No, that wouldn't fly. May couldn't accept a second referendum on anything other than a Deal / No Deal basis (and would probably lose that), without being No Confidenced by her MPs.
£50 at evens says that parliament will not pass legislation for a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option before 29 March 2019.
Change it to “that Theresa May will not back a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option” and you’re on.
Surely my wording is both more favourable to you and more precisely defined (what does "will not back a referendum" mean)?
On my wording, you gain the possibility of May's government falling and a Labour government introducing the referendum - which is by far the most likely way it could come about.
The main issue I have with your version is how to define “passing legislation” as the process could potentially drag on into an A50 extension. Also if the government is backing it, there’s a slim chance a way could be found to do it without new legislation. Maybe change it to passing a motion?
Since you are essentially betting on the referendum, forget all the "passing" nonsense and just put a backstop on the date of the vote taking place, say end 2019?
A (reputable) pensions advisor opined to me a few years back that in future there will be three groups of people when it comes to pensions:-
1) Those who have worked for a good time in the public sector. 2) Successful business owners. 3) Everyone else ( Who are all stuffed).
Overblown a tad maybe, but as I was explaining to my wife recently at her age the benefits she is clocking up annually in the public sector amounted to well over the equivalent of 40% of her salary to buy the exact same benefits in the private sector.
These are big numbers.
I'd say that for most people that is the case now. I live in extraordinary comfort on my teachers' pension despite retiring early at 55 nearly ten years ago. I have a brand new car every 2/3 years and my savings pot from 10 years ago has held steady despite appalling interest rates and the usual unforseen expenses, flash holidays, etc from someone without many extravagant tastes. The basis of my comfort has been the pension with regular 2/3 % annual rises and of course the very generous personal allowance compared to a decade ago. i guess I have been fortunate but I paid all my contributions as required while other cashed in the scheme when they young.
Good for you. You are right to feel blessed.
Just looked up retiring on rpi increases at 55 with 50% spouse benefit on death (spouse same age) guaranteed for 5 years.
The answer is you need a pot 55 (fifty five) times the annual sum. So 20K pension requires about 1.1M (or more than the upper tax break you are allowed in the private sector).
Big numbers.
Yup - mine is almost £30k now which goes a long way here in sunny Spain - 28 degrees today, no clouds as they see here 'Veroño' in fill swing!
No, that wouldn't fly. May couldn't accept a second referendum on anything other than a Deal / No Deal basis (and would probably lose that), without being No Confidenced by her MPs.
£50 at evens says that parliament will not pass legislation for a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option before 29 March 2019.
Change it to “that Theresa May will not back a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option” and you’re on.
Surely my wording is both more favourable to you and more precisely defined (what does "will not back a referendum" mean)?
On my wording, you gain the possibility of May's government falling and a Labour government introducing the referendum - which is by far the most likely way it could come about.
The main issue I have with your version is how to define “passing legislation” as the process could potentially drag on into an A50 extension. Also if the government is backing it, there’s a slim chance a way could be found to do it without new legislation. Maybe change it to passing a motion?
I’m happy to wager £50 at evens with you that Theresa May will not back a referendum with Remain as an option. I just can’t see how she could.
No, that wouldn't fly. May couldn't accept a second referendum on anything other than a Deal / No Deal basis (and would probably lose that), without being No Confidenced by her MPs.
£50 at evens says that parliament will not pass legislation for a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option before 29 March 2019.
Change it to “that Theresa May will not back a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option” and you’re on.
Surely my wording is both more favourable to you and more precisely defined (what does "will not back a referendum" mean)?
On my wording, you gain the possibility of May's government falling and a Labour government introducing the referendum - which is by far the most likely way it could come about.
The main issue I have with your version is how to define “passing legislation” as the process could potentially drag on into an A50 extension. Also if the government is backing it, there’s a slim chance a way could be found to do it without new legislation. Maybe change it to passing a motion?
Since you are essentially betting on the referendum, forget all the "passing" nonsense and just put a backstop on the date of the vote taking place, say end 2019?
As an aside Bridgen and Dudderidge must be feeling pretty silly now.
That requires a brain and there is little evidence of such a thing certainly in the case of the former. I believe he is Esther McVey's squeeze so one can only speculate at his hidden talents.
No, that’s Philip Davies.
Ah I stand corrected although the substantive point still applies maybe.
As an aside Bridgen and Dudderidge must be feeling pretty silly now.
That requires a brain and there is little evidence of such a thing certainly in the case of the former. I believe he is Esther McVey's squeeze so one can only speculate at his hidden talents.
No, that’s Philip Davies.
Ah I stand corrected although the substantive point still applies maybe.
There is nowhere left for May to hide, there hasn't been since Salzburg. Which is why, I think, her attention has shifted from bludgeoning the equine carcass of Chequers to mediocre Boris roasts.
Doing a deal is now practically impossible, slagging off Boris however is shooting fish in a barrel. Of course May is going for the latter.
Agreed. I think we should just reflect on the level of surrealism of what we have just seen. A week after being told that Chequers is unacceptable to the EU and less than a month before a crucial summit, the British PM makes a speech supporting a plan that she knows can never be adopted and her cabinet all line up in support even though they all know it is nonsense. And to distract attention they all snipe at Boris, who has done nothing other than resign over a matter of principle and put an alternative (and far more realistic policy) before the people.
And the thing is, it is all lies. May knows that the moment she escapes the conference she intends to run off to Brussels and sell out on all her red lines and promises, not a word of which she mentioned to the UK public in her speech. And we are meant to see this as some sort of virtue? If she believes in keeping the UK locked in a customs union and having a regulatory border in the Irish Sea, why did she not just say so?
This speech, such as it was, will be forgotten in a day. And we will be back to the reality that someone who is totally incompetent and untrustworthy is negotiating on behalf of the country.
I think today has seen TM enhance her position and to be honest I cannot accept a deal that puts a border in Ireland and inhibits just in time manufacturing.
TM spoke for my politics today against the extremes of the hard right and left
I fundamentally disagree that she is untrustworthy. That is Boris's exclusive title
A (reputable) pensions advisor opined to me a few years back that in future there will be three groups of people when it comes to pensions:-
1) Those who have worked for a good time in the public sector. 2) Successful business owners. 3) Everyone else ( Who are all stuffed).
Overblown a tad maybe, but as I was explaining to my wife recently at her age the benefits she is clocking up annually in the public sector amounted to well over the equivalent of 40% of her salary to buy the exact same benefits in the private sector.
These are big numbers.
Indeed. Which is precisely why you'd think that a council under pressure would look at it.
In the long run, adding public sector workers to the list of people who are screwed isn’t going to save any money.
Bringing the public sector into line with the rest of society isn't "screwing them". It's an unsustainable benefit, in my opinion.
The problem is that the costs aren't absorbed now - the can is kicked down the road.
If councils had to pay in the costs of these pensions in real time then it would soon stop - or they would cease to employ anyone directly.
No, that wouldn't fly. May couldn't accept a second referendum on anything other than a Deal / No Deal basis (and would probably lose that), without being No Confidenced by her MPs.
£50 at evens says that parliament will not pass legislation for a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option before 29 March 2019.
Change it to “that Theresa May will not back a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option” and you’re on.
Surely my wording is both more favourable to you and more precisely defined (what does "will not back a referendum" mean)?
On my wording, you gain the possibility of May's government falling and a Labour government introducing the referendum - which is by far the most likely way it could come about.
The main issue I have with your version is how to define “passing legislation” as the process could potentially drag on into an A50 extension. Also if the government is backing it, there’s a slim chance a way could be found to do it without new legislation. Maybe change it to passing a motion?
That's too vague as well. Most motions have no binding value.
Your point was that May could and would accept a second referendum. To that end, I'll offer the same terms - £50 at evens - that:
1. The government, led by Theresa May, will not introduce legislation before 29 March 2019, to enable an EU referendum in which Remain is an option, and 2. The government, led by Theresa May, will not hold a referendum in which Remain is an option before 29 March 2019, whether authorised by legislation or not.
For the purpose of definition, a 'referendum' is a public vote, equivalent to that held on 23 June 2016; it is not an on-line survey.
I win if neither condition is satisfied by 29 March 2019. You win if either condition is.
The dancing was an inspired idea. Just as well, because if the rest of the speech got heard outside the conference hall, it would merely cement existing impressions. All the same problems remain and Theresa May gave absolutely no hint that she saw need to change tack on any of them.
Indeed. Brexit is all. Nothing else matters because Brexit taints everything and will do until it is over.
Competent but fundamentally irrelevant (aside from the dancing). That could almost be Theresa May's epitaph.
Actually, I did not like the dancing much. I thought it set a trivialising mood to what should be a serious speech.
You’ve never given a serious speech have you. Listeners decide in the first 20 seconds whether to give you a hearing. This said, it’s not going to be what you’re expecting. It made people listen. You might not like it but dull and portentous is rarely effective.
Speeches? No, not really, but I have given plenty of presentations and lectures over the years on various business, technical and science issues.
Admittedly I was not leading the country, but Mrs May isn't either
You’ll know then that capturing early attention and storytelling is critical. The speech included both of those aspects. You seem to be saying that serious has to be solemn. It doesn’t.
She is saying she hates Brexit and that colours all of her other thoughts. It is a common sickness and the symtoms are likely to worsen as the evil day approaches.
No, I never said that Felix. I just said I did not like the intro to the speech. Stop projecting your prejudices on to me.
Frankly speaking, I do not much care if Brexit happens. The effects on me will be minimal as I will continue to be an EU citizen.
The dancing was an inspired idea. Just as well, because if the rest of the speech got heard outside the conference hall, it would merely cement existing impressions. All the same problems remain and Theresa May gave absolutely no hint that she saw need to change tack on any of them.
Indeed. Brexit is all. Nothing else matters because Brexit taints everything and will do until it is over.
Competent but fundamentally irrelevant (aside from the dancing). That could almost be Theresa May's epitaph.
Actually, I did not like the dancing much. I thought it set a trivialising mood to what should be a serious speech.
You’ve never given a serious speech have you. Listeners decide in the first 20 seconds whether to give you a hearing. This said, it’s not going to be what you’re expecting. It made people listen. You might not like it but dull and portentous is rarely effective.
Speeches? No, not really, but I have given plenty of presentations and lectures over the years on various business, technical and science issues.
Admittedly I was not leading the country, but Mrs May isn't either
You’ll know then that capturing early attention and storytelling is critical. The speech included both of those aspects. You seem to be saying that serious has to be solemn. It doesn’t.
I guess it is a difference in approach. I would not have done it that way. To each their own
None but how many other third countries want the type of relationship with the EU that we do?
It should be pointed out that Guy Verhofstadt has no say whatsoever over any article 50 extension, nor does he speak 100% for the European Parliament. But what he says holds a lot of sway, and clearly indicates which way thinking is leaning in the largest power blocs in the EP.
Whew boy.
Even if, EVEN IF, somehow, against all odds and sanity, May manages to get the council to agree to a sordid fudge built on Chequers, there is a 0% chance of the European Parliament approving it. NADA.
There is nowhere left for May to hide, there hasn't been since Salzburg. Which is why, I think, her attention has shifted from bludgeoning the equine carcass of Chequers to mediocre Boris roasts.
Doing a deal is now practically impossible, slagging off Boris however is shooting fish in a barrel. Of course May is going for the latter.
Agreed. I think we should just reflect on the level of surrealism of what we have just seen. A week after being told that Chequers is unacceptable to the EU and less than a month before a crucial summit, the British PM makes a speech supporting a plan that she knows can never be adopted and her cabinet all line up in support even though they all know it is nonsense. And to distract attention they all snipe at Boris, who has done nothing other than resign over a matter of principle and put an alternative (and far more realistic policy) before the people.
And the thing is, it is all lies. May knows that the moment she escapes the conference she intends to run off to Brussels and sell out on all her red lines and promises, not a word of which she mentioned to the UK public in her speech. And we are meant to see this as some sort of virtue? If she believes in keeping the UK locked in a customs union and having a regulatory border in the Irish Sea, why did she not just say so?
This speech, such as it was, will be forgotten in a day. And we will be back to the reality that someone who is totally incompetent and untrustworthy is negotiating on behalf of the country.
I think today has seen TM enhance her position and to be honest I cannot accept a deal that puts a border in Ireland and inhibits just in time manufacturing.
TM spoke for my politics today against the extremes of the hard right and left
I fundamentally disagree that she is untrustworthy. That is Boris's exclusive title
She has promised (in writing) that the backstop, if agreed, would be time limited and that the UK will have the unilateral right to exit the backstop. She has promised that the UK will exit the customs union and single market at the end of the transition. She has promised that the UK will be genuinely free to do trade deals independently from the UK effective from the end of the transition. She has promised (in writing) that she will not create new regulatory barriers between GB and NI.
If the reports on her ‘grand bargain’ are true, she will breach every one of these promises. And what will she do to get around it? Simple - call it something else, insist black is white, pretend it is not what it really is.
Untrustworthy is about the most polite name I can use. But we will see.
None but how many other third countries want the type of relationship with the EU that we do?
It should be pointed out that Guy Verhofstadt has no say whatsoever over any article 50 extension, nor does he speak 100% for the European Parliament. But what he says holds a lot of sway, and clearly indicates which way thinking is leaning in the largest power blocs in the EP.
Whew boy.
Even if, EVEN IF, somehow, against all odds and sanity, May manages to get the council to agree to a sordid fudge built on Chequers, there is a 0% chance of the European Parliament approving it. NADA.
If the 27 Countries agree a deal and the commission votes it down it will bring a huge constututional crisis in Europe
No, that wouldn't fly. May couldn't accept a second referendum on anything other than a Deal / No Deal basis (and would probably lose that), without being No Confidenced by her MPs.
£50 at evens says that parliament will not pass legislation for a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option before 29 March 2019.
Change it to “that Theresa May will not back a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option” and you’re on.
Surely my wording is both more favourable to you and more precisely defined (what does "will not back a referendum" mean)?
On my wording, you gain the possibility of May's government falling and a Labour government introducing the referendum - which is by far the most likely way it could come about.
The main issue I have with your version is how to define “passing legislation” as the process could potentially drag on into an A50 extension. Also if the government is backing it, there’s a slim chance a way could be found to do it without new legislation. Maybe change it to passing a motion?
That's too vague as well. Most motions have no binding value.
Your point was that May could and would accept a second referendum. To that end, I'll offer the same terms - £50 at evens - that:
1. The government, led by Theresa May, will not introduce legislation before 29 March 2019, to enable an EU referendum in which Remain is an option, and 2. The government, led by Theresa May, will not hold a referendum in which Remain is an option before 29 March 2019, whether authorised by legislation or not.
For the purpose of definition, a 'referendum' is a public vote, equivalent to that held on 23 June 2016; it is not an on-line survey.
I win if neither condition is satisfied by 29 March 2019. You win if either condition is.
There is nowhere left for May to hide, there hasn't been since Salzburg. Which is why, I think, her attention has shifted from bludgeoning the equine carcass of Chequers to mediocre Boris roasts.
Doing a deal is now practically impossible, slagging off Boris however is shooting fish in a barrel. Of course May is going for the latter.
Agreed. I think we should just reflect on the level of surrealism of what we have just seen. A week after being told that Chequers is unacceptable to the EU and less than a month before a crucial summit, the British PM makes a speech supporting a plan that she knows can never be adopted and her cabinet all line up in support even though they all know it is nonsense. And to distract attention they all snipe at Boris, who has done nothing other than resign over a matter of principle and put an alternative (and far more realistic policy) before the people.
This speech, such as it was, will be forgotten in a day. And we will be back to the reality that someone who is totally incompetent and untrustworthy is negotiating on behalf of the country.
I think today has seen TM enhance her position and to be honest I cannot accept a deal that puts a border in Ireland and inhibits just in time manufacturing.
TM spoke for my politics today against the extremes of the hard right and left
I fundamentally disagree that she is untrustworthy. That is Boris's exclusive title
She has promised (in writing) that the backstop, if agreed, would be time limited and that the UK will have the unilateral right to exit the backstop. She has promised that the UK will exit the customs union and single market at the end of the transition. She has promised that the UK will be genuinely free to do trade deals independently from the UK effective from the end of the transition. She has promised (in writing) that she will not create new regulatory barriers between GB and NI.
If the reports on her ‘grand bargain’ are true, she will breach every one of these promises. And what will she do to get around it? Simple - call it something else, insist black is white, pretend it is not what it really is.
Untrustworthy is about the most polite name I can use. But we will see.
Can you tell me honestly how your Brexit keeps the Irish border open and guarantees just in time manufacturing. The Swindon car plants receives 350 HGV deliveries a day
Competent speech as a holding operation. I wouldn't think it will be remembered for very long (any more than Corbyn's this year), but it should give a reasonable poll bounce next week, and more importantly it creates a breathing space to do something.
But what?
Sell Brexiteers down the river.... After conning them into voting for her in 2017?
None but how many other third countries want the type of relationship with the EU that we do?
It should be pointed out that Guy Verhofstadt has no say whatsoever over any article 50 extension, nor does he speak 100% for the European Parliament. But what he says holds a lot of sway, and clearly indicates which way thinking is leaning in the largest power blocs in the EP.
Whew boy.
Even if, EVEN IF, somehow, against all odds and sanity, May manages to get the council to agree to a sordid fudge built on Chequers, there is a 0% chance of the European Parliament approving it. NADA.
If the 27 Countries agree a deal and the commission votes it down it will bring a huge constututional crisis in Europe
The Parliament is directly elected, and would feel no compunction whatsoever to defer to a Council that had been so transparently and corruptly nobbled by May trying to blackmail them with prophecies of doom. The Parliament would LOVE the opportunity to give the Tories and the Council a kicking over this.
Although amazing as its sounds, the leaders of the commission and council and parliament actually talk to each other and agree common positions. There is zero chance of the council agreeing to a draft text if Parliament isn't likely to support it, which means that Verhofstadt does have an effective veto.
In effect, the Parliament's position and the Council's and the Commission's positions are one and the same: the line Barnier agreed with the EU27 two years ago.
There is nowhere left for May to hide, there hasn't been since Salzburg. Which is why, I think, her attention has shifted from bludgeoning the equine carcass of Chequers to mediocre Boris roasts.
Doing a deal is now practically impossible, slagging off Boris however is shooting fish in a barrel. Of course May is going for the latter.
Agreed. I think we should just reflect on the level of surrealism of what we have just seen. A week after being told that Chequers is unacceptable to the EU and less than a month before a crucial summit, the British PM makes a speech supporting a plan that she knows can never be adopted and her cabinet all line up in support even though they all know it is nonsense. And to distract attention they all snipe at Boris, who has done nothing other than resign over a matter of principle and put an alternative (and far more realistic policy) before the people.
And the thing is, it is all lies. May knows that the moment she escapes the conference she intends to run off to Brussels and sell out on all her red lines and promises, not a word of which she mentioned to the UK public in her speech. And we are meant to see this as some sort of virtue? If she believes in keeping the UK locked in a customs union and having a regulatory border in the Irish Sea, why did she not just say so?
This speech, such as it was, will be forgotten in a day. And we will be back to the reality that someone who is totally incompetent and untrustworthy is negotiating on behalf of the country.
Surely you agree with the PM, that a deal dividing the U.K., or a deal that is remaining in the EU in all but name, are unacceptable?
No, that wouldn't fly. May couldn't accept a second referendum on anything other than a Deal / No Deal basis (and would probably lose that), without being No Confidenced by her MPs.
£50 at evens says that parliament will not pass legislation for a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option before 29 March 2019.
Change it to “that Theresa May will not back a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option” and you’re on.
Surely my wording is both more favourable to you and more precisely defined (what does "will not back a referendum" mean)?
On my wording, you gain the possibility of May's government falling and a Labour government introducing the referendum - which is by far the most likely way it could come about.
The main issue I have with your version is how to define “passing legislation” as the process could potentially drag on into an A50 extension. Also if the government is backing it, there’s a slim chance a way could be found to do it without new legislation. Maybe change it to passing a motion?
Since you are essentially betting on the referendum, forget all the "passing" nonsense and just put a backstop on the date of the vote taking place, say end 2019?
I like that formulation.
William's point was specifically that Theresa May will accept a second referendum. I offered William a formulation that went beyond that but as it was rejected, let's stick to that point.
A new offer then: no referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option will take place (1) while Theresa May is prime minister, and (2) before the end of 2019.
The bet ends at the earliest of (1) Theresa May's premiership, (2) 31 December 2019, or (3) the holding of a referendum as per the bet. I win if no such referendum has taken place by (1) or (2); you win if one is.
No, that wouldn't fly. May couldn't accept a second referendum on anything other than a Deal / No Deal basis (and would probably lose that), without being No Confidenced by her MPs.
£50 at evens says that parliament will not pass legislation for a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option before 29 March 2019.
Change it to “that Theresa May will not back a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option” and you’re on.
Surely my wording is both more favourable to you and more precisely defined (what does "will not back a referendum" mean)?
On my wording, you gain the possibility of May's government falling and a Labour government introducing the referendum - which is by far the most likely way it could come about.
The main issue I have with your version is how to define “passing legislation” as the process could potentially drag on into an A50 extension. Also if the government is backing it, there’s a slim chance a way could be found to do it without new legislation. Maybe change it to passing a motion?
That's too vague as well. Most motions have no binding value.
Your point was that May could and would accept a second referendum. To that end, I'll offer the same terms - £50 at evens - that:
1. The government, led by Theresa May, will not introduce legislation before 29 March 2019, to enable an EU referendum in which Remain is an option, and 2. The government, led by Theresa May, will not hold a referendum in which Remain is an option before 29 March 2019, whether authorised by legislation or not.
For the purpose of definition, a 'referendum' is a public vote, equivalent to that held on 23 June 2016; it is not an on-line survey.
I win if neither condition is satisfied by 29 March 2019. You win if either condition is.
None but how many other third countries want the type of relationship with the EU that we do?
It should be pointed out that Guy Verhofstadt has no say whatsoever over any article 50 extension, nor does he speak 100% for the European Parliament. But what he says holds a lot of sway, and clearly indicates which way thinking is leaning in the largest power blocs in the EP.
Whew boy.
Even if, EVEN IF, somehow, against all odds and sanity, May manages to get the council to agree to a sordid fudge built on Chequers, there is a 0% chance of the European Parliament approving it. NADA.
If the 27 Countries agree a deal and the commission votes it down it will bring a huge constututional crisis in Europe
The Parliament is directly elected, and would feel no compunction whatsoever to defer to a Council that had been so transparently and corruptly nobbled by May trying to blackmail them with prophecies of doom. The Parliament would LOVE the opportunity to give the Tories and the Council a kicking over this.
Although amazing as its sounds, the leaders of the commission and council and parliament actually talk to each other and agree common positions. There is zero chance of the council agreeing to a draft text if Parliament isn't likely to support it, which means that Verhofstadt does have an effective veto.
In effect, the Parliament's position and the Council's and the Commission's positions are one and the same: the line Barnier agreed with the EU27 two years ago.
And so when Barnier, Junckers and TM announce a deal you are saying the commission will vote it down
None but how many other third countries want the type of relationship with the EU that we do?
It should be pointed out that Guy Verhofstadt has no say whatsoever over any article 50 extension, nor does he speak 100% for the European Parliament. But what he says holds a lot of sway, and clearly indicates which way thinking is leaning in the largest power blocs in the EP.
Whew boy.
Even if, EVEN IF, somehow, against all odds and sanity, May manages to get the council to agree to a sordid fudge built on Chequers, there is a 0% chance of the European Parliament approving it. NADA.
If the 27 Countries agree a deal and the commission votes it down it will bring a huge constututional crisis in Europe
I assume you mean the parliament. If it does wouldn't that simply be democracy in action?
There is nowhere left for May to hide, there hasn't been since Salzburg. Which is why, I think, her attention has shifted from bludgeoning the equine carcass of Chequers to mediocre Boris roasts.
Doing a deal is now practically impossible, slagging off Boris however is shooting fish in a barrel. Of course May is going for the latter.
Agreed. I think we should just reflect on the level of surrealism of what we have just seen. A week after being told that Chequers is unacceptable to the EU and less than a month before a crucial summit, the British PM makes a speech supporting a plan that she knows can never be adopted and her cabinet all line up in support even though they all know it is nonsense. And to distract attention they all snipe at Boris, who has done nothing other than resign over a matter of principle and put an alternative (and far more realistic policy) before the people.
This speech, such as it was, will be forgotten in a day. And we will be back to the reality that someone who is totally incompetent and untrustworthy is negotiating on behalf of the country.
I think today has seen TM enhance her position and to be honest I cannot accept a deal that puts a border in Ireland and inhibits just in time manufacturing.
TM spoke for my politics today against the extremes of the hard right and left
I fundamentally disagree that she is untrustworthy. That is Boris's exclusive title
She has promised (in writing) that the backstop, if agreed, would be time limited and that the UK will have the unilateral right to exit the backstop. She has promised that the UK will exit the customs union and single market at the end of the transition. She has promised that the UK will be genuinely free to do trade deals independently from the UK effective from the end of the transition. She has promised (in writing) that she will not create new regulatory barriers between GB and NI.
If the reports on her ‘grand bargain’ are true, she will breach every one of these promises. And what will she do to get around it? Simple - call it something else, insist black is white, pretend it is not what it really is.
Untrustworthy is about the most polite name I can use. But we will see.
Can you tell me honestly how your Brexit keeps the Irish border open and guarantees just in time manufacturing. The Swindon car plants receives 350 HGV deliveries a day
There is nowhere left for May to hide, there hasn't been since Salzburg. Which is why, I think, her attention has shifted from bludgeoning the equine carcass of Chequers to mediocre Boris roasts.
Doing a deal is now practically impossible, slagging off Boris however is shooting fish in a barrel. Of course May is going for the latter.
Agreed. I think we should just reflect on the level of surrealism of what we have just seen. A week after being told that Chequers is unacceptable to the EU and less than a month before a crucial summit, the British PM makes a speech supporting a plan that she knows can never be adopted and her cabinet all line up in support even though they all know it is nonsense. And to distract attention they all snipe at Boris, who has done nothing other than resign over a matter of principle and put an alternative (and far more realistic policy) before the people.
And the thing is, it is all lies. May knows that the moment she escapes the conference she intends to run off to Brussels and sell out on all her red lines and promises, not a word of which she mentioned to the UK public in her speech. And we are meant to see this as some sort of virtue? If she believes in keeping the UK locked in a customs union and having a regulatory border in the Irish Sea, why did she not just say so?
This speech, such as it was, will be forgotten in a day. And we will be back to the reality that someone who is totally incompetent and untrustworthy is negotiating on behalf of the country.
Surely you agree with the PM, that a deal dividing the U.K., or a deal that is remaining in the EU in all but name, are unacceptable?
But that is just what she is planning. A regulatory barrier in the Irish Sea. And the UK locked in the customs union (and also following all EU rules - eg in the SM) as well.
There is nowhere left for May to hide, there hasn't been since Salzburg. Which is why, I think, her attention has shifted from bludgeoning the equine carcass of Chequers to mediocre Boris roasts.
Doing a deal is now practically impossible, slagging off Boris however is shooting fish in a barrel. Of course May is going for the latter.
Agreed. I think we should just reflect on the level of surrealism of what we have just seen. A week after being told that Chequers is unacceptable to the EU and less than a month before a crucial summit, the British PM makes a speech supporting a plan that she knows can never be adopted and her cabinet all line up in support even though they all know it is nonsense. And to distract attention they all snipe at Boris, who has done nothing other than resign over a matter of principle and put an alternative (and far more realistic policy) before the people.
And the thing is, it is all lies. May knows that the moment she escapes the conference she intends to run off to Brussels and sell out on all her red lines and promises, not a word of which she mentioned to the UK public in her speech. And we are meant to see this as some sort of virtue? If she believes in keeping the UK locked in a customs union and having a regulatory border in the Irish Sea, why did she not just say so?
This speech, such as it was, will be forgotten in a day. And we will be back to the reality that someone who is totally incompetent and untrustworthy is negotiating on behalf of the country.
Surely you agree with the PM, that a deal dividing the U.K., or a deal that is remaining in the EU in all but name, are unacceptable?
Won't be called that - it will just mean that NI is subject to Directive EU/2018/4979/RoI/tr/40 (widgets).
A (reputable) pensions advisor opined to me a few years back that in future there will be three groups of people when it comes to pensions:-
1) Those who have worked for a good time in the public sector. 2) Successful business owners. 3) Everyone else ( Who are all stuffed).
Overblown a tad maybe, but as I was explaining to my wife recently at her age the benefits she is clocking up annually in the public sector amounted to well over the equivalent of 40% of her salary to buy the exact same benefits in the private sector.
These are big numbers.
Indeed. Which is precisely why you'd think that a council under pressure would look at it.
In the long run, adding public sector workers to the list of people who are screwed isn’t going to save any money.
Bringing the public sector into line with the rest of society isn't "screwing them". It's an unsustainable benefit, in my opinion.
The problem is that the costs aren't absorbed now - the can is kicked down the road.
If councils had to pay in the costs of these pensions in real time then it would soon stop - or they would cease to employ anyone directly.
Err... Councils do... They have triennial reviews. The local government pension scheme is funded and solvent, but it costs a fortune to do so.
A (reputable) pensions advisor opined to me a few years back that in future there will be three groups of people when it comes to pensions:-
1) Those who have worked for a good time in the public sector. 2) Successful business owners. 3) Everyone else ( Who are all stuffed).
Overblown a tad maybe, but as I was explaining to my wife recently at her age the benefits she is clocking up annually in the public sector amounted to well over the equivalent of 40% of her salary to buy the exact same benefits in the private sector.
These are big numbers.
Indeed. Which is precisely why you'd think that a council under pressure would look at it.
In the long run, adding public sector workers to the list of people who are screwed isn’t going to save any money.
Bringing the public sector into line with the rest of society isn't "screwing them". It's an unsustainable benefit, in my opinion.
The problem is that the costs aren't absorbed now - the can is kicked down the road.
If councils had to pay in the costs of these pensions in real time then it would soon stop - or they would cease to employ anyone directly.
Err... Councils do... They have triennial reviews. The local government pension scheme is funded and solvent, but it costs a fortune to do so.
If interest rates return to what used to be called 'normal', it is actually probably not in too bad shape.
None but how many other third countries want the type of relationship with the EU that we do?
It should be pointed out that Guy Verhofstadt has no say whatsoever over any article 50 extension, nor does he speak 100% for the European Parliament. But what he says holds a lot of sway, and clearly indicates which way thinking is leaning in the largest power blocs in the EP.
Whew boy.
Even if, EVEN IF, somehow, against all odds and sanity, May manages to get the council to agree to a sordid fudge built on Chequers, there is a 0% chance of the European Parliament approving it. NADA.
If the 27 Countries agree a deal and the commission votes it down it will bring a huge constututional crisis in Europe
I assume you mean the parliament. If it does wouldn't that simply be democracy in action?
It would be the mother of all crisis for the EU which would effectively be voting down an agreement between the 27 and UK
It would send stock markets and currencies into chaos
A (reputable) pensions advisor opined to me a few years back that in future there will be three groups of people when it comes to pensions:-
1) Those who have worked for a good time in the public sector. 2) Successful business owners. 3) Everyone else ( Who are all stuffed).
Overblown a tad maybe, but as I was explaining to my wife recently at her age the benefits she is clocking up annually in the public sector amounted to well over the equivalent of 40% of her salary to buy the exact same benefits in the private sector.
These are big numbers.
Indeed. Which is precisely why you'd think that a council under pressure would look at it.
In the long run, adding public sector workers to the list of people who are screwed isn’t going to save any money.
Bringing the public sector into line with the rest of society isn't "screwing them". It's an unsustainable benefit, in my opinion.
The problem is that the costs aren't absorbed now - the can is kicked down the road.
If councils had to pay in the costs of these pensions in real time then it would soon stop - or they would cease to employ anyone directly.
Err... Councils do... They have triennial reviews. The local government pension scheme is funded and solvent, but it costs a fortune to do so.
If it closed tomorrow to new money it would be solvent ?
There is nowhere left for May to hide, there hasn't been since Salzburg. Which is why, I think, her attention has shifted from bludgeoning the equine carcass of Chequers to mediocre Boris roasts.
Doing a deal is now practically impossible, slagging off Boris however is shooting fish in a barrel. Of course May is going for the latter.
Agreed. I think we should just reflect on the level of surrealism of what we have just seen. A week after being told that Chequers is unacceptable to the EU and less than a month before a crucial summit, the British PM makes a speech supporting a plan that she knows can never be adopted and her cabinet all line up in support even though they all know it is nonsense. And to distract attention they all snipe at Boris, who has done nothing other than resign over a matter of principle and put an alternative (and far more realistic policy) before the people.
This speech, such as it was, will be forgotten in a day. And we will be back to the reality that someone who is totally incompetent and untrustworthy is negotiating on behalf of the country.
I think today has seen TM enhance her position and to be honest I cannot accept a deal that puts a border in Ireland and inhibits just in time manufacturing.
TM spoke for my politics today against the extremes of the hard right and left
I fundamentally disagree that she is untrustworthy. That is Boris's exclusive title
She has promised (in writing) that the backstop, if agreed, would be time limited and that the UK will have the unilateral right to exit the backstop. She has promised that the UK will exit the customs union and single market at the end of the transition. She has promised that the UK will be genuinely free to do trade deals independently from the UK effective from the end of the transition. She has promised (in writing) that she will not create new regulatory barriers between GB and NI.
If the reports on her ‘grand bargain’ are true, she will breach every one of these promises. And what will she do to get around it? Simple - call it something else, insist black is white, pretend it is not what it really is.
Untrustworthy is about the most polite name I can use. But we will see.
Can you tell me honestly how your Brexit keeps the Irish border open and guarantees just in time manufacturing. The Swindon car plants receives 350 HGV deliveries a day
Irexit ?
Unlikely. But I have not heard a response to this genuine question from anyone in the ERG or their supporters on here
And so when Barnier, Junckers and TM announce a deal you are saying the commission will vote it down
You keep saying the Commission, which makes me wonder if you're talking about the same thing.
Michel Barnier works for the European Commission, he was appointed by Juncker to lead the negotiations.
Barnier is negotiating on behalf of the Commission, on a pre-agreed negotiating line with the EU27. The EU27 and Barnier and Juncker have been in frequent contact about how the negotiations are progressing.
When (if?) negotiations are completed, the Commission (via Barnier) and the British government will present a joint text of what has been agreed for approval by both the Council (where it needs unanimous assent) and the Parliament (where it needs a simple majority).
In the event that Parliament or Council were unable to approve the agreement it would simply be referred back to the Commission to resume negotiations.
Then agreement needs to be ratified by all 28 EU parliaments in accordance with their normal constitutional procedures.
They get more from the exchequer than the english.
Labour have been in power too long
This morning our council, Aberconwy, said they are seeking an 11.8% council tax rise on the week they introduced 4 weekly bin collections
A question for those more in the know about local government / pensions than me. What's stopping councils from switching pension schemes from defined benefit to defined contribution?
The unions would go ape?
Well, apart from that. I doubt there'd be much sympathy from the majority of the public, who saw that change many years ago. And given the finances of many councils, I'd have thought it a fair option to put on the table.
But leaving the politics aside, are there any legislative / regulatory barriers to prevent a council switching, or - at a lesser level - national agreements that would have to be withdrawn from, where the withdrawal would have other consequences?
The Local Government pension is funded (as in there is a fund which is invested and whose income pays the pension). It was in deficit last time I had to worry about it, but it is there. The teachers’ pension is not funded, but paid for out of current spending by central government. Many teachers don’t understand the second point as we pay a significant chunk of our nominal pay for it, but it’s a bit like National Insurance. In state schools teaching staff are on one scheme and non-teaching staff a different one.
Yes, I knew that difference but the contributions for any final-salary / defined benefits scheme will be huge compared with the average. There is a big potential saving to be made by switching. Obviously, that is a hit to employees' terms and conditions but when a council like Northampton is going bust, you'd think it'd be an option (and unlike the teachers' pension, where future payments will be related to past commitments for decades, in a funded scheme, the savings would take effect immediately).
Is the issue not actually that in moving from an unfunded scheme to a funded scheme, there will be four or five decades of having to pay in to both at the same time?
None but how many other third countries want the type of relationship with the EU that we do?
It should be pointed out that Guy Verhofstadt has no say whatsoever over any article 50 extension, nor does he speak 100% for the European Parliament. But what he says holds a lot of sway, and clearly indicates which way thinking is leaning in the largest power blocs in the EP.
Whew boy.
Even if, EVEN IF, somehow, against all odds and sanity, May manages to get the council to agree to a sordid fudge built on Chequers, there is a 0% chance of the European Parliament approving it. NADA.
If the 27 Countries agree a deal and the commission votes it down it will bring a huge constututional crisis in Europe
They won't. It's like herding cats. Only the EU Council/Commission can do it. So far the Commission and Council have followed the script set them by member states while acting a restraint on them. I don't have a problem in principle with going over the heads of the Commission, except it's counterproductive, as Salzburg demonstrated.
As an aside Bridgen and Dudderidge must be feeling pretty silly now.
That requires a brain and there is little evidence of such a thing certainly in the case of the former. I believe he is Esther McVey's squeeze so one can only speculate at his hidden talents.
No, that’s Philip Davies.
Ah I stand corrected although the substantive point still applies maybe.
Arguably more so....
Oh dear - unless you're thinking of the hidden talents - in which case wow!
The dancing was an inspired idea. Just as well, because if the rest of the speech got heard outside the conference hall, it would merely cement existing impressions. All the same problems remain and Theresa May gave absolutely no hint that she saw need to change tack on any of them.
Indeed. Brexit is all. Nothing else matters because Brexit taints everything and will do until it is over.
Competent but fundamentally irrelevant (aside from the dancing). That could almost be Theresa May's epitaph.
Actually, I did not like the dancing much. I thought it set a trivialising mood to what should be a serious speech.
You’ve never given a serious speech have you. Listeners decide in the first 20 seconds whether to give you a hearing. This said, it’s not going to be what you’re expecting. It made people listen. You might not like it but dull and portentous is rarely effective.
Speeches? No, not really, but I have given plenty of presentations and lectures over the years on various business, technical and science issues.
Admittedly I was not leading the country, but Mrs May isn't either
You’ll know then that capturing early attention and storytelling is critical. The speech included both of those aspects. You seem to be saying that serious has to be solemn. It doesn’t.
She is saying she hates Brexit and that colours all of her other thoughts. It is a common sickness and the symtoms are likely to worsen as the evil day approaches.
No, I never said that Felix. I just said I did not like the intro to the speech. Stop projecting your prejudices on to me.
Frankly speaking, I do not much care if Brexit happens. The effects on me will be minimal as I will continue to be an EU citizen.
You post on little else for someone who doesn't care either way. Hopefully we'll hear less of you on the topic now.
And so when Barnier, Junckers and TM announce a deal you are saying the commission will vote it down
You keep saying the Commission, which makes me wonder if you're talking about the same thing.
Michel Barnier works for the European Commission, he was appointed by Juncker to lead the negotiations.
Barnier is negotiating on behalf of the Commission, on a pre-agreed negotiating line with the EU27. The EU27 and Barnier and Juncker have been in frequent contact about how the negotiations are progressing.
When (if?) negotiations are completed, the Commission (via Barnier) and the British government will present a joint text of what has been agreed for approval by both the Council (where it needs unanimous assent) and the Parliament (where it needs a simple majority).
In the event that Parliament or Council were unable to approve the agreement it would simply be referred back to the Commission to resume negotiations.
Then agreement needs to be ratified by all 28 EU parliaments in accordance with their normal constitutional procedures.
I do accept most of that but Barnier instructions can be changed by the council if the 27 instruct him. In the end the council will need to approve the deal alongside Barnier and TM before it is announced
Can you tell me honestly how your Brexit keeps the Irish border open and guarantees just in time manufacturing. The Swindon car plants receives 350 HGV deliveries a day
Sure. The UK simply agrees to accept car parts that are in compliance with EU regulations via regulatory equivalence. We choose not to impose any tariffs. We agree with the major manufacturers that they can be fast tracked through customs via a trusted trader scheme and audits can be done at the premises. If the parts comply and there are no tariffs, there are no reasons for holdups.
For the NI border, the UK agrees that we will accept all imports of goods that meet EU regulations under regulatory equivalence. We use a trusted trader scheme for deliveries over a certain value and we do audits at premises away from the border. We exempt small transfers since I understand the vast majority of exports by value are done by less than 200 companies. We do checks in the Irish Sea to stop people using the special NI rules as a backdoor to the UK.
We cannot force the EU to reciprocate, but if we can do it, they could as well - their issue is political not practical . If they don’t, we subsidise UK exporters for the costs of having to hold more stocks in Europe which will be a small cost against the EU membership fees we save. ROI will never adopt a border so eventually a series of protocols will be agreed that allows the open border to be regulated by both sides in the same way.
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
There is nowhere left for May to hide, there hasn't been since Salzburg. Which is why, I think, her attention has shifted from bludgeoning the equine carcass of Chequers to mediocre Boris roasts.
Doing a deal is now practically impossible, slagging off Boris however is shooting fish in a barrel. Of course May is going for the latter.
Agreed. I think we should just reflect on the level of surrealism of what we have just seen. A week after being told that Chequers is unacceptable to the EU and less than a month before a crucial summit, the British PM makes a speech supporting a plan that she knows can never be adopted and her cabinet all line up in support even though they all know it is nonsense. And to distract attention they all snipe at Boris, who has done nothing other than resign over a matter of principle and put an alternative (and far more realistic policy) before the people.
And the thing is, it is all lies. May knows that the moment she escapes the conference she intends to run off to Brussels and sell out on all her red lines and promises, not a word of which she mentioned to the UK public in her speech. And we are meant to see this as some sort of virtue? If she believes in keeping the UK locked in a customs union and having a regulatory border in the Irish Sea, why did she not just say so?
This speech, such as it was, will be forgotten in a day. And we will be back to the reality that someone who is totally incompetent and untrustworthy is negotiating on behalf of the country.
Surely you agree with the PM, that a deal dividing the U.K., or a deal that is remaining in the EU in all but name, are unacceptable?
But that is just what she is planning. A regulatory barrier in the Irish Sea. And the UK locked in the customs union (and also following all EU rules - eg in the SM) as well.
The SM and CU does not mean "following all EU rules". Not even close.
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
It is - it discriminates against those outside the EU.
It's what protectionist cartels do...
No, we choose to discriminate against people outside the EU. We could offer Indians, Australians, Botswanans and everyone else what EU citizens get. We choose not to.
A (reputable) pensions advisor opined to me a few years back that in future there will be three groups of people when it comes to pensions:-
1) Those who have worked for a good time in the public sector. 2) Successful business owners. 3) Everyone else ( Who are all stuffed).
Overblown a tad maybe, but as I was explaining to my wife recently at her age the benefits she is clocking up annually in the public sector amounted to well over the equivalent of 40% of her salary to buy the exact same benefits in the private sector.
These are big numbers.
Indeed. Which is precisely why you'd think that a council under pressure would look at it.
In the long run, adding public sector workers to the list of people who are screwed isn’t going to save any money.
Bringing the public sector into line with the rest of society isn't "screwing them". It's an unsustainable benefit, in my opinion.
The problem is that the costs aren't absorbed now - the can is kicked down the road.
If councils had to pay in the costs of these pensions in real time then it would soon stop - or they would cease to employ anyone directly.
Err... Councils do... They have triennial reviews. The local government pension scheme is funded and solvent, but it costs a fortune to do so.
If it closed tomorrow to new money it would be solvent ?
Not quite, but substantially so, as is the case with many private pension schemes (in reality, I suspect it would be - the assumptions being made on investment returns are overly influenced by the exception interest rates over the last decade, IMO, although it's better to err on that side than the other).
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
Yes, whereas the UK's new immigration policy won't discriminate against any nationality, unlike now.
I do accept most of that but Barnier instructions can be changed by the council if the 27 instruct him. In the end the council will need to approve the deal alongside Barnier and TM before it is announced
They could, but I can't see any reasonable situation where they might.
Not least, it's clearly *far* too late in the process to be effectively rebooting the negotiations, and in any case none of the fundamentals have changed. The EU considers the four freedoms indivisible now, as well as two years ago. The Northern Ireland border situation is just as urgent now as it was two years ago.
None of the fundamentals of the EU negotiating line have changed, so I wouldn't hold my breath that Barnier will suddenly be instructed much differently from what he's always been instructed.
There is nowhere left for May to hide, there hasn't been since Salzburg. Which is why, I think, her attention has shifted from bludgeoning the equine carcass of Chequers to mediocre Boris roasts.
Doing a deal is now practically impossible, slagging off Boris however is shooting fish in a barrel. Of course May is going for the latter.
Agreed. I think we should just reflect on the level of surrealism of what we have just seen. A week after being told that Chequers is unacceptable to the EU and less than a month before a crucial summit, the British PM makes a speech supporting a plan that she knows can never be adopted and her cabinet all line up in support even though they all know it is nonsense. And to distract attention they all snipe at Boris, who has done nothing other than resign over a matter of principle and put an alternative (and far more realistic policy) before the people.
And the thing is, it is all lies. May knows that the moment she escapes the conference she intends to run off to Brussels and sell out on all her red lines and promises, not a word of which she mentioned to the UK public in her speech. And we are meant to see this as some sort of virtue? If she believes in keeping the UK locked in a customs union and having a regulatory border in the Irish Sea, why did she not just say so?
This speech, such as it was, will be forgotten in a day. And we will be back to the reality that someone who is totally incompetent and untrustworthy is negotiating on behalf of the country.
Surely you agree with the PM, that a deal dividing the U.K., or a deal that is remaining in the EU in all but name, are unacceptable?
The issue is what is understood by "remaining in the EU in all but name". Lots of people have lots of opinions and differing priorities. A Brexit which does not give the independence it whichever specific area one wants will be BINO to that person, but not necessarily to everyone else.
Can you tell me honestly how your Brexit keeps the Irish border open and guarantees just in time manufacturing. The Swindon car plants receives 350 HGV deliveries a day
Sure. The UK simply agrees to accept car parts that are in compliance with EU regulations via regulatory equivalence. We choose not to impose any tariffs. We agree with the major manufacturers that they can be fast tracked through customs via a trusted trader scheme and audits can be done at the premises. If the parts comply and there are no tariffs, there are no reasons for holdups.
For the NI border, the UK agrees that we will accept all imports of goods that meet EU regulations under regulatory equivalence. We use a trusted trader scheme for deliveries over a certain value and we do audits at premises away from the border. We exempt small transfers since I understand the vast majority of exports by value are done by less than 200 companies. We do checks in the Irish Sea to stop people using the special NI rules as a backdoor to the UK.
We cannot force the EU to reciprocate, but if we can do it, they could as well - their issue is political not practical . If they don’t, we subsidise UK exporters for the costs of having to hold more stocks in Europe which will be a small cost against the EU membership fees we save. ROI will never adopt a border so eventually a series of protocols will be agreed that allows the open border to be regulated by both sides in the same way.
Thanks for that.
However, your last paragraph is a wing and a prayer and maybe indicates why TM will not go down that route
Can you tell me honestly how your Brexit keeps the Irish border open and guarantees just in time manufacturing. The Swindon car plants receives 350 HGV deliveries a day
Sure. The UK simply agrees to accept car parts that are in compliance with EU regulations via regulatory equivalence. We choose not to impose any tariffs. We agree with the major manufacturers that they can be fast tracked through customs via a trusted trader scheme and audits can be done at the premises. If the parts comply and there are no tariffs, there are no reasons for holdups.
For the NI border, the UK agrees that we will accept all imports of goods that meet EU regulations under regulatory equivalence. We use a trusted trader scheme for deliveries over a certain value and we do audits at premises away from the border. We exempt small transfers since I understand the vast majority of exports by value are done by less than 200 companies. We do checks in the Irish Sea to stop people using the special NI rules as a backdoor to the UK.
We cannot force the EU to reciprocate, but if we can do it, they could as well - their issue is political not practical . If they don’t, we subsidise UK exporters for the costs of having to hold more stocks in Europe which will be a small cost against the EU membership fees we save. ROI will never adopt a border so eventually a series of protocols will be agreed that allows the open border to be regulated by both sides in the same way.
Trouble comes when someone, the US or China, say, takes that to dispute under WTO MFN and demands tariff-free access of car parts also. Then pretty soon we have Patrick Minford's wet dream of our manufacturing wiped out.
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
Yes, whereas the UK's new immigration policy won't discriminate against any nationality, unlike now.
There is nothing that forces the UK to discriminate now.
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
Yes, whereas the UK's new immigration policy won't discriminate against any nationality, unlike now.
You do realise how nonsensical what you're saying is?
EU immigration policy discriminates against non-EU: awful, horrible, racist UK immigration policy discriminates against non-UK: enlightened, desirable, humane
There is nowhere left for May to hide, there hasn't been since Salzburg. Which is why, I think, her attention has shifted from bludgeoning the equine carcass of Chequers to mediocre Boris roasts.
Doing a deal is now practically impossible, slagging off Boris however is shooting fish in a barrel. Of course May is going for the latter.
Agreed. I think we should just reflect on the level of surrealism of what we have just seen. A week after being told that Chequers is unacceptable to the EU and less than a month before a crucial summit, the British PM makes a speech supporting a plan that she knows can never be adopted and her cabinet all line up in support even though they all know it is nonsense. And to distract attention they all snipe at Boris, who has done nothing other than resign over a matter of principle and put an alternative (and far more realistic policy) before the people.
And the thing is, it is all lies. May knows that the moment she escapes the conference she intends to run off to Brussels and sell out on all her red lines and promises, not a word of which she mentioned to the UK public in her speech. And we are meant to see this as some sort of virtue? If she believes in keeping the UK locked in a customs union and having a regulatory border in the Irish Sea, why did she not just say so?
This speech, such as it was, will be forgotten in a day. And we will be back to the reality that someone who is totally incompetent and untrustworthy is negotiating on behalf of the country.
Surely you agree with the PM, that a deal dividing the U.K., or a deal that is remaining in the EU in all but name, are unacceptable?
But that is just what she is planning. A regulatory barrier in the Irish Sea. And the UK locked in the customs union (and also following all EU rules - eg in the SM) as well.
The SM and CU does not mean "following all EU rules". Not even close.
That’s the wrong way of looking at it. All the SM and CU rules that we would follow would be EU rules. It’s irrelevant how many other rules there are.
Can you tell me honestly how your Brexit keeps the Irish border open and guarantees just in time manufacturing. The Swindon car plants receives 350 HGV deliveries a day
Sure. The UK simply agrees to accept car parts that are in compliance with EU regulations via regulatory equivalence. We choose not to impose any tariffs. We agree with the major manufacturers that they can be fast tracked through customs via a trusted trader scheme and audits can be done at the premises. If the parts comply and there are no tariffs, there are no reasons for holdups.
For the NI border, the UK agrees that we will accept all imports of goods that meet EU regulations under regulatory equivalence. We use a trusted trader scheme for deliveries over a certain value and we do audits at premises away from the border. We exempt small transfers since I understand the vast majority of exports by value are done by less than 200 companies. We do checks in the Irish Sea to stop people using the special NI rules as a backdoor to the UK.
We cannot force the EU to reciprocate, but if we can do it, they could as well - their issue is political not practical . If they don’t, we subsidise UK exporters for the costs of having to hold more stocks in Europe which will be a small cost against the EU membership fees we save. ROI will never adopt a border so eventually a series of protocols will be agreed that allows the open border to be regulated by both sides in the same way.
Trouble comes when someone, the US or China, say, takes that to dispute under WTO MFN and demands tariff-free access of car parts also. Then pretty soon we have Patrick Minford's wet dream of our manufacturing wiped out.
I am not saying we should treat the US differently. We won’t be charging tariffs on car parts to anyone, as generally tariffs are only levied on finished goods. Tarrif free import of parts will help, not hinder, British industry.
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
Yes, whereas the UK's new immigration policy won't discriminate against any nationality, unlike now.
There is nothing that forces the UK to discriminate now.
You really think unfettered immigration from the entire planet would be sustainable?
Can you tell me honestly how your Brexit keeps the Irish border open and guarantees just in time manufacturing. The Swindon car plants receives 350 HGV deliveries a day
Sure. The UK simply agrees to accept car parts that are in compliance with EU regulations via regulatory equivalence. We choose not to impose any tariffs. We agree with the major manufacturers that they can be fast tracked through customs via a trusted trader scheme and audits can be done at the premises. If the parts comply and there are no tariffs, there are no reasons for holdups.
For the NI border, the UK agrees that we will accept all imports of goods that meet EU regulations under regulatory equivalence. We use a trusted trader scheme for deliveries over a certain value and we do audits at premises away from the border. We exempt small transfers since I understand the vast majority of exports by value are done by less than 200 companies. We do checks in the Irish Sea to stop people using the special NI rules as a backdoor to the UK.
We cannot force the EU to reciprocate, but if we can do it, they could as well - their issue is political not practical . If they don’t, we subsidise UK exporters for the costs of having to hold more stocks in Europe which will be a small cost against the EU membership fees we save. ROI will never adopt a border so eventually a series of protocols will be agreed that allows the open border to be regulated by both sides in the same way.
The EU won't reciprocate. There are legal preventions as well as WTO non discrimination rules that prevent it, even if they wanted to. Subsidising exports is completely illegal under WTO rules. It would start a trade war, with the EU slapping countervailing tariffs on our stuff, which it it is entirely entitled to do under WTO.
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
AFAIK the only thing Javid has said that is "discriminatory" is that there might be an English language requirement in future citizenship rules, but there's been nothing to suggest a Bulgarian or German would be treated differently because of their nationality. Quite the opposite, the government has said it wants one set of rules for all nationalities.
And so when Barnier, Junckers and TM announce a deal you are saying the commission will vote it down
You keep saying the Commission, which makes me wonder if you're talking about the same thing.
Michel Barnier works for the European Commission, he was appointed by Juncker to lead the negotiations.
Barnier is negotiating on behalf of the Commission, on a pre-agreed negotiating line with the EU27. The EU27 and Barnier and Juncker have been in frequent contact about how the negotiations are progressing.
When (if?) negotiations are completed, the Commission (via Barnier) and the British government will present a joint text of what has been agreed for approval by both the Council (where it needs unanimous assent) and the Parliament (where it needs a simple majority).
In the event that Parliament or Council were unable to approve the agreement it would simply be referred back to the Commission to resume negotiations.
Then agreement needs to be ratified by all 28 EU parliaments in accordance with their normal constitutional procedures.
I believe that the withdrawal agreement only needs approval by QMV, not unanimity. The future relationship trade agreement, on the other hand, does need unanimity and ratification by all 28, which actually means more than 28 parliaments because some countries require approval at regional level as well (e.g. Belgium).
No, that wouldn't fly. May couldn't accept a second referendum on anything other than a Deal / No Deal basis (and would probably lose that), without being No Confidenced by her MPs.
£50 at evens says that parliament will not pass legislation for a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option before 29 March 2019.
Change it to “that Theresa May will not back a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option” and you’re on.
Surely my wording is both more favourable to you and more precisely defined (what does "will not back a referendum" mean)?
On my wording, you gain the possibility of May's government falling and a Labour government introducing the referendum - which is by far the most likely way it could come about.
The main issue I have with your version is how to define “passing legislation” as the process could potentially drag on into an A50 extension. Also if the government is backing it, there’s a slim chance a way could be found to do it without new legislation. Maybe change it to passing a motion?
That's too vague as well. Most motions have no binding value.
Your point was that May could and would accept a second referendum. To that end, I'll offer the same terms - £50 at evens - that:
1. The government, led by Theresa May, will not introduce legislation before 29 March 2019, to enable an EU referendum in which Remain is an option, and 2. The government, led by Theresa May, will not hold a referendum in which Remain is an option before 29 March 2019, whether authorised by legislation or not.
For the purpose of definition, a 'referendum' is a public vote, equivalent to that held on 23 June 2016; it is not an on-line survey.
I win if neither condition is satisfied by 29 March 2019. You win if either condition is.
Ok that's good enough.
Thanks - I'll e-mail later to confirm.
As you've taken this one, that overrides my later offer of a definition based solely on when the vote is held rather than when legislation for it's introduced.
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
Yes, whereas the UK's new immigration policy won't discriminate against any nationality, unlike now.
You do realise how nonsensical what you're saying is?
EU immigration policy discriminates against non-EU: awful, horrible, racist UK immigration policy discriminates against non-UK: enlightened, desirable, humane
Is anyone actually bothered that the U.K. prefers its own citizens?
Can you tell me honestly how your Brexit keeps the Irish border open and guarantees just in time manufacturing. The Swindon car plants receives 350 HGV deliveries a day
Sure. The UK simply agrees to accept car parts that are in compliance with EU regulations via regulatory equivalence. We choose not to impose any tariffs. We agree with the major manufacturers that they can be fast tracked through customs via a trusted trader scheme and audits can be done at the premises. If the parts comply and there are no tariffs, there are no reasons for holdups.
For the NI border, the UK agrees that we will accept all imports of goods that meet EU regulations under regulatory equivalence. We use a trusted trader scheme for deliveries over a certain value and we do audits at premises away from the border. We exempt small transfers since I understand the vast majority of exports by value are done by less than 200 companies. We do checks in the Irish Sea to stop people using the special NI rules as a backdoor to the UK.
We cannot force the EU to reciprocate, but if we can do it, they could as well - their issue is political not practical . If they don’t, we subsidise UK exporters for the costs of having to hold more stocks in Europe which will be a small cost against the EU membership fees we save. ROI will never adopt a border so eventually a series of protocols will be agreed that allows the open border to be regulated by both sides in the same way.
Trouble comes when someone, the US or China, say, takes that to dispute under WTO MFN and demands tariff-free access of car parts also. Then pretty soon we have Patrick Minford's wet dream of our manufacturing wiped out.
I am not saying we should treat the US differently. We won’t be charging tariffs on car parts to anyone, as generally tariffs are only levied on finished goods. Tarrif free import of parts will help, not hinder, British industry.
It's not going to stop at car parts is it, though.
A (reputable) pensions advisor opined to me a few years back that in future there will be three groups of people when it comes to pensions:-
1) Those who have worked for a good time in the public sector. 2) Successful business owners. 3) Everyone else ( Who are all stuffed).
Overblown a tad maybe, but as I was explaining to my wife recently at her age the benefits she is clocking up annually in the public sector amounted to well over the equivalent of 40% of her salary to buy the exact same benefits in the private sector.
These are big numbers.
Indeed. Which is precisely why you'd think that a council under pressure would look at it.
In the long run, adding public sector workers to the list of people who are screwed isn’t going to save any money.
Bringing the public sector into line with the rest of society isn't "screwing them". It's an unsustainable benefit, in my opinion.
The problem is that the costs aren't absorbed now - the can is kicked down the road.
If councils had to pay in the costs of these pensions in real time then it would soon stop - or they would cease to employ anyone directly.
Err... Councils do... They have triennial reviews. The local government pension scheme is funded and solvent, but it costs a fortune to do so.
If it closed tomorrow to new money it would be solvent ?
As well as any defined benefits pension. It is funded to the level that satisfies actuaries. The risk to the scheme is the largesse of the 2000s in terms of the swelling of local government staff and the current reduction of staff meaning that bubble creates a demographic issue for future payouts. Point is it is a fully funded scheme.
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
Yes, whereas the UK's new immigration policy won't discriminate against any nationality, unlike now.
There is nothing that forces the UK to discriminate now.
You really think unfettered immigration from the entire planet would be sustainable?
Nope, I am just saying we are not forced to discriminate now. Neither are we forced to implement freedom of movement in the way we do now, of course.
Can you tell me honestly how your Brexit keeps the Irish border open and guarantees just in time manufacturing. The Swindon car plants receives 350 HGV deliveries a day
Sure. The UK simply agrees to accept car parts that are in compliance with EU regulations via regulatory equivalence. We choose not to impose any tariffs. We agree with the major manufacturers that they can be fast tracked through customs via a trusted trader scheme and audits can be done at the premises. If the parts comply and there are no tariffs, there are no reasons for holdups.
For the NI border, the UK agrees that we will accept all imports of goods that meet EU regulations under regulatory equivalence. We use a trusted trader scheme for deliveries over a certain value and we do audits at premises away from the border. We exempt small transfers since I understand the vast majority of exports by value are done by less than 200 companies. We do checks in the Irish Sea to stop people using the special NI rules as a backdoor to the UK.
We cannot force the EU to reciprocate, but if we can do it, they could as well - their issue is political not practical . If they don’t, we subsidise UK exporters for the costs of having to hold more stocks in Europe which will be a small cost against the EU membership fees we save. ROI will never adopt a border so eventually a series of protocols will be agreed that allows the open border to be regulated by both sides in the same way.
Thanks for that.
However, your last paragraph is a wing and a prayer and maybe indicates why TM will not go down that route
Remainers want the NI border to be unsolveable because it gives them an excuse to tie the UK into EU regulations which is what they always wanted. May has no interest in solving it, because if she did then CETA would be the obvious outcome and she wants to remain tied as closely to the EU as possible.
Two days ago Hammond said there is no point talking about the NI border as the EU will not accept it. Yesterday he said that we need to sell them the idea of the customs partnership and that if it seems impossible so was the light bulb. Slight inconsistency here?
The EU and the Government are both using NI to get what they want, which is ongoing aligmment. If it wasn’t for those meddling DUPers.....
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
AFAIK the only thing Javid has said that is "discriminatory" is that there might be an English language requirement in future citizenship rules, but there's been nothing to suggest a Bulgarian or German would be treated differently because of their nationality. Quite the opposite, the government has said it wants one set of rules for all nationalities.
*** Unless he means the Irish. ***
Javid’s plan is to prevent people like his father immigrating, isn’t it?
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
AFAIK the only thing Javid has said that is "discriminatory" is that there might be an English language requirement in future citizenship rules, but there's been nothing to suggest a Bulgarian or German would be treated differently because of their nationality. Quite the opposite, the government has said it wants one set of rules for all nationalities.
The UK will be required by the treaty to apply a defined set of immigration rules consistently for all EU citizens. The EU will reciprocate for UK citizens. The EU won't agree a treaty on any other terms. The question is what those rules are.
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
Yes, whereas the UK's new immigration policy won't discriminate against any nationality, unlike now.
There is nothing that forces the UK to discriminate now.
You really think unfettered immigration from the entire planet would be sustainable?
Nope, I am just saying we are not forced to discriminate now. Neither are we forced to implement freedom of movement in the way we do now, of course.
Practically forced to, because if the U.K. didn’t it’d be pandemonium.
The EU won't reciprocate. There are legal preventions as well as WTO non discrimination rules that prevent it, even if they wanted to. Subsidising exports is completely illegal under WTO rules. It would start a trade war, with the EU slapping countervailing tariffs on our stuff, which it it is entirely entitled to do under WTO.
The problem with regulatory equivalence is it's basically a non-starter because everyone knows that Tories have a massive hard-on for whoring out all our industries on the cheap to US industries with abysmally low consumer, social and environmental standards and won't shut up about it.
For as long as Tories talk about how it's their dream to turn the UK into a race-to-the-bottom bargain basement US client state for waging regulatory-economic warfare against the EU, I'd expect regulatory equivalence to remain a Hard No.
I thought TM attacks on Corbyn were precise and well argued but it was also obvious how she did not attack labour mps. Indeed she mentioned Diane Abbott and Joe Cox. Seeking centre ground support maybe.
Afterwoods Rachel Johnson and Isobel Oakshott praised her for her steadfastness and how women are increasingly supporting her
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
AFAIK the only thing Javid has said that is "discriminatory" is that there might be an English language requirement in future citizenship rules, but there's been nothing to suggest a Bulgarian or German would be treated differently because of their nationality. Quite the opposite, the government has said it wants one set of rules for all nationalities.
The UK will be required by the treaty to apply a defined set of immigration rules consistently for all EU citizens. The EU will reciprocate for UK citizens. The EU won't agree a treaty on any other terms. The question is what those rules are.
There’s no question that one EU citizen will be treated any differently from another. They’ll be treated the same as all nationalities.
And it does discriminate on the basis of nationality:
[2] Romanian and Bulgarian citizens are not currently considered visa exempt in Canada. They are therefore required to apply for CETA work permits or business visitor status through visa offices outside of Canada.
So Mr Verhofstadt is willing to discriminate on the basis of nationality when it comes to the deal with Canada, but not with the U.K.....
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
AFAIK the only thing Javid has said that is "discriminatory" is that there might be an English language requirement in future citizenship rules, but there's been nothing to suggest a Bulgarian or German would be treated differently because of their nationality. Quite the opposite, the government has said it wants one set of rules for all nationalities.
The UK will be required by the treaty to apply a defined set of immigration rules consistently for all EU citizens. The EU will reciprocate for UK citizens. The EU won't agree a treaty on any other terms. The question is what those rules are.
There’s no question that one EU citizen will be treated any differently from another. They’ll be treated the same as all nationalities.
I doubt we will not agree special terms for EU citizens because that means No Deal ever. What those terms are is up for grabs.
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
AFAIK the only thing Javid has said that is "discriminatory" is that there might be an English language requirement in future citizenship rules, but there's been nothing to suggest a Bulgarian or German would be treated differently because of their nationality. Quite the opposite, the government has said it wants one set of rules for all nationalities.
The UK will be required by the treaty to apply a defined set of immigration rules consistently for all EU citizens. The EU will reciprocate for UK citizens. The EU won't agree a treaty on any other terms. The question is what those rules are.
There’s no question that one EU citizen will be treated any differently from another. They’ll be treated the same as all nationalities.
Someone (?Brian Cox) is asking, if the ‘value’ of a job is going to be determined by salary, does that mean a footballer will get in in front of a nurse? Or words to that effect.
Can you tell me honestly how your Brexit keeps the Irish border open and guarantees just in time manufacturing. The Swindon car plants receives 350 HGV deliveries a day
Sure. The UK simply agrees to accept car parts that are in compliance with EU regulations via regulatory equivalence. We choose not to impose any tariffs. We agree with the major manufacturers that they can be fast tracked through customs via a trusted trader scheme and audits can be done at the premises. If the parts comply and there are no tariffs, there are no reasons for holdups.
For the NI border, the UK agrees that we will accept all imports of goods that meet EU regulations under regulatory equivalence. We use a trusted trader scheme for deliveries over a certain value and we do audits at premises away from the border. We exempt small transfers since I understand the vast majority of exports by value are done by less than 200 companies. We do checks in the Irish Sea to stop people using the special NI rules as a backdoor to the UK.
We cannot force the EU to reciprocate, but if we can do it, they could as well - their issue is political not practical . If they don’t, we subsidise UK exporters for the costs of having to hold more stocks in Europe which will be a small cost against the EU membership fees we save. ROI will never adopt a border so eventually a series of protocols will be agreed that allows the open border to be regulated by both sides in the same way.
The EU won't reciprocate. There are legal preventions as well as WTO non discrimination rules that prevent it, even if they wanted to. Subsidising exports is completely illegal under WTO rules. It would start a trade war, with the EU slapping countervailing tariffs on our stuff, which it it is entirely entitled to do under WTO.
Wrong on every level. Giving companies a local subsidy to offset the cost of storage of additional goods is nothing to do with the WTO. It is EU rules that prevent this - countries subsidise business all the time. WTO rules prevent the subsidisation of goods. There is no legal prevention for the EU to reciprocate on anything proposed - it is entirely a political decision. If they want to agree regulatory equivalence and no tariffs this happens all the time. There are WTO exemptions for special circumstances and the proposal for NI would qualify as the vast majority of goods by value would be caught by the trusted trader scheme, which is perfectly valid under WTO rules.
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
AFAIK the only thing Javid has said that is "discriminatory" is that there might be an English language requirement in future citizenship rules, but there's been nothing to suggest a Bulgarian or German would be treated differently because of their nationality. Quite the opposite, the government has said it wants one set of rules for all nationalities.
*** Unless he means the Irish. ***
Javid’s plan is to prevent people like his father immigrating, isn’t it?
Probably not in practice, given all the various areas of the economy that are going to demand exemptions to fill jobs. It won't be "free movement" but it will still be a couple of hundred thousand people a year moving to the UK. The only real difference is that maybe some EU citizens will find it marginally harder than simply getting on a coach and ferry, and in no case will nationality be the issue.
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
AFAIK the only thing Javid has said that is "discriminatory" is that there might be an English language requirement in future citizenship rules, but there's been nothing to suggest a Bulgarian or German would be treated differently because of their nationality. Quite the opposite, the government has said it wants one set of rules for all nationalities.
The UK will be required by the treaty to apply a defined set of immigration rules consistently for all EU citizens. The EU will reciprocate for UK citizens. The EU won't agree a treaty on any other terms. The question is what those rules are.
Well I suspect he'll quietly make an exception for the Irish, who have special rights in the UK (and vice versa) going back decades before the EU.
I believe that the withdrawal agreement only needs approval by QMV, not unanimity. The future relationship trade agreement, on the other hand, does need unanimity and ratification by all 28, which actually means more than 28 parliaments because some countries require approval at regional level as well (e.g. Belgium).
I'm fairly certain it requires unanimous consent.
It's one of the reasons the EU27 has been so intransigent on the NI issue, because the Ireland has a veto, as does every other EU state with a disputed border.
Can you tell me honestly how your Brexit keeps the Irish border open and guarantees just in time manufacturing. The Swindon car plants receives 350 HGV deliveries a day
Sure. The UK simply agrees to accept car parts that are in compliance with EU regulations via regulatory equivalence. We choose not to impose any tariffs. We agree with the major manufacturers that they can be fast tracked through customs via a trusted trader scheme and audits can be done at the premises. If the parts comply and there are no tariffs, there are no reasons for holdups.
For the NI border, the UK agrees that we will accept all imports of goods that meet EU regulations under regulatory equivalence. We use a trusted trader scheme for deliveries over a certain value and we do audits at premises away from the border. We exempt small transfers since I understand the vast majority of exports by value are done by less than 200 companies. We do checks in the Irish Sea to stop people using the special NI rules as a backdoor to the UK.
We cannot force the EU to reciprocate, but if we can do it, they could as well - their issue is political not practical . If they don’t, we subsidise UK exporters for the costs of having to hold more stocks in Europe which will be a small cost against the EU membership fees we save. ROI will never adopt a border so eventually a series of protocols will be agreed that allows the open border to be regulated by both sides in the same way.
Thanks for that.
However, your last paragraph is a wing and a prayer and maybe indicates why TM will not go down that route
Remainers want the NI border to be unsolveable because it gives them an excuse to tie the UK into EU regulations which is what they always wanted. May has no interest in solving it, because if she did then CETA would be the obvious outcome and she wants to remain tied as closely to the EU as possible.
Two days ago Hammond said there is no point talking about the NI border as the EU will not accept it. Yesterday he said that we need to sell them the idea of the customs partnership and that if it seems impossible so was the light bulb. Slight inconsistency here?
The EU and the Government are both using NI to get what they want, which is ongoing aligmment. If it wasn’t for those meddling DUPers.....
As long as just in time manufacturing is secured I have no problem
Any leaver with any sense would realise that BINO is exactly what they need. Getting out with minimal disruption now will create the smallest number of losers and make the whole thing an anti-climax. They can then chip away at the various things they object to one at a time. Three terms of anti Eu governments will achieve everything they want. There's no need for any but the most minor of disruption - just a reasonable amount of patience.
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
But he agreed to that in CETA!
Typical double standard. Willing to bend their precious principles for Canada, but not for the U.K.
Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?
He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.
AFAIK the only thing Javid has said that is "discriminatory" is that there might be an English language requirement in future citizenship rules, but there's been nothing to suggest a Bulgarian or German would be treated differently because of their nationality. Quite the opposite, the government has said it wants one set of rules for all nationalities.
The UK will be required by the treaty to apply a defined set of immigration rules consistently for all EU citizens. The EU will reciprocate for UK citizens. The EU won't agree a treaty on any other terms. The question is what those rules are.
There’s no question that one EU citizen will be treated any differently from another. They’ll be treated the same as all nationalities.
Someone (?Brian Cox) is asking, if the ‘value’ of a job is going to be determined by salary, does that mean a footballer will get in in front of a nurse? Or words to that effect.
No, that's a red herring, the government has repeatedly said it will have rules based primarily on the needs of the economy, and nursing is a candidate for very generous rules indeed.
Obviously we should welcome the overpaid footballers of the world come what may, and make sure we get our hands on as much of their money as possible.
A (reputable) pensions advisor opined to me a few years back that in future there will be three groups of people when it comes to pensions:-
1) Those who have worked for a good time in the public sector. 2) Successful business owners. 3) Everyone else ( Who are all stuffed).
Overblown a tad maybe, but as I was explaining to my wife recently at her age the benefits she is clocking up annually in the public sector amounted to well over the equivalent of 40% of her salary to buy the exact same benefits in the private sector.
These are big numbers.
Indeed. Which is precisely why you'd think that a council under pressure would look at it.
In the long run, adding public sector workers to the list of people who are screwed isn’t going to save any money.
Bringing the public sector into line with the rest of society isn't "screwing them". It's an unsustainable benefit, in my opinion.
The problem is that the costs aren't absorbed now - the can is kicked down the road.
If councils had to pay in the costs of these pensions in real time then it would soon stop - or they would cease to employ anyone directly.
Err... Councils do... They have triennial reviews. The local government pension scheme is funded and solvent, but it costs a fortune to do so.
If interest rates return to what used to be called 'normal', it is actually probably not in too bad shape.
Interest rates being on the floor for a decade are causing no end of distortions in a lot of different markets, from pensions and property to fine art and classic cars. Asset prices reflect the cost of financing them, which has been close to zero for the last ten years leading to above-trend asset inflation. Meanwhile, despite record high stock markets, safe returns favoured by pension funds are paying almost nothing.
Comments
TM spoke for my politics today against the extremes of the hard right and left
I fundamentally disagree that she is untrustworthy. That is Boris's exclusive title
If councils had to pay in the costs of these pensions in real time then it would soon stop - or they would cease to employ anyone directly.
Your point was that May could and would accept a second referendum. To that end, I'll offer the same terms - £50 at evens - that:
1. The government, led by Theresa May, will not introduce legislation before 29 March 2019, to enable an EU referendum in which Remain is an option, and
2. The government, led by Theresa May, will not hold a referendum in which Remain is an option before 29 March 2019, whether authorised by legislation or not.
For the purpose of definition, a 'referendum' is a public vote, equivalent to that held on 23 June 2016; it is not an on-line survey.
I win if neither condition is satisfied by 29 March 2019. You win if either condition is.
Frankly speaking, I do not much care if Brexit happens. The effects on me will be minimal as I will continue to be an EU citizen.
Whew boy.
Even if, EVEN IF, somehow, against all odds and sanity, May manages to get the council to agree to a sordid fudge built on Chequers, there is a 0% chance of the European Parliament approving it. NADA.
Reaction to the speech or something else
She has promised that the UK will exit the customs union and single market at the end of the transition.
She has promised that the UK will be genuinely free to do trade deals independently from the UK effective from the end of the transition.
She has promised (in writing) that she will not create new regulatory barriers between GB and NI.
If the reports on her ‘grand bargain’ are true, she will breach every one of these promises. And what will she do to get around it? Simple - call it something else, insist black is white, pretend it is not what it really is.
Untrustworthy is about the most polite name I can use. But we will see.
http://bartlaw.ca/571-2/
Although amazing as its sounds, the leaders of the commission and council and parliament actually talk to each other and agree common positions. There is zero chance of the council agreeing to a draft text if Parliament isn't likely to support it, which means that Verhofstadt does have an effective veto.
In effect, the Parliament's position and the Council's and the Commission's positions are one and the same: the line Barnier agreed with the EU27 two years ago.
A new offer then: no referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option will take place (1) while Theresa May is prime minister, and (2) before the end of 2019.
The bet ends at the earliest of (1) Theresa May's premiership, (2) 31 December 2019, or (3) the holding of a referendum as per the bet. I win if no such referendum has taken place by (1) or (2); you win if one is.
Et voila!
It would send stock markets and currencies into chaos
It's what protectionist cartels do...
Michel Barnier works for the European Commission, he was appointed by Juncker to lead the negotiations.
Barnier is negotiating on behalf of the Commission, on a pre-agreed negotiating line with the EU27. The EU27 and Barnier and Juncker have been in frequent contact about how the negotiations are progressing.
When (if?) negotiations are completed, the Commission (via Barnier) and the British government will present a joint text of what has been agreed for approval by both the Council (where it needs unanimous assent) and the Parliament (where it needs a simple majority).
In the event that Parliament or Council were unable to approve the agreement it would simply be referred back to the Commission to resume negotiations.
Then agreement needs to be ratified by all 28 EU parliaments in accordance with their normal constitutional procedures.
For the NI border, the UK agrees that we will accept all imports of goods that meet EU regulations under regulatory equivalence. We use a trusted trader scheme for deliveries over a certain value and we do audits at premises away from the border. We exempt small transfers since I understand the vast majority of exports by value are done by less than 200 companies. We do checks in the Irish Sea to stop people using the special NI rules as a backdoor to the UK.
We cannot force the EU to reciprocate, but if we can do it, they could as well - their issue is political not practical . If they don’t, we subsidise UK exporters for the costs of having to hold more stocks in Europe which will be a small cost against the EU membership fees we save. ROI will never adopt a border so eventually a series of protocols will be agreed that allows the open border to be regulated by both sides in the same way.
Not least, it's clearly *far* too late in the process to be effectively rebooting the negotiations, and in any case none of the fundamentals have changed. The EU considers the four freedoms indivisible now, as well as two years ago. The Northern Ireland border situation is just as urgent now as it was two years ago.
None of the fundamentals of the EU negotiating line have changed, so I wouldn't hold my breath that Barnier will suddenly be instructed much differently from what he's always been instructed.
Lots of people have lots of opinions and differing priorities. A Brexit which does not give the independence it whichever specific area one wants will be BINO to that person, but not necessarily to everyone else.
However, your last paragraph is a wing and a prayer and maybe indicates why TM will not go down that route
EU immigration policy discriminates against non-EU: awful, horrible, racist
UK immigration policy discriminates against non-UK: enlightened, desirable, humane
*** Unless he means the Irish. ***
As you've taken this one, that overrides my later offer of a definition based solely on when the vote is held rather than when legislation for it's introduced.
So, it's settled. Theresa May is the best candidate to lead the Labour Party
Point is it is a fully funded scheme.
Two days ago Hammond said there is no point talking about the NI border as the EU will not accept it. Yesterday he said that we need to sell them the idea of the customs partnership and that if it seems impossible so was the light bulb. Slight inconsistency here?
The EU and the Government are both using NI to get what they want, which is ongoing aligmment. If it wasn’t for those meddling DUPers.....
For as long as Tories talk about how it's their dream to turn the UK into a race-to-the-bottom bargain basement US client state for waging regulatory-economic warfare against the EU, I'd expect regulatory equivalence to remain a Hard No.
Afterwoods Rachel Johnson and Isobel Oakshott praised her for her steadfastness and how women are increasingly supporting her
[2] Romanian and Bulgarian citizens are not currently considered visa exempt in Canada. They are therefore required to apply for CETA work permits or business visitor status through visa offices outside of Canada.
So Mr Verhofstadt is willing to discriminate on the basis of nationality when it comes to the deal with Canada, but not with the U.K.....
Or words to that effect.
But he agreed to that in CETA!
Popcorn supply remains in the larder.
It's one of the reasons the EU27 has been so intransigent on the NI issue, because the Ireland has a veto, as does every other EU state with a disputed border.
Obviously we should welcome the overpaid footballers of the world come what may, and make sure we get our hands on as much of their money as possible.