can come true
The bounders and cads.
Who could object to that?
We did pass a law that says it’s not allowed to treat NI any differently from the rest of the U.K. though.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/10/enacted
It was not very enlightening at all.
In the language of TERFs this putting up a poster 'defining' what a woman is about denying trans women and men personhood and agency.
Today I just received some labels I ordered from the USA that had been stick in customs for 2 days. We have started to import goods from the USA via Holland just to bypass UK customs.
Someone explain how the following issue will be handled. A German company receives an order for automatic rifles from a Mr Billy aka UDA Boss. As the UK now no longer falls under the EC system to control arms the goods are packed up and sent to Dublin as export only. They get sent up to Armagh where the UK lets them in but asks Billy to send some paperwork later on and tells him they will go up to the Shankhill road later to check on them.