Amongst the mockery it seems they're planning on going for Mickey Fab's post vote ambush plan.
Don't tell them Pike.
Be bloody funny if a handful of May loyalists put in their letters to force the issue and made her safe for a year.
Is there such a thing as a "May Loyalist" ?
The fact the ERG are struggling to get to 28 letters should be in no way seen as the Tory Party having any love or loyalty to Theresa May....
I’m a fully fledged May loyalist.
Yes I’m amazed as the rest of you but No Deal is a disaster and this deal respects the main referendum commitment to end free movement and doesn’t crash the economy.
Plus the opponents to this deal are people who I so detest so she must be doing something right.
I mean look at how stupid David Davis was shown to be yesterday.
No you support May's deal. The moment it's through and you've stitched up Brexit you'll be itching to throw her under the proverbial bus again!
More Remainer gaslighting. Not to mention pretty distasteful slurs on those with mental health issues.
It's what lost 'em a referendum I guess.
When SeanT published a piece on Telegraph asking if atheists were mentally ill that was fine.
Do you have a link to that article? SeanT on the ontology of faith might be moderately diverting. I think St Anselm, Augustine and Aquinas will be looking down fearing for their reputations.
You’ll have to ask Sean, it was wiped when the Telegraph changed their blogs.
Divine intervention? Possibly the Intercession of Saints.
Its odd how some people don't seem to understand the difference between guff spouted by a politician to influence a vote, and detailed specific explanations by business and industry as to how their businesses and industries actually work.
Yes and Carney though not a politician was saying more of the former than the latter.
He's a banker. He is reporting what is being said to him by manufacturers, importers, wholesalers etc. Its very simple - crash out no deal causes very real and very significant disruption to the ability of business to import and export. They have set out very specific issues and with respect to "its all project fear" it really isn't.
What continues to baffle me is how the previously pro-business Tory party can so utterly detatch itself from what is in the best interests of business. Leaving the EU is not an issue for any of these businesses - leaving the EEA and CU are the problems. Tories used to listen to business and act in their interests. Now the opposite is true.
What continues to baffle me is how the previously pro-business Tory party can so utterly detatch itself from what is in the best interests of business. Leaving the EU is not an issue for any of these businesses - leaving the EEA and CU are the problems. Tories used to listen to business and act in their interests. Now the opposite is true.
I thought she was supposed to be the smart one of the family. Given dad spent 2 years banging on about private email servers etc, how could she not be aware of the rules?
Being the smart one in the Trump family is not saying a lot.
No they are not, No Deal screws us more than them. We are just 16% of their exports, they are 44% of ours
That really is sophistry.
The only comparison that matters is that in absolute terms of total value we sell about half as much to the EU as they sell to us.
Imagine a small Polynesian nation, where 80% of GDP is from selling fish to Australia. They buy goods from Australia worth about the same, but it's only 0.1% of Australian GDP.
"Absolute terms of total value" means absolutely jack shit.
- It is not the case that the UK could have prepared for 'no deal', it is simply not possible for us unilaterally to avoid the disastrous consequences. It is a blame-shifting fantasy to say it's all Theresa May's fault for not planning for no deal.
Following on from that, I think the EU have over-reached by insisting on the Irish backstop, with potentially disastrous consequence for both sides, but I don't think they will back down on this.
The EU are playing hardball because we wanted a free trade agreement.
May should have realised that wasn't possible ages ago instead of capitulating on everything else.
It is absolutely her fault that they continued down this path long after it was shown that we couldn't get any acceptable deal from it.
Or maybe Brexit is like the squareroot of -1? Only imaginary solutions exist.
It's impossible to leave the EU?
FFS it was easier for countries to get out of the Soviet Union. The comparisons get ever more apt every day don't they?
We spent 40+ years integrating ourselves into Europe. Do you seriously imagine we can undo all that in 2 years?
We could really do hard, hard Brexit. Just stop interacting with Europe, refuse to pay anything, put barriers on all ports or entry. Of course the country would grind to a halt and food shortages would become a reality very quickly. About 30% of our food comes directly from Europe as does peak energy demands from the cross-channel grids.
If we had the sort of Brexit some of the economically illiterate Leavers keep banging on about then it really would feel like the Soviet Union with queues for potatoes and foodstuffs.
But that would fine wouldn't it?
Alternatively we can leave without putting up barriers. And it was your beloved EU that decided 2 years and no longer than 2 years (with no pre-notification talks allowed) is appropriate.
And it was a British Lawyer who wrote the 2 years bit into the treaty....
Edit: If we do not put up barriers then our own industry is exposed to worldwide competition which will undercut many of them.
Its odd how some people don't seem to understand the difference between guff spouted by a politician to influence a vote, and detailed specific explanations by business and industry as to how their businesses and industries actually work.
It's also odd how some people don't seem to understand the difference between the interests of pan-European businesses and the national interests of the UK.
Even if May did face a No confidence vote she will almost certainly win it given over 200 out of 318 Tory MPs are reported to back the Deal and she only needs to won by 1
That will keep her in place for a year until well past Brexit Day while a new leader would take over with barely 2 months left to get a Deal agreed, almost impossible
No -- the Prime Minister would lose a no confidence vote because any likely successor would have broadly the same policies, and few MPs will want her anywhere near an election campaign.
There has been a paradox. Two paradoxes. The smaller is that Theresa May has got better at campaigning which ought to strengthen her position but probably won't. The crucial one is the ERG is revealed to be a busted flush. This means backbenchers can vote against May knowing that the ERG can't get 48 letters written so does not have a prayer of getting a Brexiteer into the final two.
The ERG's blustering has made it safe to depose Theresa May!
No - The PM absolutely will win a no confidence vote as no alternative leader has a better plan for a Deal and most Tory MPs want a Deal and there will not be a general election anyway as most Tory MPs will not vote for one and it requires 2/3 of MPs and in any case May outpolls any alternative Tory leader. More likely is May will call EUref2 if she still cannot get her Deal through after the markets crash when it is voted down on a Deal v No Deal v Remain basis and that requires a simple Commons majority which there is for EUref2 in the Commons over No Deal.
Many Brexiteers have not signed letters that does not mean they would not back a Brexiteer in a leadership vote but there will not be one anyway as May will survive any no confidence vote
You miss the point. Any likely successor would have the same deal (give or take the odd tweak) and that makes it safe to depose Theresa May. It won't mean crashing out with no deal because it is blindingly obvious the headbangers won't make the final two, which is what might have been feared a few weeks back.
That is why Number 10 is so keen to close down talk of a vonc -- they know she will lose. If the Prime Minister agreed with you that she would storm to victory, she'd be calling for letters herself in order to do a John Major.
Its odd how some people don't seem to understand the difference between guff spouted by a politician to influence a vote, and detailed specific explanations by business and industry as to how their businesses and industries actually work.
Yes and Carney though not a politician was saying more of the former than the latter.
He's a banker. He is reporting what is being said to him by manufacturers, importers, wholesalers etc. Its very simple - crash out no deal causes very real and very significant disruption to the ability of business to import and export. They have set out very specific issues and with respect to "its all project fear" it really isn't.
What continues to baffle me is how the previously pro-business Tory party can so utterly detatch itself from what is in the best interests of business. Leaving the EU is not an issue for any of these businesses - leaving the EEA and CU are the problems. Tories used to listen to business and act in their interests. Now the opposite is true.
There was always a dichotomy between the landed gentry and the business interests.
Even if May did face a No confidence vote she will almost certainly win it given over 200 out of 318 Tory MPs are reported to back the Deal and she only needs to won by 1
That will keep her in place for a year until well past Brexit Day while a new leader would take over with barely 2 months left to get a Deal agreed, almost impossible
No -- the Prime Minister would lose a no confidence vote because any likely successor would have broadly the same policies, and few MPs will want her anywhere near an election campaign.
There has been a paradox. Two paradoxes. The smaller is that Theresa May has got better at campaigning which ought to strengthen her position but probably won't. The crucial one is the ERG is revealed to be a busted flush. This means backbenchers can vote against May knowing that the ERG can't get 48 letters written so does not have a prayer of getting a Brexiteer into the final two.
The ERG's blustering has made it safe to depose Theresa May!
No - The PM absolutely will win a no confidence vote as no alternative leader has a better plan for a Deal and most Tory MPs want a Deal and there will not be a general election anyway as most Tory MPs will not vote for one and it requires 2/3 of MPs and in any case May outpolls any alternative Tory leader. More likely is May will call EUref2 if she still cannot get her Deal through after the markets crash when it is voted down on a Deal v No Deal v Remain basis and that requires a simple Commons majority which there is for EUref2 in the Commons over No Deal.
Many Brexiteers have not signed letters that does not mean they would not back a Brexiteer in a leadership vote but there will not be one anyway as May will survive any no confidence vote
You miss the point. Any likely successor would have the same deal (give or take the odd tweak) and that makes it safe to depose Theresa May. It won't mean crashing out with no deal because it is blindingly obvious the headbangers won't make the final two, which is what might have been feared a few weeks back.
That is why Number 10 is so keen to close down talk of a vonc -- they know she will lose. If the Prime Minister agreed with you that she would storm to victory, she'd be calling for letters herself in order to do a John Major.
Alternatively the fear is that a VONC would force her to state what her position would be after a failed vote on the deal. She wants to maintain the ambiguity until she is ready to strike.
What continues to baffle me is how the previously pro-business Tory party can so utterly detatch itself from what is in the best interests of business. Leaving the EU is not an issue for any of these businesses - leaving the EEA and CU are the problems. Tories used to listen to business and act in their interests. Now the opposite is true.
"Business" (and by that I assume you mean big business and multi-national corporations rather than small businesses who the Tories haven't been interested in since the 1980's) was in favour of joining the Euro.
Yes it's important to take into account what business is saying but at the end of the day bodies like the CBI are just like any other vested interest lobbying for their preferred outcome and there's no reason why anyone should take any more notice of them than say the TUC.
More Remainer gaslighting. Not to mention pretty distasteful slurs on those with mental health issues.
It's what lost 'em a referendum I guess.
When SeanT published a piece on Telegraph asking if atheists were mentally ill that was fine.
Do you have a link to that article? SeanT on the ontology of faith might be moderately diverting. I think St Anselm, Augustine and Aquinas will be looking down fearing for their reputations.
You didn't miss much. I seem to recall it hinged upon the lower level of suicides in countries whose religions said that meant eternal damnation.
"Business" (and by that I assume you mean big business and multi-national corporations rather than small businesses who the Tories haven't been interested in since the 1980's) was in favour of joining the Euro.
Yes it's important to take into account what business is saying but at the end of the day bodies like the CBI are just like any other vested interest lobbying for their preferred outcome and there's no reason why anyone should take any more notice of them than say the TUC.
Quite right. We should listen to the TUC:
If the government fails to agree a Withdrawal Agreement with the EU, there would be no smooth transition period giving space to negotiate a final status deal. A disorderly exit would lead to the immediate creation of trade barriers and the imposition of tariffs by the EU under generic World Trade Organisation rules. This will have a profoundly damaging impact on trade and on jobs across the UK. It will mean prices in the shops will go up and there could be shortages of EU sourced products and goods. ... The economic and social damage that would be caused by crashing out mean that no responsible government should allow the UK to leave the EU in this way.
If we do not put up barriers then our own industry is exposed to worldwide competition which will undercut many of them.
Fantastic! When can it start?
March next year, apparently....
Great let's do it. David Ricardo demonstrated centuries ago that we didn't need Corn Laws to protect our industry, nor do we now. The more our industry is exposed the better.
Or we can cower within sclerotic Europe hiding behind European Protectionism and some archaic belief in European Exceptionalism while the rest of the world moves on from Europe and sees the future in Asia.
In order for something like this deal to pass, somebody is going to negotiate away the godforsaken backstop.
It doesn't make any sense to ask the woman whose deep and enduring incompetence ensured it made it in the first place, to be the person responsible for negotiating it away again.
If we do not put up barriers then our own industry is exposed to worldwide competition which will undercut many of them.
Fantastic! When can it start?
March next year, apparently....
Great let's do it. David Ricardo demonstrated centuries ago that we didn't need Corn Laws to protect our industry, nor do we now. The more our industry is exposed the better.
Or we can cower within sclerotic Europe hiding behind European Protectionism and some archaic belief in European Exceptionalism while the rest of the world moves on from Europe and sees the future in Asia.
Interesting debate regarding protectionism between two talking heads on the American right here:
No they are not, No Deal screws us more than them. We are just 16% of their exports, they are 44% of ours
That really is sophistry.
The only comparison that matters is that in absolute terms of total value we sell about half as much to the EU as they sell to us.
Imagine a small Polynesian nation, where 80% of GDP is from selling fish to Australia. They buy goods from Australia worth about the same, but it's only 0.1% of Australian GDP.
"Absolute terms of total value" means absolutely jack shit.
Imagine your small Polynesian nation, where 80% of their exports (which is what we were debating, not GDP) is from selling fish to Australia. They buy goods from Australia worth ten times as much, but it's only 1% of Australian exports.
That small Polynesian nation really would be in deep and unsustainable trading shit.
What continues to baffle me is how the previously pro-business Tory party can so utterly detatch itself from what is in the best interests of business. Leaving the EU is not an issue for any of these businesses - leaving the EEA and CU are the problems. Tories used to listen to business and act in their interests. Now the opposite is true.
"Business" (and by that I assume you mean big business and multi-national corporations rather than small businesses who the Tories haven't been interested in since the 1980's) was in favour of joining the Euro.
Yes it's important to take into account what business is saying but at the end of the day bodies like the CBI are just like any other vested interest lobbying for their preferred outcome and there's no reason why anyone should take any more notice of them than say the TUC.
You'd be hard pushed to put a rizla between what the CBI are saying and what Corbyn is saying.
That to me seems like an argument for an immediate general election followed by Corbyn rebooting the negotiations. Which, again, is another area where the CBI and Corbyn agree.
Its odd how some people don't seem to understand the difference between guff spouted by a politician to influence a vote, and detailed specific explanations by business and industry as to how their businesses and industries actually work.
Yes and Carney though not a politician was saying more of the former than the latter.
He's a banker. He is reporting what is being said to him by manufacturers, importers, wholesalers etc. Its very simple - crash out no deal causes very real and very significant disruption to the ability of business to import and export. They have set out very specific issues and with respect to "its all project fear" it really isn't.
What continues to baffle me is how the previously pro-business Tory party can so utterly detatch itself from what is in the best interests of business. Leaving the EU is not an issue for any of these businesses - leaving the EEA and CU are the problems. Tories used to listen to business and act in their interests. Now the opposite is true.
There are many small businesses that are being ignored while we listen to the multinationals alone that are fine with European barriers to trade that we should be leaving behind.
The same people crying wolf now are those crying wolf before the vote. They were wrong then but are saying the same thing now ... for the same reasons too ... that they were saying then. Why are they right this time when they were wrong last time and the logic behind what they were saying then and now is still the same?
In order for something like this deal to pass, somebody is going to negotiate away the godforsaken backstop.
It doesn't make any sense to ask the woman whose deep and enduring incompetence ensured it made it in the first place, to be the person responsible for negotiating it away again.
"Business" (and by that I assume you mean big business and multi-national corporations rather than small businesses who the Tories haven't been interested in since the 1980's) was in favour of joining the Euro.
Yes it's important to take into account what business is saying but at the end of the day bodies like the CBI are just like any other vested interest lobbying for their preferred outcome and there's no reason why anyone should take any more notice of them than say the TUC.
Quite right. We should listen to the TUC:
If the government fails to agree a Withdrawal Agreement with the EU, there would be no smooth transition period giving space to negotiate a final status deal. A disorderly exit would lead to the immediate creation of trade barriers and the imposition of tariffs by the EU under generic World Trade Organisation rules. This will have a profoundly damaging impact on trade and on jobs across the UK. It will mean prices in the shops will go up and there could be shortages of EU sourced products and goods. ... The economic and social damage that would be caused by crashing out mean that no responsible government should allow the UK to leave the EU in this way.
We should "listen" respectfully to both the TUC and the CBI but there's no reason we should be overly concerned about either of them.
Point I'm making is that there's assumption that just because "business" says something all politicians must jump to their tune when really they are no different to any other vested interest.
And lets not forget that the behaviour of the banks and the fact nobody was put into prison for their part in destroying the economy in 2008 was one of the key factors in the Brexit vote...
It's always good to reflect that, however bad things get, I never sank my life savings in cryptocurrencies.
I recently rewatched the Big Short...I have a feeling there will be a not insignificant number of people who in a similar position to those who went all in on real estate after seeing Bob down the road make easy money off crypto.
No they are not, No Deal screws us more than them. We are just 16% of their exports, they are 44% of ours
That really is sophistry.
The only comparison that matters is that in absolute terms of total value we sell about half as much to the EU as they sell to us.
Imagine a small Polynesian nation, where 80% of GDP is from selling fish to Australia. They buy goods from Australia worth about the same, but it's only 0.1% of Australian GDP.
"Absolute terms of total value" means absolutely jack shit.
Imagine your small Polynesian nation, where 80% of their exports (which is what we were debating, not GDP) is from selling fish to Australia. They buy goods from Australia worth ten times as much, but it's only 1% of Australian exports.
That small Polynesian nation really would be in deep and unsustainable trading shit.
Yeeeeees, but Australia wouldn't be. The absolute values mean nothing. The size relative to the economy does.
The backstop is the single greatest error of May's career of terrible errors.
The backstop might be the single greatest foreign policy fuck up in UK politics since Suez?
The backstop needs to die, and that means May's dodgy deal needs to die, and that means May's career needs to die. There must be no forgiveness for a fuckup of this magnitude.
Fine.
Have you checked with the EU that the end of Mrs May's career would kill off the backstop? Just thought it would be as well to give them a buzz first to check there are no snags.
If the new PM says 'over my dead body' to the backstop then yes it would. It wasn't even in their original proposals, it only came in when May revealed how weak she was and it was pathetic to agree to it.
The EU have been absolutely clear No backstop and guarantee of No hard border in Ireland then No Deal.
That means there is no alternative deal to May's achievable from an alternative Tory leader, the only alternative is permanent Customs Union for the whole UK from PM Corbyn quite probably with permanent Single Market too as the SNP will demand that and he will need them for a majority
They're bluffing.
No they are not, No Deal screws us more than them. We are just 16% of their exports, they are 44% of ours
Well yes economically we're more screwed. But then we're not stuck in a European superstate heading towards complete political union against the wishes of its people.
In order for something like this deal to pass, somebody is going to negotiate away the godforsaken backstop.
It doesn't make any sense to ask the woman whose deep and enduring incompetence ensured it made it in the first place, to be the person responsible for negotiating it away again.
What would you have in place of the backstop?
Are you ready for this?
My alternative is...Nothing.
The EU can shove its backstop up its arse and swivel on it, as far as I'm concerned. And Ireland may either choose to take a solemn assurance from their largest trading partner at face value and accept we don't want a hard border, or they're going to have the build the border themselves. Perhaps Juncker and Barnier can get down there with a transit van full of 2x4.
Its odd how some people don't seem to understand the difference between guff spouted by a politician to influence a vote, and detailed specific explanations by business and industry as to how their businesses and industries actually work.
Yes and Carney though not a politician was saying more of the former than the latter.
He's a banker. He is reporting what is being said to him by manufacturers, importers, wholesalers etc. Its very simple - crash out no deal causes very real and very significant disruption to the ability of business to import and export. They have set out very specific issues and with respect to "its all project fear" it really isn't.
What continues to baffle me is how the previously pro-business Tory party can so utterly detatch itself from what is in the best interests of business. Leaving the EU is not an issue for any of these businesses - leaving the EEA and CU are the problems. Tories used to listen to business and act in their interests. Now the opposite is true.
Because what big business wants is not the only thing they worry about thankfully.
In order for something like this deal to pass, somebody is going to negotiate away the godforsaken backstop.
It doesn't make any sense to ask the woman whose deep and enduring incompetence ensured it made it in the first place, to be the person responsible for negotiating it away again.
What would you have in place of the backstop?
An agreement that neither of us would implement a hard border, an agreement to work together on solutions to avoid it and an agreement to co-operate and punish to the full extent of the law any criminals who break the law and don't pay their taxes which is all customs duties are.
Its odd how some people don't seem to understand the difference between guff spouted by a politician to influence a vote, and detailed specific explanations by business and industry as to how their businesses and industries actually work.
Yes and Carney though not a politician was saying more of the former than the latter.
He's a banker. He is reporting what is being said to him by manufacturers, importers, wholesalers etc. Its very simple - crash out no deal causes very real and very significant disruption to the ability of business to import and export. They have set out very specific issues and with respect to "its all project fear" it really isn't.
What continues to baffle me is how the previously pro-business Tory party can so utterly detatch itself from what is in the best interests of business. Leaving the EU is not an issue for any of these businesses - leaving the EEA and CU are the problems. Tories used to listen to business and act in their interests. Now the opposite is true.
There are many small businesses that are being ignored while we listen to the multinationals alone that are fine with European barriers to trade that we should be leaving behind.
The same people crying wolf now are those crying wolf before the vote. They were wrong then but are saying the same thing now ... for the same reasons too ... that they were saying then. Why are they right this time when they were wrong last time and the logic behind what they were saying then and now is still the same?
I love the way that "they were crying wolf" magically solves the issues we will face at border crossings. Perhaps hauliers don't know anything about the issues they face crossing from outside the EU into the EU and vice versa and instead should sit cross legged on the floor whilst you tell them about their industry.
In order for something like this deal to pass, somebody is going to negotiate away the godforsaken backstop.
It doesn't make any sense to ask the woman whose deep and enduring incompetence ensured it made it in the first place, to be the person responsible for negotiating it away again.
What would you have in place of the backstop?
An agreement that neither of us would implement a hard border, an agreement to work together on solutions to avoid it and an agreement to co-operate and punish to the full extent of the law any criminals who break the law and don't pay their taxes which is all customs duties are.
And you don't think Theresa May, Olly Robbins, David Davis, or Dominic Raab have suggested such a deal to the EU?
In order for something like this deal to pass, somebody is going to negotiate away the godforsaken backstop.
It doesn't make any sense to ask the woman whose deep and enduring incompetence ensured it made it in the first place, to be the person responsible for negotiating it away again.
What would you have in place of the backstop?
Are you ready for this?
My alternative is...Nothing.
The EU can shove its backstop up its arse and swivel on it, as far as I'm concerned. And Ireland may either choose to take a solemn assurance from their largest trading partner at face value and accept we don't want a hard border, or they're going to have the build the border themselves. Perhaps Juncker and Barnier can get down there with a transit van full of 2x4.
So this is taking back control? I thought the mantra was borders, money, laws so two out of three ain't bad.
Meanwhile in the real world, doing "nothing" means we are at the mercy of a WTO MFN dispute which might force us to put up a border with our own 2x4.
That your comment is as it is shows that you have only an idealist's view of Brexit (whether you are a Brexiter or a Remainer) not grounded in the real world.
In order for something like this deal to pass, somebody is going to negotiate away the godforsaken backstop.
It doesn't make any sense to ask the woman whose deep and enduring incompetence ensured it made it in the first place, to be the person responsible for negotiating it away again.
What would you have in place of the backstop?
Are you ready for this?
My alternative is...Nothing.
The EU can shove its backstop up its arse and swivel on it, as far as I'm concerned. And Ireland may either choose to take a solemn assurance from their largest trading partner at face value and accept we don't want a hard border, or they're going to have the build the border themselves. Perhaps Juncker and Barnier can get down there with a transit van full of 2x4.
Well precisely. The idea that they would implement a hard border if they don't get a hard border avoided was always a patently absurd. They say they don't want a border, we say we don't want a border so we don't need to have a border, end of story.
In order for something like this deal to pass, somebody is going to negotiate away the godforsaken backstop.
It doesn't make any sense to ask the woman whose deep and enduring incompetence ensured it made it in the first place, to be the person responsible for negotiating it away again.
What would you have in place of the backstop?
An agreement that neither of us would implement a hard border, an agreement to work together on solutions to avoid it and an agreement to co-operate and punish to the full extent of the law any criminals who break the law and don't pay their taxes which is all customs duties are.
And you don't think Theresa May, Olly Robbins, David Davis, or Dominic Raab have suggested such a deal to the EU?
I think David Davis and Raab did suggest it. I think the EU tried their luck and May and Robbins fell apart like first two little pigs houses getting blown down by the big bad wolf. If May wasn't so desparate to get results after her disastrous election she could have said no to the backstop when they proposed it.
Days since labour had an antisemitism issue...0...
Guido understands that Corbynista Member of the Welsh Assembly Jenny Rathbone has been suspended by the Labour group for comments regarded as potentially antisemitic. This comes after a recording surfaced where Rathbone suggested Israel ‘drives people to be hostile to British Jews’ and suggested Jewish people’s security fears could be ‘in their own heads.’
Its odd how some people don't seem to understand the difference between guff spouted by a politician to influence a vote, and detailed specific explanations by business and industry as to how their businesses and industries actually work.
It's also odd how some people don't seem to understand the difference between the interests of pan-European businesses and the national interests of the UK.
Who said anything about pan-European business? In my industry almost every business is UK specific. Nor is diverting production into the EU practical as its food.
Go on then. What is the national interest of the UK you refer to which is greater than the need to feed people?
In order for something like this deal to pass, somebody is going to negotiate away the godforsaken backstop.
It doesn't make any sense to ask the woman whose deep and enduring incompetence ensured it made it in the first place, to be the person responsible for negotiating it away again.
What would you have in place of the backstop?
An agreement that neither of us would implement a hard border, an agreement to work together on solutions to avoid it and an agreement to co-operate and punish to the full extent of the law any criminals who break the law and don't pay their taxes which is all customs duties are.
And you don't think Theresa May, Olly Robbins, David Davis, or Dominic Raab have suggested such a deal to the EU?
I think David Davis and Raab did suggest it. I think the EU tried their luck and May and Robbins fell apart like first two little pigs houses getting blown down by the big bad wolf. If May wasn't so desparate to get results after her disastrous election she could have said no to the backstop when they proposed it.
Why would she do that? She actually wants to get this through parliament.
Really, this idea that Theresa May screwed up the negotiations by not being tough enough is the most ludicrous nonsense. I actually agree that the backstop is daft, but the idea that the EU could be persuaded to drop it if only we'd shouted louder is off-the-wall raving bonkers.
In order for something like this deal to pass, somebody is going to negotiate away the godforsaken backstop.
It doesn't make any sense to ask the woman whose deep and enduring incompetence ensured it made it in the first place, to be the person responsible for negotiating it away again.
What would you have in place of the backstop?
Are you ready for this?
My alternative is...Nothing.
The EU can shove its backstop up its arse and swivel on it, as far as I'm concerned. And Ireland may either choose to take a solemn assurance from their largest trading partner at face value and accept we don't want a hard border, or they're going to have the build the border themselves. Perhaps Juncker and Barnier can get down there with a transit van full of 2x4.
Well precisely. The idea that they would implement a hard border if they don't get a hard border avoided was always a patently absurd. They say they don't want a border, we say we don't want a border so we don't need to have a border, end of story.
And yet the rules we will apply after Brexit - either EEA or WTO - require a border. I also imagine that the "will of the people" to control migration demands a border, unless "take back control" means "let anyone walk into the UK unimpeded".
No they are not, No Deal screws us more than them. We are just 16% of their exports, they are 44% of ours
That really is sophistry.
The only comparison that matters is that in absolute terms of total value we sell about half as much to the EU as they sell to us.
Imagine a small Polynesian nation, where 80% of GDP is from selling fish to Australia. They buy goods from Australia worth about the same, but it's only 0.1% of Australian GDP.
"Absolute terms of total value" means absolutely jack shit.
In order for something like this deal to pass, somebody is going to negotiate away the godforsaken backstop.
It doesn't make any sense to ask the woman whose deep and enduring incompetence ensured it made it in the first place, to be the person responsible for negotiating it away again.
What would you have in place of the backstop?
An agreement that neither of us would implement a hard border, an agreement to work together on solutions to avoid it and an agreement to co-operate and punish to the full extent of the law any criminals who break the law and don't pay their taxes which is all customs duties are.
All of which would emerge as a result of full and frank negotiations for the future trade agreement, I would hope. In the meantime, the EU and RoI and the UK can't risk that those negotiations don't conclude successfully in which case there needs to be some safeguard, let's call it a backstop, which prevents the possibility of a hard border.
Its odd how some people don't seem to understand the difference between guff spouted by a politician to influence a vote, and detailed specific explanations by business and industry as to how their businesses and industries actually work.
It's also odd how some people don't seem to understand the difference between the interests of pan-European businesses and the national interests of the UK.
Who said anything about pan-European business? In my industry almost every business is UK specific. Nor is diverting production into the EU practical as its food.
Go on then. What is the national interest of the UK you refer to which is greater than the need to feed people?
More Remainer gaslighting. Not to mention pretty distasteful slurs on those with mental health issues.
It's what lost 'em a referendum I guess.
When SeanT published a piece on Telegraph asking if atheists were mentally ill that was fine.
Do you have a link to that article? SeanT on the ontology of faith might be moderately diverting. I think St Anselm, Augustine and Aquinas will be looking down fearing for their reputations.
You didn't miss much. I seem to recall it hinged upon the lower level of suicides in countries whose religions said that meant eternal damnation.
I hope it calibrated for the reluctance of those societies to declare suicides as suicides for obvious reasons.
Its odd how some people don't seem to understand the difference between guff spouted by a politician to influence a vote, and detailed specific explanations by business and industry as to how their businesses and industries actually work.
It's also odd how some people don't seem to understand the difference between the interests of pan-European businesses and the national interests of the UK.
Who said anything about pan-European business? In my industry almost every business is UK specific. Nor is diverting production into the EU practical as its food.
Go on then. What is the national interest of the UK you refer to which is greater than the need to feed people?
Oooh. I know this one. Is it "sovereignty"?
I think I've eaten sovereignty before - does it come in Salt and Vinegar flavour?
In order for something like this deal to pass, somebody is going to negotiate away the godforsaken backstop.
It doesn't make any sense to ask the woman whose deep and enduring incompetence ensured it made it in the first place, to be the person responsible for negotiating it away again.
What would you have in place of the backstop?
Are you ready for this?
My alternative is...Nothing.
The EU can shove its backstop up its arse and swivel on it, as far as I'm concerned. And Ireland may either choose to take a solemn assurance from their largest trading partner at face value and accept we don't want a hard border, or they're going to have the build the border themselves. Perhaps Juncker and Barnier can get down there with a transit van full of 2x4.
Well precisely. The idea that they would implement a hard border if they don't get a hard border avoided was always a patently absurd. They say they don't want a border, we say we don't want a border so we don't need to have a border, end of story.
Unless...drum roll...we go to WTO terms and someone raises a WTO MFN dispute which could force us either to build a border, or to allow, say, US widgets in on the same terms as RoI widgets.
Is it something about Brexiters that simply will not be told? The reason why NI leads on all "problems we face in Brexit" bulletins is pretty clear and yet Brexiters seem determined not to understand this.
I think that that is an unlikely conclusion both because of the wording of Article 50 and the general law as regards notices.
Art 50 requires unanimity to extend the period. How is it consistent with that to allow the party giving notice to withdraw it unilaterally (and then possibly serve notice again once they are ready)?
In general law, eg tenancies, if a party gives notice of intention to quit or conclude the tenancy the other party is allowed to rely upon that and hold them to it. The EU have responded to our notice by negotiating (after a fashion) with us for 2 years. They have relied upon the notice which they insisted upon before they would even start discussions. They can hold us to it.
Of course the CJEU is more like a political forum than a real court but I can't imagine that they will want to leave the EU in such an uncertain position.
Its odd how some people don't seem to understand the difference between guff spouted by a politician to influence a vote, and detailed specific explanations by business and industry as to how their businesses and industries actually work.
It's also odd how some people don't seem to understand the difference between the interests of pan-European businesses and the national interests of the UK.
Who said anything about pan-European business? In my industry almost every business is UK specific. Nor is diverting production into the EU practical as its food.
Go on then. What is the national interest of the UK you refer to which is greater than the need to feed people?
Its odd how some people don't seem to understand the difference between guff spouted by a politician to influence a vote, and detailed specific explanations by business and industry as to how their businesses and industries actually work.
It's also odd how some people don't seem to understand the difference between the interests of pan-European businesses and the national interests of the UK.
Who said anything about pan-European business? In my industry almost every business is UK specific. Nor is diverting production into the EU practical as its food.
Go on then. What is the national interest of the UK you refer to which is greater than the need to feed people?
Oooh. I know this one. Is it "sovereignty"?
We were always sovereign.
Yes but that sovereignty came with all kinds of strings attached, like power and influence. We just want to be left alone with our nostalgia.
I think that that is an unlikely conclusion both because of the wording of Article 50 and the general law as regards notices.
Art 50 requires unanimity to extend the period. How is it consistent with that to allow the party giving notice to withdraw it unilaterally (and then possibly serve notice again once they are ready)?
In general law, eg tenancies, if a party gives notice of intention to quit or conclude the tenancy the other party is allowed to rely upon that and hold them to it. The EU have responded to our notice by negotiating (after a fashion) with us for 2 years. They have relied upon the notice which they insisted upon before they would even start discussions. They can hold us to it.
Of course the CJEU is more like a political forum than a real court but I can't imagine that they will want to leave the EU in such an uncertain position.
That's the British legal approach, I don't know how well it translates across the channel.
Days since labour had an antisemitism issue...0...
Guido understands that Corbynista Member of the Welsh Assembly Jenny Rathbone has been suspended by the Labour group for comments regarded as potentially antisemitic. This comes after a recording surfaced where Rathbone suggested Israel ‘drives people to be hostile to British Jews’ and suggested Jewish people’s security fears could be ‘in their own heads.’
Days since labour had an antisemitism issue...0...
Guido understands that Corbynista Member of the Welsh Assembly Jenny Rathbone has been suspended by the Labour group for comments regarded as potentially antisemitic. This comes after a recording surfaced where Rathbone suggested Israel ‘drives people to be hostile to British Jews’ and suggested Jewish people’s security fears could be ‘in their own heads.’
Its odd how some people don't seem to understand the difference between guff spouted by a politician to influence a vote, and detailed specific explanations by business and industry as to how their businesses and industries actually work.
It's also odd how some people don't seem to understand the difference between the interests of pan-European businesses and the national interests of the UK.
Who said anything about pan-European business? In my industry almost every business is UK specific. Nor is diverting production into the EU practical as its food.
Go on then. What is the national interest of the UK you refer to which is greater than the need to feed people?
Oooh. I know this one. Is it "sovereignty"?
I think I've eaten sovereignty before - does it come in Salt and Vinegar flavour?
Maybe Walkers could do Special Edition Brexit Crisps. Salted with the tears of Remainers and with a unpleasantly bitter aftertaste. Oh, and they cost twice the price of the previous crisps. I'm sure Gary Lineker would be delighted.
I think that that is an unlikely conclusion both because of the wording of Article 50 and the general law as regards notices.
Art 50 requires unanimity to extend the period. How is it consistent with that to allow the party giving notice to withdraw it unilaterally (and then possibly serve notice again once they are ready)?
In general law, eg tenancies, if a party gives notice of intention to quit or conclude the tenancy the other party is allowed to rely upon that and hold them to it. The EU have responded to our notice by negotiating (after a fashion) with us for 2 years. They have relied upon the notice which they insisted upon before they would even start discussions. They can hold us to it.
Of course the CJEU is more like a political forum than a real court but I can't imagine that they will want to leave the EU in such an uncertain position.
That's the British legal approach, I don't know how well it translates across the channel.
Across the channel the principle is more straightforward: which solution gives more power to the EU institutions and progresses ever closer union? All of the Treaties and EU law are purposely interpreted that way as a matter of policy. Giving such a power to a MS does not fit the program.
I think that that is an unlikely conclusion both because of the wording of Article 50 and the general law as regards notices.
Art 50 requires unanimity to extend the period. How is it consistent with that to allow the party giving notice to withdraw it unilaterally (and then possibly serve notice again once they are ready)?
In general law, eg tenancies, if a party gives notice of intention to quit or conclude the tenancy the other party is allowed to rely upon that and hold them to it. The EU have responded to our notice by negotiating (after a fashion) with us for 2 years. They have relied upon the notice which they insisted upon before they would even start discussions. They can hold us to it.
Of course the CJEU is more like a political forum than a real court but I can't imagine that they will want to leave the EU in such an uncertain position.
The CJEU usually rules in a way which grants more power to the commission. Bearing that in mind, I think they will rule something like thus:
A50 cannot be unilaterally revoked
A50 can be revoked by bilateral agreement with the Commission, with the approval of the Council,
The agreement may include enjoining us not to invoke Article 50 again for some lengthy period.
In order for something like this deal to pass, somebody is going to negotiate away the godforsaken backstop.
It doesn't make any sense to ask the woman whose deep and enduring incompetence ensured it made it in the first place, to be the person responsible for negotiating it away again.
What would you have in place of the backstop?
An agreement that neither of us would implement a hard border, an agreement to work together on solutions to avoid it and an agreement to co-operate and punish to the full extent of the law any criminals who break the law and don't pay their taxes which is all customs duties are.
And you don't think Theresa May, Olly Robbins, David Davis, or Dominic Raab have suggested such a deal to the EU?
I think David Davis and Raab did suggest it. I think the EU tried their luck and May and Robbins fell apart like first two little pigs houses getting blown down by the big bad wolf. If May wasn't so desparate to get results after her disastrous election she could have said no to the backstop when they proposed it.
Why would she do that? She actually wants to get this through parliament.
Really, this idea that Theresa May screwed up the negotiations by not being tough enough is the most ludicrous nonsense. I actually agree that the backstop is daft, but the idea that the EU could be persuaded to drop it if only we'd shouted louder is off-the-wall raving bonkers.
If we’d threatened to walk away they may have. If you must do a deal you’ve little leverage
In order for something like this deal to pass, somebody is going to negotiate away the godforsaken backstop.
It doesn't make any sense to ask the woman whose deep and enduring incompetence ensured it made it in the first place, to be the person responsible for negotiating it away again.
What would you have in place of the backstop?
Are you ready for this?
My alternative is...Nothing.
The EU can shove its backstop up its arse and swivel on it, as far as I'm concerned. And Ireland may either choose to take a solemn assurance from their largest trading partner at face value and accept we don't want a hard border, or they're going to have the build the border themselves. Perhaps Juncker and Barnier can get down there with a transit van full of 2x4.
Well precisely. The idea that they would implement a hard border if they don't get a hard border avoided was always a patently absurd. They say they don't want a border, we say we don't want a border so we don't need to have a border, end of story.
And yet the rules we will apply after Brexit - either EEA or WTO - require a border. I also imagine that the "will of the people" to control migration demands a border, unless "take back control" means "let anyone walk into the UK unimpeded".
There are ways around and flexibility for special situations.
I think that that is an unlikely conclusion both because of the wording of Article 50 and the general law as regards notices.
Art 50 requires unanimity to extend the period. How is it consistent with that to allow the party giving notice to withdraw it unilaterally (and then possibly serve notice again once they are ready)?
In general law, eg tenancies, if a party gives notice of intention to quit or conclude the tenancy the other party is allowed to rely upon that and hold them to it. The EU have responded to our notice by negotiating (after a fashion) with us for 2 years. They have relied upon the notice which they insisted upon before they would even start discussions. They can hold us to it.
Of course the CJEU is more like a political forum than a real court but I can't imagine that they will want to leave the EU in such an uncertain position.
The CJEU usually rules in a way which grants more power to the commission. Bearing that in mind, I think they will rule something like thus:
A50 cannot be unilaterally revoked
A50 can be revoked by bilateral agreement with the Commission, with the approval of the Council,
The agreement may include enjoining us not to invoke Article 50 again for some lengthy period.
This is why we need to leave and if, at some point in the future we decide to remain we will see what terms we want to do so or be allowed to do.
We cannot cock around with our various treaty obligations and agreements because each time we do we weaken our negotiating position for next time round as people, simply, won't believe we would be acting in good faith and would insert, as you say, a host of penal clauses.
The UK enters transition (presumably) and if we can't agree a long term partnership, it's no deal - is that the idea?
Which is why, as @Charles and @Richard_Nabavi have observed above, we can't be in a position whereby we can't do a deal (!).
And the EU knows that, and TMay knows that, and whether the ERG knows that is anyone's guess given that they are probably unaware of what day it is today, let alone anything more demanding.
The UK enters transition (presumably) and if we can't agree a long term partnership, it's no deal - is that the idea?
No, it means no transition, we crash out in utter chaos in a few weeks' time, unless the EU can be persuaded to change their minds or (more likely, but still not very likely) can be persuaded to agree to some kind of 'clarification' which keeps the DUP happy. Unfortunately I think the entrenched positions of various MPs now mean that even that wouldn't work.
I think that that is an unlikely conclusion both because of the wording of Article 50 and the general law as regards notices.
Art 50 requires unanimity to extend the period. How is it consistent with that to allow the party giving notice to withdraw it unilaterally (and then possibly serve notice again once they are ready)?
In general law, eg tenancies, if a party gives notice of intention to quit or conclude the tenancy the other party is allowed to rely upon that and hold them to it. The EU have responded to our notice by negotiating (after a fashion) with us for 2 years. They have relied upon the notice which they insisted upon before they would even start discussions. They can hold us to it.
Of course the CJEU is more like a political forum than a real court but I can't imagine that they will want to leave the EU in such an uncertain position.
The CJEU usually rules in a way which grants more power to the commission. Bearing that in mind, I think they will rule something like thus:
A50 cannot be unilaterally revoked
A50 can be revoked by bilateral agreement with the Commission, with the approval of the Council,
The agreement may include enjoining us not to invoke Article 50 again for some lengthy period.
This is why we need to leave and if, at some point in the future we decide to remain we will see what terms we want to do so or be allowed to do.
We cannot cock around with our various treaty obligations and agreements because each time we do we weaken our negotiating position for next time round as people, simply, won't believe we would be acting in good faith and would insert, as you say, a host of penal clauses.
I can imagine the Council deciding to redraft or remove article 50 at some point. It was meant to symbolic, it wasn't actually meant to be used.
Comments
What continues to baffle me is how the previously pro-business Tory party can so utterly detatch itself from what is in the best interests of business. Leaving the EU is not an issue for any of these businesses - leaving the EEA and CU are the problems. Tories used to listen to business and act in their interests. Now the opposite is true.
"Absolute terms of total value" means absolutely jack shit.
That is why Number 10 is so keen to close down talk of a vonc -- they know she will lose. If the Prime Minister agreed with you that she would storm to victory, she'd be calling for letters herself in order to do a John Major.
What's she going to agree to this time?
Yes it's important to take into account what business is saying but at the end of the day bodies like the CBI are just like any other vested interest lobbying for their preferred outcome and there's no reason why anyone should take any more notice of them than say the TUC.
Amazing how much TV time has been devoted to a non-existant VONC.
I'm starting to feel sorry for the young Tory pillock who had 'Moggmentum' tattooed across his chest.
If the government fails to agree a Withdrawal Agreement with the EU, there would be no smooth transition period giving space to negotiate a final status deal. A disorderly exit would lead to the immediate creation of trade barriers and the imposition of tariffs by the EU under generic World Trade Organisation rules. This will have a profoundly damaging impact on trade and on jobs across the UK. It will mean prices in the shops will go up and there could be shortages of EU sourced products and goods.
...
The economic and social damage that would be caused by crashing out mean that no responsible government should allow the UK to leave the EU in this way.
https://www.tuc.org.uk/news/general-council-statement-brexit
Or we can cower within sclerotic Europe hiding behind European Protectionism and some archaic belief in European Exceptionalism while the rest of the world moves on from Europe and sees the future in Asia.
It doesn't make any sense to ask the woman whose deep and enduring incompetence ensured it made it in the first place, to be the person responsible for negotiating it away again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh8vqof9hAk
That small Polynesian nation really would be in deep and unsustainable trading shit.
That to me seems like an argument for an immediate general election followed by Corbyn rebooting the negotiations. Which, again, is another area where the CBI and Corbyn agree.
The same people crying wolf now are those crying wolf before the vote. They were wrong then but are saying the same thing now ... for the same reasons too ... that they were saying then. Why are they right this time when they were wrong last time and the logic behind what they were saying then and now is still the same?
Point I'm making is that there's assumption that just because "business" says something all politicians must jump to their tune when really they are no different to any other vested interest.
And lets not forget that the behaviour of the banks and the fact nobody was put into prison for their part in destroying the economy in 2008 was one of the key factors in the Brexit vote...
Fun cover, though I do wonder if many people under the age of 50 get Dad's Army references.
Mind you, I take my hat off to the founding scamsters - selling prime numbers to mugs was sheer genius, even more so because it wasn't even illegal.
Thank you for handily proving my point.
It was nearly as bad as SPECTRE
My alternative is...Nothing.
The EU can shove its backstop up its arse and swivel on it, as far as I'm concerned. And Ireland may either choose to take a solemn assurance from their largest trading partner at face value and accept we don't want a hard border, or they're going to have the build the border themselves. Perhaps Juncker and Barnier can get down there with a transit van full of 2x4.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WxDaxD5az6kdOjJncmGph37z0BPNhV1fNAH_g7IkpC0/edit#gid=0
Meanwhile in the real world, doing "nothing" means we are at the mercy of a WTO MFN dispute which might force us to put up a border with our own 2x4.
That your comment is as it is shows that you have only an idealist's view of Brexit (whether you are a Brexiter or a Remainer) not grounded in the real world.
Guido understands that Corbynista Member of the Welsh Assembly Jenny Rathbone has been suspended by the Labour group for comments regarded as potentially antisemitic. This comes after a recording surfaced where Rathbone suggested Israel ‘drives people to be hostile to British Jews’ and suggested Jewish people’s security fears could be ‘in their own heads.’
Go on then. What is the national interest of the UK you refer to which is greater than the need to feed people?
Really, this idea that Theresa May screwed up the negotiations by not being tough enough is the most ludicrous nonsense. I actually agree that the backstop is daft, but the idea that the EU could be persuaded to drop it if only we'd shouted louder is off-the-wall raving bonkers.
A much smaller number (fwiw)
Is it something about Brexiters that simply will not be told? The reason why NI leads on all "problems we face in Brexit" bulletins is pretty clear and yet Brexiters seem determined not to understand this.
Art 50 requires unanimity to extend the period. How is it consistent with that to allow the party giving notice to withdraw it unilaterally (and then possibly serve notice again once they are ready)?
In general law, eg tenancies, if a party gives notice of intention to quit or conclude the tenancy the other party is allowed to rely upon that and hold them to it. The EU have responded to our notice by negotiating (after a fashion) with us for 2 years. They have relied upon the notice which they insisted upon before they would even start discussions. They can hold us to it.
Of course the CJEU is more like a political forum than a real court but I can't imagine that they will want to leave the EU in such an uncertain position.
Days since FU quoted Guido ....0
Florida 25
Utah 3
California 21
Florida 26
Florida 27
Wisconsin 8
Biggest swings against
Illinois 17
West Virginia 2
New York 26
Illinois 3
Minnesota 7
West Virginia 3
83 seats had a 10+% swing against GOP, 6 for.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17UoXGohabGh4blruH0-Hnb9AWB3v0bXEJd9s33zgSWU/edit?usp=sharing
A50 cannot be unilaterally revoked
A50 can be revoked by bilateral agreement with the Commission, with the approval of the Council,
The agreement may include enjoining us not to invoke Article 50 again for some lengthy period.
We cannot cock around with our various treaty obligations and agreements because each time we do we weaken our negotiating position for next time round as people, simply, won't believe we would be acting in good faith and would insert, as you say, a host of penal clauses.
The UK enters transition (presumably) and if we can't agree a long term partnership, it's no deal - is that the idea?
And the EU knows that, and TMay knows that, and whether the ERG knows that is anyone's guess given that they are probably unaware of what day it is today, let alone anything more demanding.