Right. I need to record the third piece of my Demographics series.
And I need to finish writing
"2020: The Election They Wished They Had't Won"
We won't be having an election in 2020. FTPA says five years after 2017 or quite possibly 2019 if the government falls over Brexit.
If May gets her Withdrawal Agreement through Parliament we now look likely to be in the transition period until the end of 2021 based on new Barnier proposals to settle the Irish border and agree a FTA, which means there almost certainly will not be a general election until it is completed in 2022.
As I think I have made quite clear, I favour a Brexit that implements as many elements of the Leave manifesto as possible, as opposed to one that is totally in conflict with all of them (Norway) or one which is aimed at making sure that we never really leave at all (May).
CETA and a refusal to accept the backstop implements ALL of the vote Leave manifesto. No deal implements almost all of it and leaves open the option of an FTA to complete the picture.
You are trying to magic up totally insignificant 'contradictions' to excuse the fact that you want to ignore everything that Leave advocated.
Leave won. Implement their manifesto.
I won.
I voted Leave.
You are the only person that has even made me regret my vote.
The vast majority of Leavers believe we should have a Brexit for as many Brits as possible. This our fundamental disagreement.
You have no idea what the majority of leavers want - but it is reasonable to assume that they want what Vote Leave promised in the campaign. And since 40 and 45% of the UK public (according to HYUFD) support No Deal, it seems that you are wrong.
Norway is not what Vote Leave promised, as you have conceded. And May is not even discussing implementing Brexit; she is engaged in nothing other than discussions as to how to delay implementing it.
Unless you still believe that Chequers is real, then it doesn't look like you have any plan to implement Brexit at all.
You are skating on very thin ice, when you rely on HYUFDs wholly spurious statistics. There again spurious statistics hallmarked the Leave campaign. Carry on!
As I think I have made quite clear, I favour a Brexit that implements as many elements of the Leave manifesto as possible, as opposed to one that is totally in conflict with all of them (Norway) or one which is aimed at making sure that we never really leave at all (May).
CETA and a refusal to accept the backstop implements ALL of the vote Leave manifesto. No deal implements almost all of it and leaves open the option of an FTA to complete the picture.
You are trying to magic up totally insignificant 'contradictions' to excuse the fact that you want to ignore everything that Leave advocated.
Leave won. Implement their manifesto.
I won.
I voted Leave.
You are the only person that has even made me regret my vote.
The vast majority of Leavers believe we should have a Brexit for as many Brits as possible. This our fundamental disagreement.
You have no idea what the majority of leavers want - but it is reasonable to assume that they want what Vote Leave promised in the campaign. And since 40 and 45% of the UK public (according to HYUFD) support No Deal, it seems that you are wrong.
Norway is not what Vote Leave promised, as you have conceded. And May is not even discussing implementing Brexit; she is engaged in nothing other than discussions as to how to delay implementing it.
Unless you still believe that Chequers is real, then it doesn't look like you have any plan to implement Brexit at all.
You are skating on very thin ice, when you rely on HYUFDs wholly spurious statistics. There again spurious statistics hallmarked the Leave campaign. Carry on!
Right. I need to record the third piece of my Demographics series.
And I need to finish writing
"2020: The Election They Wished They Had't Won"
We won't be having an election in 2020. FTPA says five years after 2017 or quite possibly 2019 if the government falls over Brexit.
If May gets her Withdrawal Agreement through Parliament we now look likely to be in the transition period until the end of 2021 based on new Barnier proposals to settle the Irish border and agree a FTA, which means there almost certainly will not be a general election until it is completed in 2022.
Barnier is not agreeing to settle the Irish border, nor to agree an FTA. He is still saying that the backstop will be permanent until the UK accept the separation of NI in return for an FTA. Or the UK accept EEA+CU. No other options.
Yet again: Leave won by campaigning against immigration and for increased spending on the NHS. Brexit must do those two things. After that, everything else is up for discussion.
This notion that there is some platonic ideal of Brexit inherent in the referendum ballot slip is so much nonsense. If Leavers wanted a mandate for other requirements of Brexit they should have made them a central plank of their campaign.
Pandering to xenophobia was as catastrophic for Leave as for the country as a whole.
Indeed. And an economic partnership without freedom of movement would be perfect. Unfortunately our partners arent interested
Oh, I think that would be possible. It would just be (extremely) expensive.
Right. I need to record the third piece of my Demographics series.
And I need to finish writing
"2020: The Election They Wished They Had't Won"
We won't be having an election in 2020. FTPA says five years after 2017 or quite possibly 2019 if the government falls over Brexit.
If May gets her Withdrawal Agreement through Parliament we now look likely to be in the transition period until the end of 2021 based on new Barnier proposals to settle the Irish border and agree a FTA, which means there almost certainly will not be a general election until it is completed in 2022.
Barnier is not agreeing to settle the Irish border, nor to agree an FTA. He is still saying that the backstop will be permanent until the UK accept the separation of NI in return for an FTA. Or the UK accept EEA+CU. No other options.
May will of course agree that the UK stays in the Customs Union to get to the transition period but Barnier is moving to extend the transition period for a year so May can sell the Withdrawal Agreement Deal to enough of her backbenchers to get it through the Commons, as a backstop of staying in the Customs Union even without a time limit with an extended transition period will be less likely to be implemented.
Of course if no FTA by the end of 2021 then the transition period ends and we leave the EU without a deal from then and will have to negotiate outside the full Single Market (though likely now with a Unionist majority at Holyrood in the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections)
Right. I need to record the third piece of my Demographics series.
And I need to finish writing
"2020: The Election They Wished They Had't Won"
We won't be having an election in 2020. FTPA says five years after 2017 or quite possibly 2019 if the government falls over Brexit.
If May gets her Withdrawal Agreement through Parliament we now look likely to be in the transition period until the end of 2021 based on new Barnier proposals to settle the Irish border and agree a FTA, which means there almost certainly will not be a general election until it is completed in 2022.
Barnier is not agreeing to settle the Irish border, nor to agree an FTA. He is still saying that the backstop will be permanent until the UK accept the separation of NI in return for an FTA. Or the UK accept EEA+CU. No other options.
We will of course agree that the UK stays in a Customs Union to get to the transition period but Barnier is moving to extending the transition period for a year so May can sell the Withdrawal Agreement Deal to her backbenchers as a backstop of staying in the Customs Union even without a time limit with an extended transition period will be less likely to be implemented.
Of course if no FTA by the end of 2021 then the transition period ends and we leave the EU without a deal from then and will have to negotiate outside the full Single Market (though likely now with a Unionist majority at Holyrood in the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections)
Will this mean that we will still not have any MEPs from the next European elections? Please say yes as i want to see that twit Charles Tannoc out of a job.
Just watching the Netflix documentary on the Catalonia independence referendum. It was an absolute disgrace what the Spanish government did and we should be very proud of how we handled the Scottish referendum and any future referendum.
Yet again: Leave won by campaigning against immigration and for increased spending on the NHS. Brexit must do those two things. After that, everything else is up for discussion.
This notion that there is some platonic ideal of Brexit inherent in the referendum ballot slip is so much nonsense. If Leavers wanted a mandate for other requirements of Brexit they should have made them a central plank of their campaign.
Pandering to xenophobia was as catastrophic for Leave as for the country as a whole.
Indeed. And an economic partnership without freedom of movement would be perfect. Unfortunately our partners arent interested
It would be possible to argue for something in that direction. As an EU member.
No it really wouldn’t. It would be pointless. The ratchet to ever closer union only moves in one direction.
Yet again: Leave won by campaigning against immigration and for increased spending on the NHS. Brexit must do those two things. After that, everything else is up for discussion.
This notion that there is some platonic ideal of Brexit inherent in the referendum ballot slip is so much nonsense. If Leavers wanted a mandate for other requirements of Brexit they should have made them a central plank of their campaign.
Pandering to xenophobia was as catastrophic for Leave as for the country as a whole.
Indeed. And an economic partnership without freedom of movement would be perfect. Unfortunately our partners arent interested
Not for many. Like many other Europeans, I consider free movement a major benefit, not a cost.
Are you muddling up the right to work and free movement?
As I think I have made quite clear, I favour a Brexit that implements as many elements of the Leave manifesto as possible, as opposed to one that is totally in conflict with all of them (Norway) or one which is aimed at making sure that we never really leave at all (May).
CETA and a refusal to accept the backstop implements ALL of the vote Leave manifesto. No deal implements almost all of it and leaves open the option of an FTA to complete the picture.
You are trying to magic up totally insignificant 'contradictions' to excuse the fact that you want to ignore everything that Leave advocated.
Leave won. Implement their manifesto.
I won.
I voted Leave.
You are the only person that has even made me regret my vote.
The vast majority of Leavers believe we should have a Brexit for as many Brits as possible. This our fundamental disagreement.
You have no idea what the majority of leavers want - but it is reasonable to assume that they want what Vote Leave promised in the campaign. And since 40 and 45% of the UK public (according to HYUFD) support No Deal, it seems that you are wrong.
Norway is not what Vote Leave promised, as you have conceded. And May is not even discussing implementing Brexit; she is engaged in nothing other than discussions as to how to delay implementing it.
Unless you still believe that Chequers is real, then it doesn't look like you have any plan to implement Brexit at all.
You are skating on very thin ice, when you rely on HYUFDs wholly spurious statistics. There again spurious statistics hallmarked the Leave campaign. Carry on!
Your citations are always immaculate, the surveys are nonetheless generally flawed.
Perhaps Yougov should ask a supplementary question regarding No Deal. What do you understand by No Deal? Is it the dreamscape predicted by Mr Johnson of sunlit uplands, fairydust and unicorns? Or is No Deal a dystopian nightmare where supermarket shelves are empty, you cannot refuel your car and the NHS grinds to a halt?
Right. I need to record the third piece of my Demographics series.
And I need to finish writing
"2020: The Election They Wished They Had't Won"
We won't be having an election in 2020. FTPA says five years after 2017 or quite possibly 2019 if the government falls over Brexit.
If May gets her Withdrawal Agreement through Parliament we now look likely to be in the transition period until the end of 2021 based on new Barnier proposals to settle the Irish border and agree a FTA, which means there almost certainly will not be a general election until it is completed in 2022.
Barnier is not agreeing to settle the Irish border, nor to agree an FTA. He is still saying that the backstop will be permanent until the UK accept the separation of NI in return for an FTA. Or the UK accept EEA+CU. No other options.
May will of course agree that the UK stays in the Customs Union to get to the transition period but Barnier is moving to extend the transition period for a year so May can sell the Withdrawal Agreement Deal to enough of her backbenchers to get it through the Commons, as a backstop of staying in the Customs Union even without a time limit with an extended transition period will be less likely to be implemented.
Of course if no FTA by the end of 2021 then the transition period ends and we leave the EU without a deal from then and will have to negotiate outside the full Single Market (though likely now with a Unionist majority at Holyrood in the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections)
You have completely misunderstood what is being proposed.
In the transition period, we are full members of the CU and SM. We don't 'stay in the CU to get to the transition'. The transition starts on 31 March 2019.
The backstop, which would kick in at the end of the transition, keeps the UK in the CU only, but keeps NI in the SM as well.
May's 'plan' is simply to extend the transition period by a year so she can say it makes it 'less likely' we will get to the backstop. This is of course nonsense, because there is no basis for a trade agreement that will avoid the backstop. It is just a way of delaying Brexit.
But when the 'extended transition' period ends, the backstop will still kick in and will be permanent, despite May's attempts to spin it otherwise. So we will not 'leave without a deal' - we will be stuck in the CU with no way out. And we cannot be in the CU without following SM regulations.
Summary - May is a liar and is trying to deceive people that the backstop is not permanent.
The Conservatives have opened up a four-point lead over Labour despite Theresa May’s mounting troubles over Brexit, according to the latest Opinium/Observer poll.
The Tories have gained two points since last week and are now at 41%, while Labour has fallen by two points to 37%.
Just watching the Netflix documentary on the Catalonia independence referendum. It was an absolute disgrace what the Spanish government did and we should be very proud of how we handled the Scottish referendum and any future referendum.
Probably explains why no party in Spain has more than 25% support in recent polls.
The Conservatives have opened up a four-point lead over Labour despite Theresa May’s mounting troubles over Brexit, according to the latest Opinium/Observer poll.
The Tories have gained two points since last week and are now at 41%, while Labour has fallen by two points to 37%.
If the government is unable to reach a deal with the EU, 31% of respondents said the UK should leave without a deal and with no further votes, 23% said there should a second Brexit referendum, 14% said there should be a general election and 13% said the government should try and extend the negotiation period beyond March 2019.
Indeed. And an economic partnership without freedom of movement would be perfect. Unfortunately our partners arent interested
Margaret Thatcher took us into the Single European Act because she realised freedom of capital had to be accompanied by freedom of labour. At the time there were just 12 countries in the EEC and movement within and across them was generally at the skilled level or where such migration (in the Iberian Peninsula, between the UK and Ireland and between Holland and Belgium for examples) had always occurred.
The ability of someone in Italy, Germany or France with skills to come and work in Britain wasn't unattractive and particularly as the Lawson boom was choked off by lack of labour capacity which led to wage inflation.
Unfortunately, by the time the Single European Act came into being, Communism had collapsed and the potential for a wave of new workers from the ex-Communist6 states (starting with the former GDR which had become part of the EEC with reunification in October 1990). It would take a further 15 years before the likes of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined and were able to participate in the Single Market.
The gates were opened at a time of economic strength when Britain and Germany needed cheap labour - we completely misjudged how many would come but 50 years of propaganda telling them how much better life was in the West had an effect.
Perhaps we'd have been better leaving the ex-Communist states as associate members for 50 years but we needed the workers and above all workers who would not fuel inflation.
Yes - or as was suggested in 2016 tying freedom of movement to per capita income
Yet again: Leave won by campaigning against immigration and for increased spending on the NHS. Brexit must do those two things. After that, everything else is up for discussion.
This notion that there is some platonic ideal of Brexit inherent in the referendum ballot slip is so much nonsense. If Leavers wanted a mandate for other requirements of Brexit they should have made them a central plank of their campaign.
Pandering to xenophobia was as catastrophic for Leave as for the country as a whole.
Indeed. And an economic partnership without freedom of movement would be perfect. Unfortunately our partners arent interested
It would be possible to argue for something in that direction. As an EU member.
We tried. Associate membership is the logical place for the U.K. to end up. Politicians got in the way
As I think I have made quite clear, I favour a Brexit that implements as many elements of the Leave manifesto as possible, as opposed to one that is totally in conflict with all of them (Norway) or one which is aimed at making sure that we never really leave at all (May).
CETA and a refusal to accept the backstop implements ALL of the vote Leave manifesto. No deal implements almost all of it and leaves open the option of an FTA to complete the picture.
You are trying to magic up totally insignificant 'contradictions' to excuse the fact that you want to ignore everything that Leave advocated.
Leave won. Implement their manifesto.
I won.
I voted Leave.
You are the only person that has even made me regret my vote.
The vast majority of Leavers believe we should have a Brexit for as many Brits as possible. This our fundamental disagreement.
You have no idea what the majority of leavers want - but it is reasonable to assume that they want what Vote Leave promised in the campaign. And since 40 and 45% of the UK public (according to HYUFD) support No Deal, it seems that you are wrong.
Norway is not what Vote Leave promised, as you have conceded. And May is not even discussing implementing Brexit; she is engaged in nothing other than discussions as to how to delay implementing it.
Unless you still believe that Chequers is real, then it doesn't look like you have any plan to implement Brexit at all.
You are skating on very thin ice, when you rely on HYUFDs wholly spurious statistics. There again spurious statistics hallmarked the Leave campaign. Carry on!
Your citations are always immaculate, the surveys are nonetheless generally flawed.
Perhaps Yougov should ask a supplementary question regarding No Deal. What do you understand by No Deal? Is it the dreamscape predicted by Mr Johnson of sunlit uplands, fairydust and unicorns? Or is No Deal a dystopian nightmare where supermarket shelves are empty, you cannot refuel your car and the NHS grinds to a halt?
If the government is unable to reach a deal with the EU, 31% of respondents said the UK should leave without a deal and with no further votes, 23% said there should a second Brexit referendum, 14% said there should be a general election and 13% said the government should try and extend the negotiation period beyond March 2019.
And the rest ? Don’t care; don’t know; don’t ask ?
If the government is unable to reach a deal with the EU, 31% of respondents said the UK should leave without a deal and with no further votes, 23% said there should a second Brexit referendum, 14% said there should be a general election and 13% said the government should try and extend the negotiation period beyond March 2019.
Strong support for No Deal, as I would have expected, in a four way race.
By the time May is done lying, and it is a forced choice between her sellout and No Deal, I think No Deal will be the leader.
If the government is unable to reach a deal with the EU, 31% of respondents said the UK should leave without a deal and with no further votes, 23% said there should a second Brexit referendum, 14% said there should be a general election and 13% said the government should try and extend the negotiation period beyond March 2019.
And the rest ? Don’t care; don’t know; don’t ask ?
I'd expect the rest are Don't Knows/Refused To Say.
OK quick check, boys and girls. Will we have an agreement with the EU by the end of October?
Not one that is agreed by parliament nor the DUP (it's too early for that), but just an agreement between the UK Government (May) and some element of the EU (Barnier or Juncker or the European Council)
Evening all. Interesting to read the debate on Brexit this evening. Like many, I have been reflecting deeply. Bearing in mind the current context - a poorly executed Article 50 period, limited time until departure and a potentially open ended customs union - the 'best' step available to the UK now is to pursue the EFTA pathway.
For me it was a difficult decision to support Leave as I love Europe & always believed in reforming the EU from within. Once I made the decision to vote Leave, I campaigned for it. I still believe that leaving the EU is the right decision for the UK. While I never felt negotiating departure would be easy, it is clear there have been flaws in the UK's execution of the process from the start. The Prime Minister is well meaning, however, the last two years shows how unstable and unforgiving politics can be. The aspiration of designing and implementing a bespoke UK relationship with the EU is worthy and ultimately the right path to take. Yet the characteristics of this require space and debate to emerge. Its implementation will take longer than the current political context allows.
cont/ This is where my conservative instincts emerge. You cannot leave well and quickly an institution you have been a member of for four decades. We need to move in to a space where we can formally leave the EU and have recognised governance structures from which to think and plan. The EFTA route is not perfect by any means. I firmly believe some mechanism to more effectively manage migration is needed to regain public trust. I believe there are, initially, workable options here around the movement of workers/people distinction. Moreover, mechanisms would need to be put in place to manage the N.Ireland/Ireland border. Options here have been highlighted by some including the EFTA4UK twitter account.
But EFTA would allow us to leave the political union, significantly reduce EU reach over fisheries/agriculture, enable us to pursue our own trade deals and swap the ECJ with the EFTA court. It also adds certainty for business. There are also mechanisms within EFTA to allow its members to get involved and influence EU regulations which are far stronger than some suggest. EFTA would then give the UK added flexibility in the short term and a space to reflect in the long term. Once in EFTA it would be up to the UK parliament, navigated by the people in General Elections to determine next steps. With humility, patience and hard work we could potentially work with EFTA for a viable, long term relationship with the EU. Structures can and do evolve. If EFTA proves not to meet our needs and aspirations then we could look beyond it recognising it has formal exit mechanisms too, perhaps unlike any proposed backstop being negotiated currently.
To sum up, the UK is not where I hoped we would be if negotiations had been planned and executed more strategically. EFTA is not perfect, but it would allow us to leave the EU, recognise the close nature of the referendum result, and give us a platform for a deeper discussion over what a future relationship with the EU looks like. The Prime Minister may still emerge with a workable, bespoke UK deal. Facts on the ground may change and shape my thinking. But as we stand here today and with the information I have EFTA is the pathway we should pursue.
If the government is unable to reach a deal with the EU, 31% of respondents said the UK should leave without a deal and with no further votes, 23% said there should a second Brexit referendum, 14% said there should be a general election and 13% said the government should try and extend the negotiation period beyond March 2019.
So 36% back an extended negotiation period or a second EU referendum compared to 31% backing No Deal. A further 14% back a general election Opinium tonight suggests could see May win a small overall majority
Indeed. And an economic partnership without freedom of movement would be perfect. Unfortunately our partners arent interested
Margaret Thatcher took us into the Single European Act because she realised freedom of capital had to be accompanied by freedom of labour. At the time there were just 12 countries in the EEC and movement within and across them was generally at the skilled level or where such migration (in the Iberian Peninsula, between the UK and Ireland and between Holland and Belgium for examples) had always occurred.
The ability of someone in Italy, Germany or France with skills to come and work in Britain wasn't unattractive and particularly as the Lawson boom was choked off by lack of labour capacity which led to wage inflation.
Unfortunately, by the time the Single European Act came into being, Communism had collapsed and the potential for a wave of new workers from the ex-Communist6 states (starting with the former GDR which had become part of the EEC with reunification in October 1990). It would take a further 15 years before the likes of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined and were able to participate in the Single Market.
The gates were opened at a time of economic strength when Britain and Germany needed cheap labour - we completely misjudged how many would come but 50 years of propaganda telling them how much better life was in the West had an effect.
Perhaps we'd have been better leaving the ex-Communist states as associate members for 50 years but we needed the workers and above all workers who would not fuel inflation.
Yes - or as was suggested in 2016 tying freedom of movement to per capita income
Or, you know, actually applying the restrictions that are available which we do not currently do.
If the government is unable to reach a deal with the EU, 31% of respondents said the UK should leave without a deal and with no further votes, 23% said there should a second Brexit referendum, 14% said there should be a general election and 13% said the government should try and extend the negotiation period beyond March 2019.
All other options playing catch-up to No Deal Brexit......
To sum up, the UK is not where I hoped we would be if negotiations had been planned and executed more strategically. EFTA is not perfect, but it would allow us to leave the EU, recognise the close nature of the referendum result, and give us a platform for a deeper discussion over what a future relationship with the EU looks like. The Prime Minister may still emerge with a workable, bespoke UK deal. Facts on the ground may change and shape my thinking. But as we stand here today and with the information I have EFTA is the pathway we should pursue.
I assume when you say EFTA you mean EFTA/EEA.
In that case, we will not be able to do our own trade deals, because the EU insist that we remain in the CU to 'solve' the NI border issue. They are only prepared to offer EEA+CU.
The problem with this approach has always been that there is no way to ensure that it does not become permanent. The overwhelming likelihood is that our spineless leaders would put us in the EEA and leave us there and not attempt to negotiate a proper exit. Inevitably, we would achieve almost nothing from this arrangement and we would then be told we might as well rejoin the EU. And as most people realise, EEA is not what people voted for in the referendum. There is simply no way to ensure that EEA is temporary.
If there is going to be pain from leaving; we might as well face it now. With this plan, we will never leave.
Right. I need to record the third piece of my Demographics series.
And I need to finish writing
"2020: The Election They Wished They Had't Won"
We won't be having an election in 2020. FTPA says five years after 2017 or quite possibly 2019 if the government falls over Brexit.
If May gets her Withdrawal Agreement through 2/brexit-transition-period-could-extended-another-year-costing/
Barnier is not agreeing to settle the Irish border, nor to agree an FTA. He is still saying that the backstop will be permanent until the UK accept the separation of NI in return for an FTA. Or the UK accept EEA+CU. No other options.
May will of course agree that the UK stays in the Customs Union to get to the transition period but Barnier is moving to extend the transition period for a year so May can sell the Withdrawal Agreement Deal to enough of her backbenchers to get it through the Commons, as a backstop of staying in the Customs Union even without a time limit with an extended transition period will be less likely to be iod in the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections)
You have completely misunderstood what is being proposed.
In the transition period, we are full members of the CU and SM. We don't 'stay in the CU to get to the transition'. The transition starts on 31 March 2019.
The backstop, which would kick in at the end of the transition, keeps the UK in the CU only, but keeps NI in the SM as well.
May's 'plan' is simply to extend the transition period by a year so she can say it makes it 'less likely' we will get to the backstop. This is of course nonsense, because there is no basis for a trade agreement that will avoid the backstop. It is just a way of delaying Brexit.
But when the 'extended transition' period ends, the backstop will still kick in and will be permanent, despite May's attempts to spin it otherwise. So we will not 'leave without a deal' - we will be stuck in the CU with no way out. And we cannot be in the CU without following SM regulations.
Summary - May is a liar and is trying to deceive people that the backstop is not permanent.
We have to agree the CU backstop to get to the transition period.
The backstop keeping the whole UK in the CU only kicks in if no FTA agreed during the transition period. GB would not be in the full SM even if it stayed in the CU post transition as required by the backstop.
If the government is unable to reach a deal with the EU, 31% of respondents said the UK should leave without a deal and with no further votes, 23% said there should a second Brexit referendum, 14% said there should be a general election and 13% said the government should try and extend the negotiation period beyond March 2019.
All other options playing catch-up to No Deal Brexit......
31% for No Deal is 14% less than the 45% for No Deal head to head with Remain in the YouGov poll I posted earlier
If the government is unable to reach a deal with the EU, 31% of respondents said the UK should leave without a deal and with no further votes, 23% said there should a second Brexit referendum, 14% said there should be a general election and 13% said the government should try and extend the negotiation period beyond March 2019.
So 36% back an extended negotiation period or a second EU referendum compared to 31% backing No Deal. A further 14% back a general election Opinium tonight suggests could see May win a small overall majority
Err - excluding Don't Knows almost 40% back No Deal in a four horse race. When the options that are not actually available (referendum, extension) are excluded and this comes down to May's sellout vs No Deal, No Deal is going to be in the lead by the time the Commons vote.
Given where we are now, EFTA is the best bet. Then think again. We would not be stuck. Norway could leave EFTA and be entirely independent any time it likes
The fear must be that the sense of betrayal over FoM would reinvent UKIP and lead to a Corbyn government.
How do you solve that?
With a 2nd referendum where the choice is HMG's EFTA, or No Deal (or whatever Labour propose instead of EFTA)
I reckon EFTA would win fairly easily, 60/40?
Don't EFTA members participate in the Single Market and Schengen?
EFTA might have been an option if Leave hadn't focussed so much on immigration/free movement.
So EFTA isn't an option, and plus there's a strong chance that EFTA wouldn't let us in anyway given our size, we'd dominate it.
cont/ This is where my conservative instincts emerge. You cannot leave well and quickly an institution you have been a member of for four decades. We need to move in to a space where we can formally leave the EU and have recognised governance structures from which to think and plan. The EFTA route is not perfect by any means. I firmly believe some mechanism to more effectively manage migration is needed to regain public trust. I believe there are, initially, workable options here around the movement of workers/people distinction. Moreover, mechanisms would need to be put in place to manage the N.Ireland/Ireland border. Options here have been highlighted by some including the EFTA4UK twitter account.
But EFTA would allow us to leave the political union, significantly reduce EU reach over fisheries/agriculture, enable us to pursue our own trade deals and swap the ECJ with the EFTA court. It also adds certainty for business. There are also mechanisms within EFTA to allow its members to get involved and influence EU regulations which are far stronger than some suggest. EFTA would then give the UK added flexibility in the short term and a space to reflect in the long term. Once in EFTA it would be up to the UK parliament, navigated by the people in General Elections to determine next steps. With humility, patience and hard work we could potentially work with EFTA for a viable, long term relationship with the EU. Structures can and do evolve. If EFTA proves not to meet our needs and aspirations then we could look beyond it recognising it has formal exit mechanisms too, perhaps unlike any proposed backstop being negotiated currently.
To sum up, the UK is not where I hoped we would be if negotiations had been planned and executed more strategically. EFTA is not perfect, but it would allow us to leave the EU, recognise the close nature of the referendum result, and give us a platform for a deeper discussion over what a future relationship with the EU looks like. The Prime Minister may still emerge with a workable, bespoke UK deal. Facts on the ground may change and shape my thinking. But as we stand here today and with the information I have EFTA is the pathway we should pursue.
+1
Given where we are now, EFTA is the best bet. Then think again. We would not be stuck. Norway could leave EFTA and be entirely independent any time it likes
The fear must be that the sense of betrayal over FoM would reinvent UKIP and lead to a Corbyn government.
How do you solve that?
With a 2nd referendum where the choice is HMG's EFTA, or No Deal (or whatever Labour propose instead of EFTA)
I reckon EFTA would win fairly easily, 60/40?
We could have dealt with FoM in the EU had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession nations in 2004 rather than just for the smaller wave in 2007.
To sum up, the UK is not where I hoped we would be if negotiations had been planned and executed more strategically. EFTA is not perfect, but it would allow us to leave the EU, recognise the close nature of the referendum result, and give us a platform for a deeper discussion over what a future relationship with the EU looks like. The Prime Minister may still emerge with a workable, bespoke UK deal. Facts on the ground may change and shape my thinking. But as we stand here today and with the information I have EFTA is the pathway we should pursue.
The problem with this approach has always been that there is no way to ensure that it does not become permanent.
But surely it will only become permanent if that's what the people want?
There are a lot of knowledgeable people who emphasise that the EFTA/EEA model can navigate the customs union idea - see the EFTA4UK twitter account's report. At the moment we may sign up to a transitional agreement which could also end up being semi-permanent but which is inferior to EFTA/EEA. The Norway option would remove approx. 75% of EU regulations/directives from us. We would be out of the political union, out of ECJ direct oversight, out of CAP/CFP. These were all things I sought when I campaigned to leave.
Would we be stuck in EEA? Not permanently. We were not stuck in the EU permanently. EFTA/EEA has a formal departure mechanism which could be more than we get with the current proposal the government are working on. If we activate that exit strategy then the EU is still going to want to trade with us.
Ultimately we could, over time, help shape EFTA/EEA to be the associate membership we have always sought. If it doesn't work then we can leave its remit. But it gives us more certainty to make that decision.
If the government is unable to reach a deal with the EU, 31% of respondents said the UK should leave without a deal and with no further votes, 23% said there should a second Brexit referendum, 14% said there should be a general election and 13% said the government should try and extend the negotiation period beyond March 2019.
So 36% back an extended negotiation period or a second EU referendum compared to 31% backing No Deal. A further 14% back a general election Opinium tonight suggests could see May win a small overall majority
Err - excluding Don't Knows almost 40% back No Deal in a four horse race. When the options that are not actually available (referendum, extension) are excluded and this comes down to May's sellout vs No Deal, No Deal is going to be in the lead by the time the Commons vote.
31% is not 'almost 40%' it is less than a third. Leave got 52% so barely more than half of Leave voters back No Deal
She must be tempted. Corbyn's glow is paling. She has the advantage of miserable expectations - we all know she's an autistic dork with the campaigning skills of a parking meter. It will be less of an issue this time.
An election would very generously and painfully expose the Brexit splits on both sides, but Labour's splits have been better hidden (til now) and Corbyn's Leaver instincts entirely concealed. He couldn't do that in an election spotlight. Ouch.
TMay would have to debate. She might surprise on the upside.
I can see many possible results, but a decent but small Tory majority is maybe the most likely.
Risky, tho. V risky.
Yes, May benefits from low expectations this time, it will be Corbyn whose supporters will expect him to win.
We have to agree the CU backstop to get to the transition period.
The backstop keeping the whole UK in the CU only kicks in if no FTA agreed during the transition period. GB would not be in the full SM even if it stayed in the CU post transition as required by the backstop.
The whole point is that an FTA cannot be agreed during the transition period without the backstop for NI becoming permanent. That is why we are where we are. The only solution the EU will accept is NI being separated, or EEA. May has correctly said that both are unacceptable. But agreeing to a permanent backstop makes them inevitable. May is just lying and coming up with a process that is bound to lead to EEA.
And no, we cannot be in the CU without keeping almost complete alignment with the SM (see the December agreement for evidence). What you are going to find is that if the backstop kicks in, we will be required to observe FOM and ongoing payments (Barnier has said he will not allow the UK to remain in the SM by the back door without observing all the rules). Which is another reason that EEA would be the only outcome.
May is gutless. If she wants EEA, she should say so. But it is in her nature to lie to everyone as long as possible rather than show real leadership.
Given where we are now, EFTA is the best bet. Then think again. We would not be stuck. Norway could leave EFTA and be entirely independent any time it likes
The fear must be that the sense of betrayal over FoM would reinvent UKIP and lead to a Corbyn government.
How do you solve that?
With a 2nd referendum where the choice is HMG's EFTA, or No Deal (or whatever Labour propose instead of EFTA)
I reckon EFTA would win fairly easily, 60/40?
Don't EFTA members participate in the Single Market and Schengen?
EFTA might have been an option if Leave hadn't focussed so much on immigration/free movement.
So EFTA isn't an option, and plus there's a strong chance that EFTA wouldn't let us in anyway given our size, we'd dominate it.
Your obsession with the minutiae of polls is admirable but also naive - there has been no significant movement in the positions of the two man parties since the general election. And on the basis of the last campaign polls taken before an election has been called are of no value in predicting the outcome.
Your obsession with the minutiae of polls is admirable but also naive - there has been no significant movement in the positions of the two man parties since the general election. And on the basis of the last campaign polls taken before an election has been called are of no value in predicting the outcome.
There has, Labour is down 3%, the Tories pretty much unchanged.
May got about the same total in 2017 she polled before the campaign, all that happened was Corbyn squeezed minor parties, he has little room to repeat that
If the government is unable to reach a deal with the EU, 31% of respondents said the UK should leave without a deal and with no further votes, 23% said there should a second Brexit referendum, 14% said there should be a general election and 13% said the government should try and extend the negotiation period beyond March 2019.
So 36% back an extended negotiation period or a second EU referendum compared to 31% backing No Deal. A further 14% back a general election Opinium tonight suggests could see May win a small overall majority
Err - excluding Don't Knows almost 40% back No Deal in a four horse race. When the options that are not actually available (referendum, extension) are excluded and this comes down to May's sellout vs No Deal, No Deal is going to be in the lead by the time the Commons vote.
31% is not 'almost 40%' it is less than a third. Leave got 52% so barely more than half of Leave voters back No Deal
Total is 81%; rest don't knows; exclude the don't knows and ND is 39% I believe. So vast majority of Leave voters want No Deal and that is in a four choice race. By the time May's deal has been destroyed by the ERG, in a forced choice between May and No Deal (and those are the only two actual choices) No Deal will end up in the lead.
We have to agree the CU backstop to get to the transition period.
The backstop keeping the whole UK in the CU only kicks in if no FTA agreed during the transition period. GB would not be in the full SM even if it stayed in the CU post transition as required by the backstop.
The whole point is that an FTA cannot be agreed during the transition period without the backstop for NI becoming permanent. That is why we are where we are. The only solution the EU will accept is NI being separated, or EEA. May has correctly said that both are unacceptable. But agreeing to a permanent backstop makes them inevitable. May is just lying and coming up with a process that is bound to lead to EEA.
And no, we cannot be in the CU without keeping almost complete alignment with the SM (see the December agreement for evidence). What you are going to find is that if the backstop kicks in, we will be required to observe FOM and ongoing payments (Barnier has said he will not allow the UK to remain in the SM by the back door without observing all the rules). Which is another reason that EEA would be the only outcome.
May is gutless. If she wants EEA, she should say so. But it is in her nature to lie to everyone as long as possible rather than show real leadership.
'Almost complete alignment with the SM' is not 'full alignment with the SM'. And Barnier has said nothing about work permits leading to a hard border in Ireland, only tariffs and lack of enough regulations.
Yet again: Leave won by campaigning against immigration and for increased spending on the NHS. Brexit must do those two things. After that, everything else is up for discussion.
This notion that there is some platonic ideal of Brexit inherent in the referendum ballot slip is so much nonsense. If Leavers wanted a mandate for other requirements of Brexit they should have made them a central plank of their campaign.
Pandering to xenophobia was as catastrophic for Leave as for the country as a whole.
Indeed. And an economic partnership without freedom of movement would be perfect. Unfortunately our partners arent interested
Not for many. Like many other Europeans, I consider free movement a major benefit, not a cost.
Indeed freedom of movement is a major feature, not a bug, of EU membership. The legitimisation of xenophobia is sadly a consequence of withdrawal.
Given where we are now, EFTA is the best bet. Then think again. We would not be stuck. Norway could leave EFTA and be entirely independent any time it likes
The fear must be that the sense of betrayal over FoM would reinvent UKIP and lead to a Corbyn government.
How do you solve that?
With a 2nd referendum where the choice is HMG's EFTA, or No Deal (or whatever Labour propose instead of EFTA)
I reckon EFTA would win fairly easily, 60/40?
Don't EFTA members participate in the Single Market and Schengen?
EFTA might have been an option if Leave hadn't focussed so much on immigration/free movement.
So EFTA isn't an option, and plus there's a strong chance that EFTA wouldn't let us in anyway given our size, we'd dominate it.
Wrong. EFTA have already said we are welcome to join.
I know you are desperate for No Deal Crash Brexit so you can feel some strange pleasure in your country's pain, as you move to Frankfurt (my sympathies), but simply lying does you no favour.
But you missed the most important part, EFTA is not consistent with honouring the referendum result on free movement.
If the government is unable to reach a deal with the EU, 31% of respondents said the UK should leave without a deal and with no further votes, 23% said there should a second Brexit referendum, 14% said there should be a general election and 13% said the government should try and extend the negotiation period beyond March 2019.
So 36% back an extended negotiation period or a second EU referendum compared to 31% backing No Deal. A further 14% back a general election Opinium tonight suggests could see May win a small overall majority
Err - excluding Don't Knows almost 40% back No Deal in a four horse race. When the options that are not actually available (referendum, extension) are excluded and this comes down to May's sellout vs No Deal, No Deal is going to be in the lead by the time the Commons vote.
31% is not 'almost 40%' it is less than a third. Leave got 52% so barely more than half of Leave voters back No Deal
Total is 81%; rest don't knows; exclude the don't knows and ND is 39% I believe. So vast majority of Leave voters want No Deal and that is in a four choice race. By the time May's deal has been destroyed by the ERG, in a forced choice between May and No Deal (and those are the only two actual choices) No Deal will end up in the lead.
So even with Don't Knows a quarter of Leave voters do not back No Deal.
'The vast majority' of Leave voters is not enough for No Deal, you need all of them to get over 50%. On a forced choice otherwise both Remain and May Deal will beat No Deal head to head
Given where we are now, EFTA is the best bet. Then think again. We would not be stuck. Norway could leave EFTA and be entirely independent any time it likes
The fear must be that the sense of betrayal over FoM would reinvent UKIP and lead to a Corbyn government.
How do you solve that?
With a 2nd referendum where the choice is HMG's EFTA, or No Deal (or whatever Labour propose instead of EFTA)
I reckon EFTA would win fairly easily, 60/40?
Don't EFTA members participate in the Single Market and Schengen?
EFTA might have been an option if Leave hadn't focussed so much on immigration/free movement.
So EFTA isn't an option, and plus there's a strong chance that EFTA wouldn't let us in anyway given our size, we'd dominate it.
Wrong. EFTA have already said we are welcome to join.
I know you are desperate for No Deal Crash Brexit so you can feel some strange pleasure in your country's pain, as you move to Frankfurt (my sympathies), but simply lying does you no favour.
But you missed the most important part, EFTA is not consistent with honouring the referendum result on free movement.
We could have done that in the EU had Blair imposed transition controls in 2004 on free movement from the new accession nations, in EFTA we can evict those after 3 months not in work or looking for work and lots of Eastern Europeans have headed home after the Leave vote anyway
Yet again: Leave won by campaigning against immigration and for increased spending on the NHS. Brexit must do those two things. After that, everything else is up for discussion.
This notion that there is some platonic ideal of Brexit inherent in the referendum ballot slip is so much nonsense. If Leavers wanted a mandate for other requirements of Brexit they should have made them a central plank of their campaign.
Pandering to xenophobia was as catastrophic for Leave as for the country as a whole.
Indeed. And an economic partnership without freedom of movement would be perfect. Unfortunately our partners arent interested
Not for many. Like many other Europeans, I consider free movement a major benefit, not a cost.
Indeed freedom of movement is a major feature, not a bug, of EU membership. The legitimisation of xenophobia is sadly a consequence of withdrawal.
Strange - Hungary is quite xenophobic and isn't leaving
On the other hand polling shows up (post brexit vote) as one of the most tolerant countries.
This is the nearest thing to a "manifesto". It contains the line "There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border and we will be part of it."
So, will we be implementing that?
Yes, it is called CETA.
Now, this brochure says:
1. We are keeping our money and not sending it to Brussels 2. We will taI ke control of our borders 3. We will exit EU regulations 4. We will make our own free trade deals 5. We will not accept control of the ECJ
So, can you tell me what parts of this are consistent with Norway?
I am not confused.
That's because the "manifesto" is contradictory.
The manifesto says there IS a free trade zone, and the UK will be a part of it.
At the very least it's deliberately misleading.
Be serious. If we sign CETA, we will be part of the free trade zone. If May had not agreed to the backstop as a device to frustrate Brexit, that is what would happen.
I think the confusion is this.
1. "There is a free trade area and we will be part of it."
and
2. "There is a free trade area and we will have an agreement with it."
CETA is 2. Otherwise it would have said, "There is a free trade area from Canada to the Russian border and we will be part of it." The geographic anchoring made it very clear that it was not talking about CETA.
I think you are getting a bit desperate here. It refers to a free trade area and specifically rules out membership of the SM by virtue of the other objectives. So CETA is exactly what they envisaged.
We don't have to argue, we can solve this by a poll. I will organise for YouGov to show that slide to a representative sample of 10,000 people in the UK for a few thousand pounds.
Loser pays for the poll, and pays the winner £1,000.
I doubt you’ll get a customer. Archer is like all other Brexiteer ‘hardliners’ - all push and no piss.
Given where we are now, EFTA is the best bet. Then think again. We would not be stuck. Norway could leave EFTA and be entirely independent any time it likes
The fear must be that the sense of betrayal over FoM would reinvent UKIP and lead to a Corbyn government.
How do you solve that?
With a 2nd referendum where the choice is HMG's EFTA, or No Deal (or whatever Labour propose instead of EFTA)
I reckon EFTA would win fairly easily, 60/40?
Don't EFTA members participate in the Single Market and Schengen?
EFTA might have been an option if Leave hadn't focussed so much on immigration/free movement.
So EFTA isn't an option, and plus there's a strong chance that EFTA wouldn't let us in anyway given our size, we'd dominate it.
Wrong. EFTA have already said we are welcome to join.
I know you are desperate for No Deal Crash Brexit so you can feel some strange pleasure in your country's pain, as you move to Frankfurt (my sympathies), but simply lying does you no favour.
If the government is unable to reach a deal with the EU, 31% of respondents said the UK should leave without a deal and with no further votes, 23% said there should a second Brexit referendum, 14% said there should be a general election and 13% said the government should try and extend the negotiation period beyond March 2019.
So 36% back an extended negotiation period or a second EU referendum compared to 31% backing No Deal. A further 14% back a general election Opinium tonight suggests could see May win a small overall majority
Err - excluding Don't Knows almost 40% back No Deal in a four horse race. When the options that are not actually available (referendum, extension) are excluded and this comes down to May's sellout vs No Deal, No Deal is going to be in the lead by the time the Commons vote.
31% is not 'almost 40%' it is less than a third. Leave got 52% so barely more than half of Leave voters back No Deal
Total is 81%; rest don't knows; exclude the don't knows and ND is 39% I believe. So vast majority of Leave voters want No Deal and that is in a four choice race. By the time May's deal has been destroyed by the ERG, in a forced choice between May and No Deal (and those are the only two actual choices) No Deal will end up in the lead.
So even with Don't Knows a quarter of Leave voters do not back No Deal.
'The vast majority' of Leave voters is not enough for No Deal, you need all of them to get over 50%. On a forced choice otherwise both Remain and May Deal will beat No Deal head to head
And a huge number of remain voters don't support another referendum.
Remain is not an option. The only choice actually available will be May's sellout vs No Deal.
No Deal will be in the lead by the time of the HoC vote. This will encourage the ERG to reject it and May will be defeated.
Yet again: Leave won by campaigning against immigration and for increased spending on the NHS. Brexit must do those two things. After that, everything else is up for discussion.
This notion that there is some platonic ideal of Brexit inherent in the referendum ballot slip is so much nonsense. If Leavers wanted a mandate for other requirements of Brexit they should have made them a central plank of their campaign.
Pandering to xenophobia was as catastrophic for Leave as for the country as a whole.
Indeed. And an economic partnership without freedom of movement would be perfect. Unfortunately our partners arent interested
Not for many. Like many other Europeans, I consider free movement a major benefit, not a cost.
Indeed freedom of movement is a major feature, not a bug, of EU membership. The legitimisation of xenophobia is sadly a consequence of withdrawal.
Strange - Hungary is quite xenophobic and isn't leaving
On the other hand polling shows up (post brexit vote) as one of the most tolerant countries.
Leaving aside all the other issues, May's disregard for Cabinet Government is wholly unacceptable.
She created a Cabinet sub-committee which out-voted her. She then stopped calling it, came up with her own plan and cleared it with the German Chancellor before providing to her own Cabinet with a threat before they even discussed it that if they objected they could get a taxi home. They approved Chequers on the explicit promise that there would be no more concessions and that if the EU rejected Chequers she would proceed with No Deal.
She has since not held a single sub-committee meeting and now seems to want to try the same trick of agreeing a deal for which she does not have Cabinet authority and then dare the Cabinet to stand up to her.
She deserves to have Cabinet reject her plan. It has been a cowardly way to behave.
There's a party founded on pb which isn't obsessed with Europe etc that is waiting to step forward when the moment is ripe...
I really should register the 'Fiscally Dry, Socially Liberal, Not Obsessed With Europe and Gays Tory Party' with the Electoral Commission.
Are tories obsessed with gays now?
Some are.
As an aside a few people have told me that anecdotally they've found the recent (re)joiners to the Tory membership are those Tories that left around the time Same Sex Marriage was introduced.
Given where we are now, EFTA is the best bet. Then think again. We would not be stuck. Norway could leave EFTA and be entirely independent any time it likes
The fear must be that the sense of betrayal over FoM would reinvent UKIP and lead to a Corbyn government.
How do you solve that?
With a 2nd referendum where the choice is HMG's EFTA, or No Deal (or whatever Labour propose instead of EFTA)
I reckon EFTA would win fairly easily, 60/40?
Don't EFTA members participate in the Single Market and Schengen?
EFTA might have been an option if Leave hadn't focussed so much on immigration/free movement.
So EFTA isn't an option, and plus there's a strong chance that EFTA wouldn't let us in anyway given our size, we'd dominate it.
Wrong. EFTA have already said we are welcome to join.
I know you are desperate for No Deal Crash Brexit so you can feel some strange pleasure in your country's pain, as you move to Frankfurt (my sympathies), but simply lying does you no favour.
Huh, I missed your conversion to soft brexit
He has in fact converted to Remain. At least that was his position mid-Barolo last weekend.
Given where we are now, EFTA is the best bet. Then think again. We would not be stuck. Norway could leave EFTA and be entirely independent any time it likes
The fear must be that the sense of betrayal over FoM would reinvent UKIP and lead to a Corbyn government.
How do you solve that?
With a 2nd referendum where the choice is HMG's EFTA, or No Deal (or whatever Labour propose instead of EFTA)
I reckon EFTA would win fairly easily, 60/40?
Don't EFTA members participate in the Single Market and Schengen?
EFTA might have been an option if Leave hadn't focussed so much on immigration/free movement.
So EFTA isn't an option, and plus there's a strong chance that EFTA wouldn't let us in anyway given our size, we'd dominate it.
While Schengen is optional for EFTA countries, FOM is, as you say, not optional. I personally think it would be the best long-term destination, but agree that after the Leave campaign we had, it's completely incompatible with the expressed view of the people and why most (not all, of course, but a big majority) of Leave voters made the vote they did:
I also cannot pretend EFTA/EEA would be ideal on immigration. While I am honest enough to note I didn't vote to leave based on immigration concerns, it matters deeply to me that many of our population have lost faith in our system. I do think we need to do something here. EFTA/EEA would allow a little more movement around the labour/people distinction and there may be transitional control opportunities as I understand it. We are so late in the day now we have to consider incremental progress (incidentally this route also has a chance of uniting the country more). But I won't pretend that getting progress on immigration in terms of EFTA/EEA membership will be easy, especially not as we would come to EFTA/EEA last minute. I would also say that I think you can apply to join EFTA on its own and that should be a route we consider too for the trade deals, even if we don't go down the EEA route as well.
To sum up, the UK is not where I hoped we would be if negotiations had been planned and executed more strategically. EFTA is not perfect, but it would allow us to leave the EU, recognise the close nature of the referendum result, and give us a platform for a deeper discussion over what a future relationship with the EU looks like. The Prime Minister may still emerge with a workable, bespoke UK deal. Facts on the ground may change and shape my thinking. But as we stand here today and with the information I have EFTA is the pathway we should pursue.
The problem with this approach has always been that there is no way to ensure that it does not become permanent.
But surely it will only become permanent if that's what the people want?
Quite.
Besides, nothing is permanent. In the long run we are all dead, as Keynes said.
Brexit clearly has the potential to fuck the country, EFTA is a decent holding position, and respects the referendum vote without destroying the economy.
Remainers who say otherwise are just desperate to scupper Brexit completely.
The new analysis by Open Europe concludes that a no-deal withdrawal from the EU would “not be ideal and would bring some material costs. However, it would be a relatively mild negative economic event”.
It states: “Our model suggests that a No Deal Brexit would mean the UK economy continuing to grow but with an effect equivalent to an average annual drag of -0.17 per cent on real GDP growth over the 13 years up to 2030. This could be reduced to an average reduction in growth of -0.04 per cent a year if the Government deploys maximum mitigation measures in the form of unilateral trade liberalisation. The economic impact of an exit on so-called WTO terms is, over a 13-year period, small.”
Lord Wolfson states: “Disruption at our ports is the single biggest threat Brexit poses to our economy. It is mitigable and government should be tackling this challenge with vigour. There is a superstitious reluctance to earnestly prepare for no deal.”
Given where we are now, EFTA is the best bet. Then think again. We would not be stuck. Norway could leave EFTA and be entirely independent any time it likes
The fear must be that the sense of betrayal over FoM would reinvent UKIP and lead to a Corbyn government.
How do you solve that?
With a 2nd referendum where the choice is HMG's EFTA, or No Deal (or whatever Labour propose instead of EFTA)
I reckon EFTA would win fairly easily, 60/40?
Don't EFTA members participate in the Single Market and Schengen?
EFTA might have been an option if Leave hadn't focussed so much on immigration/free movement.
So EFTA isn't an option, and plus there's a strong chance that EFTA wouldn't let us in anyway given our size, we'd dominate it.
While Schengen is optional for EFTA countries, FOM is, as you say, not optional. I personally think it would be the best long-term destination, but agree that after the Leave campaign we had, it's completely incompatible with the expressed view of the people and why most (not all, of course, but a big majority) of Leave voters made the vote they did:
Right, so we choose our national path based on word clouds now? Sorry, no. Nothing on the ballot paper about FOM. Vote was 52/48. We shouldn’t infer a hardline ‘shut the borders’ path from that.
Given where we are now, EFTA is the best bet. Then think again. We would not be stuck. Norway could leave EFTA and be entirely independent any time it likes
The fear must be that the sense of betrayal over FoM would reinvent UKIP and lead to a Corbyn government.
How do you solve that?
With a 2nd referendum where the choice is HMG's EFTA, or No Deal (or whatever Labour propose instead of EFTA)
I reckon EFTA would win fairly easily, 60/40?
Don't EFTA members participate in the Single Market and Schengen?
EFTA might have been an option if Leave hadn't focussed so much on immigration/free movement.
So EFTA isn't an option, and plus there's a strong chance that EFTA wouldn't let us in anyway given our size, we'd dominate it.
While Schengen is optional for EFTA countries, FOM is, as you say, not optional. I personally think it would be the best long-term destination, but agree that after the Leave campaign we had, it's completely incompatible with the expressed view of the people and why most (not all, of course, but a big majority) of Leave voters made the vote they did:
Right, so we choose our national path based on word clouds now? Sorry, no. Nothing on the ballot paper about FOM. Vote was 52/48. We shouldn’t infer a hardline ‘shut the borders’ path from that.
Controlling migration isn't a hardline "shut the borders" path.
Comments
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/10/12/brexit-transition-period-could-extended-another-year-costing/
Remain 55% Leave with No Deal 45%
http://uk.businessinsider.com/yougov-poll-voters-would-rather-remain-in-eu-than-accept-a-no-deal-brexit-2018-7
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/
However it also forecasts the Republicans will hold the Senate with 51 seats to 49 for the Democrats on its median forecast.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/senate/?ex_cid=rrpromo
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/north-dakota-soybean-farmers-caught-in-the-trade-war-watch-the-season-run-out-on-their-crop/2018/10/12/c64f94a0-ce4c-11e8-a360-85875bac0b1f_story.html
Of course if no FTA by the end of 2021 then the transition period ends and we leave the EU without a deal from then and will have to negotiate outside the full Single Market (though likely now with a Unionist majority at Holyrood in the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections)
Perhaps Yougov should ask a supplementary question regarding No Deal. What do you understand by No Deal? Is it the dreamscape predicted by Mr Johnson of sunlit uplands, fairydust and unicorns? Or is No Deal a dystopian nightmare where supermarket shelves are empty, you cannot refuel your car and the NHS grinds to a halt?
In the transition period, we are full members of the CU and SM. We don't 'stay in the CU to get to the transition'. The transition starts on 31 March 2019.
The backstop, which would kick in at the end of the transition, keeps the UK in the CU only, but keeps NI in the SM as well.
May's 'plan' is simply to extend the transition period by a year so she can say it makes it 'less likely' we will get to the backstop. This is of course nonsense, because there is no basis for a trade agreement that will avoid the backstop. It is just a way of delaying Brexit.
But when the 'extended transition' period ends, the backstop will still kick in and will be permanent, despite May's attempts to spin it otherwise. So we will not 'leave without a deal' - we will be stuck in the CU with no way out. And we cannot be in the CU without following SM regulations.
Summary - May is a liar and is trying to deceive people that the backstop is not permanent.
The Tories have gained two points since last week and are now at 41%, while Labour has fallen by two points to 37%.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/13/tories-take-four-point-lead-over-labour-despite-brexit-troubles?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Internal memos, believed to be from the EU's negotiating team, have been leaked in Germany.
German newspaper Suddeutsche Zeitung claims to have been given access to documents setting out a timetable for a Brexit deal.
The papers are said to claim a Brexit deal will be reached on Sunday.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7488896/brexit-deal-set-to-be-finalised-tomorrow-before-being-presented-to-british-government-next-week/
Don’t care; don’t know; don’t ask ?
By the time May is done lying, and it is a forced choice between her sellout and No Deal, I think No Deal will be the leader.
DAFUQ?
Not one that is agreed by parliament nor the DUP (it's too early for that), but just an agreement between the UK Government (May) and some element of the EU (Barnier or Juncker or the European Council)
For me it was a difficult decision to support Leave as I love Europe & always believed in reforming the EU from within. Once I made the decision to vote Leave, I campaigned for it. I still believe that leaving the EU is the right decision for the UK. While I never felt negotiating departure would be easy, it is clear there have been flaws in the UK's execution of the process from the start. The Prime Minister is well meaning, however, the last two years shows how unstable and unforgiving politics can be. The aspiration of designing and implementing a bespoke UK relationship with the EU is worthy and ultimately the right path to take. Yet the characteristics of this require space and debate to emerge. Its implementation will take longer than the current political context allows.
continued...
But EFTA would allow us to leave the political union, significantly reduce EU reach over fisheries/agriculture, enable us to pursue our own trade deals and swap the ECJ with the EFTA court. It also adds certainty for business. There are also mechanisms within EFTA to allow its members to get involved and influence EU regulations which are far stronger than some suggest. EFTA would then give the UK added flexibility in the short term and a space to reflect in the long term. Once in EFTA it would be up to the UK parliament, navigated by the people in General Elections to determine next steps. With humility, patience and hard work we could potentially work with EFTA for a viable, long term relationship with the EU. Structures can and do evolve. If EFTA proves not to meet our needs and aspirations then we could look beyond it recognising it has formal exit mechanisms too, perhaps unlike any proposed backstop being negotiated currently.
To sum up, the UK is not where I hoped we would be if negotiations had been planned and executed more strategically. EFTA is not perfect, but it would allow us to leave the EU, recognise the close nature of the referendum result, and give us a platform for a deeper discussion over what a future relationship with the EU looks like. The Prime Minister may still emerge with a workable, bespoke UK deal. Facts on the ground may change and shape my thinking. But as we stand here today and with the information I have EFTA is the pathway we should pursue.
https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/1051202464437932038?s=20
In that case, we will not be able to do our own trade deals, because the EU insist that we remain in the CU to 'solve' the NI border issue. They are only prepared to offer EEA+CU.
The problem with this approach has always been that there is no way to ensure that it does not become permanent. The overwhelming likelihood is that our spineless leaders would put us in the EEA and leave us there and not attempt to negotiate a proper exit. Inevitably, we would achieve almost nothing from this arrangement and we would then be told we might as well rejoin the EU. And as most people realise, EEA is not what people voted for in the referendum. There is simply no way to ensure that EEA is temporary.
If there is going to be pain from leaving; we might as well face it now. With this plan, we will never leave.
The backstop keeping the whole UK in the CU only kicks in if no FTA agreed during the transition period. GB would not be in the full SM even if it stayed in the CU post transition as required by the backstop.
According to Electoral Calculus Opinium gives a Tory overall majority of 2, larger excluding Sinn Fein, thus enabling May to dispense with the DUP
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/usercode.py?CON=41&LAB=37&LIB=8&UKIP=2&Green=2&NewLAB=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVUKIP=&TVGreen=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2017
EFTA might have been an option if Leave hadn't focussed so much on immigration/free movement.
So EFTA isn't an option, and plus there's a strong chance that EFTA wouldn't let us in anyway given our size, we'd dominate it.
Yes EFTA/EEA.
There are a lot of knowledgeable people who emphasise that the EFTA/EEA model can navigate the customs union idea - see the EFTA4UK twitter account's report. At the moment we may sign up to a transitional agreement which could also end up being semi-permanent but which is inferior to EFTA/EEA. The Norway option would remove approx. 75% of EU regulations/directives from us. We would be out of the political union, out of ECJ direct oversight, out of CAP/CFP. These were all things I sought when I campaigned to leave.
Would we be stuck in EEA? Not permanently. We were not stuck in the EU permanently. EFTA/EEA has a formal departure mechanism which could be more than we get with the current proposal the government are working on. If we activate that exit strategy then the EU is still going to want to trade with us.
Ultimately we could, over time, help shape EFTA/EEA to be the associate membership we have always sought. If it doesn't work then we can leave its remit. But it gives us more certainty to make that decision.
And no, we cannot be in the CU without keeping almost complete alignment with the SM (see the December agreement for evidence). What you are going to find is that if the backstop kicks in, we will be required to observe FOM and ongoing payments (Barnier has said he will not allow the UK to remain in the SM by the back door without observing all the rules). Which is another reason that EEA would be the only outcome.
May is gutless. If she wants EEA, she should say so. But it is in her nature to lie to everyone as long as possible rather than show real leadership.
May got about the same total in 2017 she polled before the campaign, all that happened was Corbyn squeezed minor parties, he has little room to repeat that
@EuropeElects
5m5 minutes ago
Germany, Emnid poll:
CDU/CSU-EPP: 26% (-1)
SPD-S&D: 17%
GRÜNE-G/EFA: 17% (+1)
AfD-EFDD: 15% (-1)
LINKE-LEFT: 11% (+1)
FDP-ALDE: 9%
Field work: 4/10/18 – 10/10/18
Sample size: 1,899"
The legitimisation of xenophobia is sadly a consequence of withdrawal.
'The vast majority' of Leave voters is not enough for No Deal, you need all of them to get over 50%. On a forced choice otherwise both Remain and May Deal will beat No Deal head to head
On the other hand polling shows up (post brexit vote) as one of the most tolerant countries.
So, basically your entire post is utter bollocks
Remain is not an option. The only choice actually available will be May's sellout vs No Deal.
No Deal will be in the lead by the time of the HoC vote. This will encourage the ERG to reject it and May will be defeated.
You underestimated Leavers at the referendum - you are about to learn again that principle is always more effective than fear.
It’s remarkable how living 10,000 miles from the impact zone emboldens the bomber.
She created a Cabinet sub-committee which out-voted her. She then stopped calling it, came up with her own plan and cleared it with the German Chancellor before providing to her own Cabinet with a threat before they even discussed it that if they objected they could get a taxi home. They approved Chequers on the explicit promise that there would be no more concessions and that if the EU rejected Chequers she would proceed with No Deal.
She has since not held a single sub-committee meeting and now seems to want to try the same trick of agreeing a deal for which she does not have Cabinet authority and then dare the Cabinet to stand up to her.
She deserves to have Cabinet reject her plan. It has been a cowardly way to behave.
Crap lead in the Sunday Times: Failed flouncer DD urges other quarterwits to join him
Next.
As an aside a few people have told me that anecdotally they've found the recent (re)joiners to the Tory membership are those Tories that left around the time Same Sex Marriage was introduced.
I personally think it would be the best long-term destination, but agree that after the Leave campaign we had, it's completely incompatible with the expressed view of the people and why most (not all, of course, but a big majority) of Leave voters made the vote they did:
Actually I agree with this wholeheartedly.
The new analysis by Open Europe concludes that a no-deal withdrawal from the EU would “not be ideal and would bring some material costs. However, it would be a relatively mild negative economic event”.
It states: “Our model suggests that a No Deal Brexit would mean the UK economy continuing to grow but with an effect equivalent to an average annual drag of -0.17 per cent on real GDP growth over the 13 years up to 2030. This could be reduced to an average reduction in growth of -0.04 per cent a year if the Government deploys maximum mitigation measures in the form of unilateral trade liberalisation. The economic impact of an exit on so-called WTO terms is, over a 13-year period, small.”
Lord Wolfson states: “Disruption at our ports is the single biggest threat Brexit poses to our economy. It is mitigable and government should be tackling this challenge with vigour. There is a superstitious reluctance to earnestly prepare for no deal.”
It is the only type of Toryism to have won a majority in the last 26 years.
Are you working here permanently now or will you at some stage be returning to the warm embrace of suburban Brisbane?