Which the EU won't accept, so it's not saving anything.
We don't know that for certain. The EU and the Irish haven't had to stir into the abyss and decide whether they prefer no deal or giving up on the backstop.
Why would the EU remove the backstop given that it still wouldn't guarantee passage of the WA through the House of Commons?
If the backstop was removed it would pass
Agreed. You and I (and many Aye and Nay Tories) aren't actually that far apart. It is the backstop that is the critical wedge.
My goal is May's deal minus the backstop. Would you find that agreeable? Would you back that?
There is no doubt the slippery Macron did May no favours with his fisheries comments. Probably hardened up opinion in the HoC this afternoon.
Of course permanent Customs Union reduces the need to resolve the future trading relationship and concede to Macron on fisheries
Dumb question, sorry, we can be in a permanent CU but out of the CFP and CAP yes?
That is Norway, as I understand it.
If it wasn't for the FoM, I think it would be a no brainer.
Edit to add: the EEA treaty also allows you to quit giving 12 months notice
So. We'd be in a Norway style agreement, with Farage, Boris et al touring the country promoting EEAexit almost immediately? Blaming immigrants for everything. Can't wait. What a prospect.
The prospects are not good considering how vicious and ugly a referendum or a GE would be.
I'm not sure the country could tolerate another referendum. It's such a bad idea on so many fronts.
On the other hand could the country tolerate NOT having another referendum?
Yes - it needs to avoid a nasty divisive process with no certain outlook. Norway is the way for lots of sound reasons
Most of the country will not care if Brexit stops - they will simply adjust their cynicism level upwards. Politics is already held in very low regard.
Those on the extremes who like to advocate violence will probably continue issuing threats, but like most keyboard warriors, nothing will come of it.
That leaves the Anorak Middle and that probably constitutes most loyal party followers who, no matter what their party does, will support it even if it is diametrically opposite to last week's policy.
OTOH - drive the UK off the WTO cliff and cause economic upsets and job losses, cancelled holidays or empty supermarkets and the protests will start.
Yeah, Tory members and voters will just forget that their representatives just fucked them over harder than anyone's been fucked before. Of course, if you don't vote Tory, what you said.
Frankly, I do not give a d*mn about the survival of the Tory party. It is pandering to the Tory fringe that got us into this mess.
I wouldn't expect a foreign national to care about the Tories, any more than I care about Fianna Fáil or the CDU.
Which the EU won't accept, so it's not saving anything.
We don't know that for certain. The EU and the Irish haven't had to stir into the abyss and decide whether they prefer no deal or giving up on the backstop.
Why would the EU remove the backstop given that it still wouldn't guarantee passage of the WA through the House of Commons?
Presumably the answer to your rhetorical question is that the EU nations consider that it would be a huge boost to their future prosperity to see their current trading surplus with the UK gradually dwindle away, and that they would rather see the UK retain the promised £39bn payment than for the UK to pass it over to the EU to be spent in their own countries.
My point is that the HoC might still reject it for some other reason once they get the taste of weakness, therefore there's no way the EU would offer it.
What happens to the meaningful vote on 11th December if Theresa has already faced a VONC in the Tory Party which she's lost?
I suspect if Gove announces the EEA/EFTA pivot, and also announces that Labour and the SNP and the DUP and the Lib Dems have all announced support provisional on May being fired into the sun, there's nothing she can do to stop that torpedo tube being greased.
Labour oppose the Norway/EEA option as the Shadow Justice minister made clear yesterday
In the circumstances of the SNP, DUP and many conservative and labour mps coalescing around it it is the best solution. No deal or second referendum are the pathway to utter division and chaos
No, permanent Customs Union is the only solution. The DUP also oppose the single market and the bits NI stays in, they have not opposed permanent Customs Union and as it already applies to the whole UK during the backstop. The SNP also back staying in the Customs Union (though they want to stay in the single market too)
One hopes that Theresa May quietly reflects on how badly she treated Nicky Morgan over trivia and how Ms Morgan has proved far more loyal when it counts than many of the erstwhile sycophants.
For the umpteenth time axing the backstop means No Deal as Juncker made clear last night 'it is this Deal or No Deal.'
The only outcome the EU might consider and could command a majority in Parliament as Corbyn backs it is the whole UK staying in the Customs Union permanently rather than temporarily as the backstop
Would remaining permanently in the CU enjoy a majority among Conservative MPs? I realise it wouldn't have to if Labour and the SNP supported it but how many Conservatives would oppose it?
ERG of circa 50 and some hardcore remainers say 10
Are there any leavers enthusiastic about this deal? The fact so many remainers are says a lot about how much this is a betrayal. Remainers cheering on this deal says about as much as if McDonnell was cheering on a Tory budget.
With all due respect, that's a terrible reason not to back the deal.
Dislike it for the backstop - although I think that's overrated because the real issue is a political one in Northern Ireland - but not because a substantial minority of our opponents like it.
I'm not saying that's a reason not to back the deal. The backstop is all the reason I need to agree with May's own maxim that "no deal is better than a bad deal". I would vote Nay if I were an MP due to the backstop, but if the backstop could be addressed that would be sufficient for me to vote Aye.
My point was not an argument just an example. When people who were supposed to be against what you're doing suddenly become quite in favour, while those who were in favour turn against - it's quite clear you're not doing what was originally expected.
The way to save this deal is to axe the backstop. That is the only outcome that can command a majority of Parliament. Is anyone brave enough to make Barnier and Varadkar see sense?
For the umpteenth time axing the backstop means No Deal as Juncker made clear last night 'it is this Deal or No Deal.'
The only outcome the EU might consider and could command a majority in Parliament as Corbyn backs it is the whole UK staying in the Customs Union permanently rather than temporarily as the backstop
For the umpteenth time axing the backstop means No Deal as Juncker made clear last night 'it is this Deal or No Deal.'
The only outcome the EU might consider and could command a majority in Parliament as Corbyn backs it is the whole UK staying in the Customs Union permanently rather than temporarily as the backstop
Would remaining permanently in the CU enjoy a majority among Conservative MPs? I realise it wouldn't have to if Labour and the SNP supported it but how many Conservatives would oppose it?
Many would but it would pass the Commons with Labour and SNP votes.
Many Tory MPs would also oppose staying in the single market with free movement and as Corbyn also opposes staying in the single market that would be more likely to fail than a vote to stay in the Customs Union
Yeah, Tory members and voters will just forget that their representatives just fucked them over harder than anyone's been fucked before. Of course, if you don't vote Tory, what you said.
Frankly, I do not give a d*mn about the survival of the Tory party. It is pandering to the Tory fringe that got us into this mess.
I wouldn't expect a foreign national to care about the Tories, any more than I care about Fianna Fáil or the CDU.
Lucky for me I am a dual Irish/UK national then.....
Any other ad hominem attacks you would like to try?
One hopes that Theresa May quietly reflects on how badly she treated Nicky Morgan over trivia and how Ms Morgan has proved far more loyal when it counts than many of the erstwhile sycophants.
Nicky Morgan is still the Minister who made the appalling, incredible, unforced and catastrophic error of appointing Amanda Spielman as head of OFSTED.
For that reason if no other Morgan needed the sack.
Which the EU won't accept, so it's not saving anything.
We don't know that for certain. The EU and the Irish haven't had to stir into the abyss and decide whether they prefer no deal or giving up on the backstop.
Why would the EU remove the backstop given that it still wouldn't guarantee passage of the WA through the House of Commons?
If the backstop was removed it would pass
Agreed. You and I (and many Aye and Nay Tories) aren't actually that far apart. It is the backstop that is the critical wedge.
My goal is May's deal minus the backstop. Would you find that agreeable? Would you back that?
Yes of course. I back it now, but that would be ideal though I am not holding my breath
Yeah, Tory members and voters will just forget that their representatives just fucked them over harder than anyone's been fucked before. Of course, if you don't vote Tory, what you said.
Frankly, I do not give a d*mn about the survival of the Tory party. It is pandering to the Tory fringe that got us into this mess.
I wouldn't expect a foreign national to care about the Tories, any more than I care about Fianna Fáil or the CDU.
Lucky for me I am a dual Irish/UK national then.....
Any other ad hominem attacks you would like to try?
You're the one who's been waving the Irish flag. You retain all your EU rights, so what is it to you? Why get so exercised by Tory machinations?
One hopes that Theresa May quietly reflects on how badly she treated Nicky Morgan over trivia and how Ms Morgan has proved far more loyal when it counts than many of the erstwhile sycophants.
May treated some people very badly when she was powerful.
It voted against making the choice before negotiations to stay in the Single Market. and the Customs Union. It didn't make the choice to definitively leave either, just to keep options open.
Which the EU won't accept, so it's not saving anything.
We don't know that for certain. The EU and the Irish haven't had to stir into the abyss and decide whether they prefer no deal or giving up on the backstop.
Why would the EU remove the backstop given that it still wouldn't guarantee passage of the WA through the House of Commons?
If the backstop was removed it would pass
Agreed. You and I (and many Aye and Nay Tories) aren't actually that far apart. It is the backstop that is the critical wedge.
My goal is May's deal minus the backstop. Would you find that agreeable? Would you back that?
Yes, because it would allow the deal to be amended in the future, and the many unresolved issues settled in the transitional period, without each and every EU country holding a gun to the UK's head and telling us to jump.
Likewise I would countenance a negotiated no deal withdrawal with ongoing trade talks to be settled at a later date.
Or Boles' EEA idea because only 12 months notice is needed to pull out of that.
Or even Remain because at least the decision to leave in future is one that could be unilaterally taken by the UK.
What I am not prepared to settle for is the national humiliation of being permanently locked into vassal status with it being ultimately up to the EU to decide whether the UK could ever escape from that.
There is no doubt the slippery Macron did May no favours with his fisheries comments. Probably hardened up opinion in the HoC this afternoon.
Of course permanent Customs Union reduces the need to resolve the future trading relationship and concede to Macron on fisheries
Dumb question, sorry, we can be in a permanent CU but out of the CFP and CAP yes?
That is Norway, as I understand it.
Being a member of the EEA
Edit to add: the EEA treaty also allows you to quit giving 12 months notice
So. We'd be in a Norway style agreement, with Farage, Boris et al touring the country promoting EEAexit almost immediately? Blaming immigrants for everything. Can't wait. What a prospect.
The prospects are not good considering how vicious and ugly a referendum or a GE would be.
I'm not sure the country could tolerate another referendum. It's such a bad idea on so many fronts.
On the other hand could the country tolerate NOT having another referendum?
Yes - it needs to avoid a nasty divisive process with no certain outlook. Norway is the way for lots of sound reasons
Most of the country will not care if Brexit stops - they will simply adjust their cynicism level upwards. Politics is already held in very low regard.
Those on the extremes who like to advocate violence will probably continue issuing threats, but like most keyboard warriors, nothing will come of it.
That leaves the Anorak Middle and that probably constitutes most loyal party followers who, no matter what their party does, will support it even if it is diametrically opposite to last week's policy.
OTOH - drive the UK off the WTO cliff and cause economic upsets and job losses, cancelled holidays or empty supermarkets and the protests will start.
I was referring to the campaign itself and the uncertain nature of the result
Norway saves us from that
If Norway / EEA is acceptable then we might as well remain. That way, say least, we have a say in things.
We are outside CAP and CFP with Norway+CU
Bearing in mind that we are planning to maintain agricultural subsidies and existing fishing quotas, are these really deal-breakers?
It continues to amaze me that supposedly intelligent people are saying ditch the backstop and all will be good.
Get it into your thick skulls that the backstop *is* the withdrawal agreement.
Does the backstop take 585 pages? Or do you want to get it into your thick skull that there is a ton more in the withdrawal agreement than the backstop?
The irony is at the start of this process it was suggested the EU would be harsh on the UK to prevent future exits, pour encourager let autres. But by pinning everything on the unique history of six counties it seems the EU has nothing positive to say about itself, and nothing negative about Brexit, and its simply Ireland that is the issue - with doesn't affect 'les autres'.
Are you saying that if the EU were to negotiate a withdrawal agreement with Sweden following a Swexit vote, that since they don't need the backstop not having their history with Ireland it would be a zero page agreement?
Mr Corbyn, I accuse you of failing to do your duty by not opposing in any real sense our government on the most important issue of our times – Brexit....
I had been a member of the Labour party until your non-position on the greatest issue of our times became apparent. It breaks my heart to have to write to you in this way, but you have given me no alternative. David Lammy, one of your most principled Labour MPs, said in an emotional speech last week that if you did not now lead the campaign for a people’s vote, Labour would be kept from office for a generation.
Which the EU won't accept, so it's not saving anything.
We don't know that for certain. The EU and the Irish haven't had to stir into the abyss and decide whether they prefer no deal or giving up on the backstop.
Why would the EU remove the backstop given that it still wouldn't guarantee passage of the WA through the House of Commons?
If the backstop was removed it would pass
If the EU wanted it to pass that badly they would have been more accommodating on that and other points. They didn't presumably because they were not prepared to concede on that point just for the sake of a deal.
We are where we are. Either we have a much closer relationship to the EU, or we exist completely blind (or near as), or we stay. There's not much point in wishing the negotiations had gone differently.
There is no doubt the slippery Macron did May no favours with his fisheries comments. Probably hardened up opinion in the HoC this afternoon.
Of course permanent Customs Union reduces the need to resolve the future trading relationship and concede to Macron on fisheries
Dumb question, sorry, we can be in a permanent CU but out of the CFP and CAP yes?
That is Norway, as I understand it.
Norway is not in the Customs Union, but is a member of the European Economic Area. They therefore have their own trade deals, but agree to implement all product (and services) standards for goods sold domestically as for the the rest of the EU. They are also a member of the Single Market for Labour.
Being a member of the EEA, like Norway, would mean:
- no CAP, no CFP - no EU law outside standards - single passport for financial services - substantially reduced payments - continued FoM
If it wasn't for the FoM, I think it would be a no brainer.
Edit to add: the EEA treaty also allows you to quit giving 12 months notice
We would have to be in the customs union because of Ireland and probably also to maintain automotive and other supply chains. The standards would apply across products, the environment, employment and services. We would delegate policy for those areas with no say over it. Which is a much bigger deal than people credit. Against that, and a point that is not sufficiently appreciated, Single Market rules do protect us from discrimination by others - a protection that doesn't exist with other forms of Brexit. We would probably continue to apply most of CAP.
The Financial Passport would somewhat protect the UK financial services industry but in a highly regulated business, it will lose out in terms of regulation which will increasingly be led by the ECB for EU provision.
Payments will be negotiated but I wouldn't expect them to be massively less than the net payments we made as members.
The Customs Union will limit our scope for independent trade agreements, but we will still probably get better trading arrangements than independently albeit less good than our previous arrangements through the EU.
We wouldn't necessarily join the EEA in this scenario but may have our own similar arrangement which includes a customs union.
In summary, the EEA has no advantages over membership, the rule taking is very problematic, but in terms of what we get, it is far better than any other form of Brexit.
Which the EU won't accept, so it's not saving anything.
We don't know that for certain. The EU and the Irish haven't had to stir into the abyss and decide whether they prefer no deal or giving up on the backstop.
Why would the EU remove the backstop given that it still wouldn't guarantee passage of the WA through the House of Commons?
If the backstop was removed it would pass
If the EU wanted it to pass that badly they would have been more accommodating on that and other points. They didn't presumably because they were not prepared to concede on that point just for the sake of a deal.
We are where we are. Either we have a much closer relationship to the EU, or we exist completely blind (or near as), or we stay.
No they haven't been more accommodating as they saw no need to be accommodating. They were negotiating with someone who was as much use as a chocolate teapot. They had no reason to give ground as we would - if Parliament turns down the deal and it turns out that we won't give ground they'll have to rethink.
It continues to amaze me that supposedly intelligent people are saying ditch the backstop and all will be good.
Get it into your thick skulls that the backstop *is* the withdrawal agreement.
Does the backstop take 585 pages? Or do you want to get it into your thick skull that there is a ton more in the withdrawal agreement than the backstop?
The irony is at the start of this process it was suggested the EU would be harsh on the UK to prevent future exits, pour encourager let autres. But by pinning everything on the unique history of six counties it seems the EU has nothing positive to say about itself, and nothing negative about Brexit, and its simply Ireland that is the issue - with doesn't affect 'les autres'.
Are you saying that if the EU were to negotiate a withdrawal agreement with Sweden following a Swexit vote, that since they don't need the backstop not having their history with Ireland it would be a zero page agreement?
I am saying that the rest is (EU)details. All that matters all that is causing issues and all that is important is the backstop.
Really, not to understand that disqualifies you from discussing the thing at all. Or should do.
Which the EU won't accept, so it's not saving anything.
We don't know that for certain. The EU and the Irish haven't had to stir into the abyss and decide whether they prefer no deal or giving up on the backstop.
Why would the EU remove the backstop given that it still wouldn't guarantee passage of the WA through the House of Commons?
If the backstop was removed it would pass
If the EU wanted it to pass that badly they would have been more accommodating on that and other points. They didn't presumably because they were not prepared to concede on that point just for the sake of a deal.
We are where we are. Either we have a much closer relationship to the EU, or we exist completely blind (or near as), or we stay.
No they haven't been more accommodating as they saw no need to be accommodating. They were negotiating with someone who was as much use as a chocolate teapot. They had no reason to give ground as we would - if Parliament turns down the deal and it turns out that we won't give ground they'll have to rethink.
We'll have to agree to disagree. This stance that the EU will suddenly do what we want if we are super duper serious does not strike me as believable, not least because the EU will continue to know we are not firm in that position - the Tories are not united, Labour won't back a Tory position and half the Commons wants to remain anyway. The weaknesses in our position are not all down to May however badly she has done, and it is ridiculous to think everything that has gone wrong is because she did not try hard enough.
There is no doubt the slippery Macron did May no favours with his fisheries comments. Probably hardened up opinion in the HoC this afternoon.
Of course permanent Customs Union reduces the need to resolve the future trading relationship and concede to Macron on fisheries
Dumb question, sorry, we can be in a permanent CU but out of the CFP and CAP yes?
That is Norway, as I understand it.
Being a member of the EEA
Edit to add: the EEA treaty also allows you to quit giving 12 months notice
So. We'd be in a Norway style agreement, with Farage, Boris et al touring the country promoting EEAexit almost immediately? Blaming immigrants for everything. Can't wait. What a prospect.
The prospects are not good considering how vicious and ugly a referendum or a GE would be.
I'm not sure the country could tolerate another referendum. It's such a bad idea on so many fronts.
On the other hand could the country tolerate NOT having another referendum?
Yes - it needs to avoid a nasty divisive process with no certain outlook. Norway is the way for lots of sound reasons
Most of the country will not care if Brexit
That leaves the Anorak Middle and that probably constitutes most loyal party followers who, no matter what their party does, will support it even if it is diametrically opposite to last week's policy.
OTOH - drive the UK off the WTO cliff and cause economic upsets and job losses, cancelled holidays or empty supermarkets and the protests will start.
I was referring to the campaign itself and the uncertain nature of the result
Norway saves us from that
If Norway / EEA is acceptable then we might as well remain. That way, say least, we have a say in things.
We are outside CAP and CFP with Norway+CU
Bearing in mind that we are planning to maintain agricultural subsidies and existing fishing quotas, are these really deal-breakers?
Yeah, Tory members and voters will just forget that their representatives just fucked them over harder than anyone's been fucked before. Of course, if you don't vote Tory, what you said.
Frankly, I do not give a d*mn about the survival of the Tory party. It is pandering to the Tory fringe that got us into this mess.
I wouldn't expect a foreign national to care about the Tories, any more than I care about Fianna Fáil or the CDU.
Lucky for me I am a dual Irish/UK national then.....
Any other ad hominem attacks you would like to try?
You're the one who's been waving the Irish flag. You retain all your EU rights, so what is it to you? Why get so exercised by Tory machinations?
Because the UK is my country too and I actually give a d*mn about it, not some party that is dragging us down with it because it lacks the courage to deal with its own internal extremists.
Self-destruct if you want to, but do not take the country with you.
No they haven't been more accommodating as they saw no need to be accommodating. They were negotiating with someone who was as much use as a chocolate teapot. They had no reason to give ground as we would - if Parliament turns down the deal and it turns out that we won't give ground they'll have to rethink.
We'll have to agree to disagree. This stance that the EU will suddenly do what we want if we are super duper serious does strike me as believable, not least because the EU will continue to know we are not firm in that position - the Tories are not united, Labour won't back a Tory position and half the Commons wants to remain anyway. The weaknesses in our position are not all down to May however badly she has done, and it is ridiculous to think everything that has gone wrong is because she did not try hard enough.
If May's deal is rejected by over 400 MPs as seems plausible, if May goes (either voluntarily or not) then yes the fact we are super duper serious comes into play. The fact that we are divided plays to the EU's strengths, but this is one area where there is no majority for compromise.
They have what they want and us over a barrel over too many other things to throw it all away on the backstop. If they get a choice of 2 more years with them having the upper hand in negotiations, us following all their years for 2 more years without a say in them, us handing them tens of billions of cash per annum for the next 2 years . . . the backstop is a price worth paying to secure all that. Not if they don't have to, but if they do have to they will.
Also it's very funny to think that having votes to leave one acronym-ridden European institution people would be happy to join another acronym-ridden one.
Yeah, Tory members and voters will just forget that their representatives just fucked them over harder than anyone's been fucked before. Of course, if you don't vote Tory, what you said.
Frankly, I do not give a d*mn about the survival of the Tory party. It is pandering to the Tory fringe that got us into this mess.
I wouldn't expect a foreign national to care about the Tories, any more than I care about Fianna Fáil or the CDU.
Lucky for me I am a dual Irish/UK national then.....
Any other ad hominem attacks you would like to try?
You're the one who's been waving the Irish flag. You retain all your EU rights, so what is it to you? Why get so exercised by Tory machinations?
Because the UK is my country too and I actually give a d*mn about it, not some party that is dragging us down with it because it lacks the courage to deal with its own internal extremists.
Self-destruct if you want to, but do not take the country with you.
The only people urging self-destruction on the Tories are those who want it to ignore its own members and the overwhelming majority of its voters.
Also it's very funny to think that having votes to leave one acronym-ridden European institution people would be happy to join another acronym-ridden one.
Bearing in mind that we are planning to maintain agricultural subsidies and existing fishing quotas, are these really deal-breakers?
Just Remain, and never speak of Brexit again.
Your last sentence is a fantasy
I agree. If we remained then it would be worth discussing the absolute pile of poo that was Brexit just to remind people of the difference between policy and fantasy.
BTW, it would also be worth posting up the money that Brexit has already cost - I have seen £500m per week mentioned which is more than our £350m p.w. membership (or more than twice our post-rebate membership of £248m per week). Put that on the side of a bus!
It is a shambles and it is a very expensive shambles and it gets costlier every week.
It continues to amaze me that supposedly intelligent people are saying ditch the backstop and all will be good.
Get it into your thick skulls that the backstop *is* the withdrawal agreement.
Does the backstop take 585 pages? Or do you want to get it into your thick skull that there is a ton more in the withdrawal agreement than the backstop?
The irony is at the start of this process it was suggested the EU would be harsh on the UK to prevent future exits, pour encourager let autres. But by pinning everything on the unique history of six counties it seems the EU has nothing positive to say about itself, and nothing negative about Brexit, and its simply Ireland that is the issue - with doesn't affect 'les autres'.
Are you saying that if the EU were to negotiate a withdrawal agreement with Sweden following a Swexit vote, that since they don't need the backstop not having their history with Ireland it would be a zero page agreement?
The WA agreement is pretty much two things - the transition and the backstop - plus protocols on Gibraltar and Cyprus.
WA without the backstop is a transition period followed by, er, deal or no deal? (I guess, even though no deal then becomes the backstop, and so the circle of life continues)
It continues to amaze me that supposedly intelligent people are saying ditch the backstop and all will be good.
Get it into your thick skulls that the backstop *is* the withdrawal agreement.
Does the backstop take 585 pages? Or do you want to get it into your thick skull that there is a ton more in the withdrawal agreement than the backstop?
The irony is at the start of this process it was suggested the EU would be harsh on the UK to prevent future exits, pour encourager let autres. But by pinning everything on the unique history of six counties it seems the EU has nothing positive to say about itself, and nothing negative about Brexit, and its simply Ireland that is the issue - with doesn't affect 'les autres'.
Are you saying that if the EU were to negotiate a withdrawal agreement with Sweden following a Swexit vote, that since they don't need the backstop not having their history with Ireland it would be a zero page agreement?
The WA agreement is pretty much two things - the transition and the backstop - plus protocols on Gibraltar and Cyprus.
WA without the backstop is a transition period followed by, er, deal or no deal? (I guess, even though no deal then becomes the backstop, and so the circle of life continues)
Indeed which is what should be the procedure. The 'er, deal or no deal'' is an issue to be negotiated during the transition.
It voted against making the choice before negotiations to stay in the Single Market. and the Customs Union. It didn't make the choice to definitively leave either, just to keep options open.
Yes and the fact it requires just 4 MPs to switch for a Commons majority for the UK to stay permanently in the Customs Union makes that the most likely end result if May's Deal fails
It voted against making the choice before negotiations to stay in the Single Market. and the Customs Union. It didn't make the choice to definitively leave either, just to keep options open.
Yes and the fact it requires just 4 MPs to switch for a Commons majority for the UK to stay permanently in the Customs Union makes that the most likely end result if May's Deal fails
If the EU agrees.
Can we please remember there are two parties in this?
Mr Corbyn, I accuse you of failing to do your duty by not opposing in any real sense our government on the most important issue of our times – Brexit....
I had been a member of the Labour party until your non-position on the greatest issue of our times became apparent. It breaks my heart to have to write to you in this way, but you have given me no alternative. David Lammy, one of your most principled Labour MPs, said in an emotional speech last week that if you did not now lead the campaign for a people’s vote, Labour would be kept from office for a generation.
Also it's very funny to think that having votes to leave one acronym-ridden European institution people would be happy to join another acronym-ridden one.
Dos the other acronym-ridden European institution need to steal our sovereignty for its own validity? Does it want an Army?
If Norway / EEA is acceptable then we might as well remain. That way, say least, we have a say in things.
We are outside CAP and CFP with Norway+CU
Because of the desire for free trade in agriculture between mainland UK and the EU and the need for it across Ireland, I would expect to stay substantially in CAP. While we might formally stay outside of the CFP, the real issue there is about foreign fishing licences. EU member states are VERY keen to maintain the status quo and will negotiate very hard, so I don't expect much change there either. The EEA is all being formally out of the institution of the EU while accepting a somewhat degraded version of it on a do as you are told basis.
Mr Corbyn, I accuse you of failing to do your duty by not opposing in any real sense our government on the most important issue of our times – Brexit....
I had been a member of the Labour party until your non-position on the greatest issue of our times became apparent. It breaks my heart to have to write to you in this way, but you have given me no alternative. David Lammy, one of your most principled Labour MPs, said in an emotional speech last week that if you did not now lead the campaign for a people’s vote, Labour would be kept from office for a generation.
Both major parties seem destined to be out of power for a generation yet all the smaller parties (outside Scotland) are flat on the back.
I think both parties will be propped up by people voting *against* the other, rather than *for* their choice. However, I think it's the Tories who are in real trouble. Their official title might be the 'Conservative and Unionist Party', but its English voting base are, based on surveys over the summer*, not very Unionist at all - but they are pretty damn Brexity.
Mr Corbyn, I accuse you of failing to do your duty by not opposing in any real sense our government on the most important issue of our times – Brexit....
I had been a member of the Labour party until your non-position on the greatest issue of our times became apparent. It breaks my heart to have to write to you in this way, but you have given me no alternative. David Lammy, one of your most principled Labour MPs, said in an emotional speech last week that if you did not now lead the campaign for a people’s vote, Labour would be kept from office for a generation.
Both major parties seem destined to be out of power for a generation yet all the smaller parties (outside Scotland) are flat on the back.
I think both parties will be propped up by people voting *against* the other, rather than *for* their choice. However, I think it's the Tories who are in real trouble. Their official title might be the 'Conservative and Unionist Party', but its English voting base are, based on surveys over the summer*, not very Unionist at all - but they are pretty damn Brexity.
It voted against making the choice before negotiations to stay in the Single Market. and the Customs Union. It didn't make the choice to definitively leave either, just to keep options open.
Yes and the fact it requires just 4 MPs to switch for a Commons majority for the UK to stay permanently in the Customs Union makes that the most likely end result if May's Deal fails
If the EU agrees.
Can we please remember there are two parties in this?
The EU will agree as the UK staying permanently in the Customs Union is basically exactly the same as the Deal except making the Customs Union element of the backstop permanent not temporary. The Deal can then just be amended on that basis and Corbyn and enough Labour MPs will back it to allow it to pass the Commons even if the ERG (as they want to leave the Customs Union and the Single Market), the SNP (as they want to stay in the Single Market as well as the Customs Union) and the DUP (as it would still see Northern Ireland stay in parts of the Single Market) still oppose it
Also it's very funny to think that having votes to leave one acronym-ridden European institution people would be happy to join another acronym-ridden one.
Dos the other acronym-ridden European institution need to steal our sovereignty for its own validity? Does it want an Army?
Theresa May faces calls from several parties to be included if she decides to hold a TV debate on her Brexit deal. Labour said Jeremy Corbyn would "relish" going head-to-head with the PM, in response to reports she wanted to challenge him to a TV showdown. The SNP, Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru and Greens have demanded to be involved to ensure a range of views is reflected. Meanwhile, Conservative MP Bernard Jenkin said a Brexiteer must be on the panel. No 10 has declined to comment.
Going to be like the standard CNN shouting match, I mean talking head panel discussion.
Also what happens if the 48 names reaches the point over the next few days?? Can May do any of this if she's facing a leadership challenge?
Seems like acceptance has been reached that it is best to wait until the deal is utterly, utterly crushed before replacing her, so it would seem odd to put in a letter before then , frankly.
Isn’t the meaningful vote not very meaningful though? In theory (although admittedly politically challenging) can’t Mrs May sign it without parliamentary approval?
It voted against making the choice before negotiations to stay in the Single Market. and the Customs Union. It didn't make the choice to definitively leave either, just to keep options open.
Yes and the fact it requires just 4 MPs to switch for a Commons majority for the UK to stay permanently in the Customs Union makes that the most likely end result if May's Deal fails
Was that not the vote for which two Tory MPs 'accidentally' broke their pairing agreement? Or when Cable & Faron were absent?
Also what happens if the 48 names reaches the point over the next few days?? Can May do any of this if she's facing a leadership challenge?
Seems like acceptance has been reached that it is best to wait until the deal is utterly, utterly crushed before replacing her, so it would seem odd to put in a letter before then , frankly.
Isn’t the meaningful vote not very meaningful though? In theory (although admittedly politically challenging) can’t Mrs May sign it without parliamentary approval?
It voted against making the choice before negotiations to stay in the Single Market. and the Customs Union. It didn't make the choice to definitively leave either, just to keep options open.
Yes and the fact it requires just 4 MPs to switch for a Commons majority for the UK to stay permanently in the Customs Union makes that the most likely end result if May's Deal fails
Was that not the vote for which two Tory MPs 'accidentally' broke their pairing agreement? Or when Cable & Faron were absent?
Am I missing something or is it really likely that the government could lose by 150-170 votes?
I'm thinking of something like :
Aye - 217
Con 214 Lab 2 Ind 1
No - 378
Con 75 Lab 238 SNP 35 LD 12 DUP 10 Plaid 4 Green 1 Ind 3
Abstain - 42
Con 25 Lab 15 Ind 2
(Don't ask who the Lab rebels are. They could be Eurosceptics; they could be 'mandate' voters believing they had to back such Brexit as is on offer; they could be so worried that they see what's on the table as the best - indeed, only - way of avoiding No Deal. It doesn't really matter - I doubt there'll be many at all but there is a fair possibility of a handful).
I can't really see why any SNP or LDs would break ranks and I can't see pairing operating on such a critical vote (not that that should make any difference anyway).
If the deal does go down by 161 or so, what does that mean for May? There will of course be calls for her to resign and I'd expect Lab to table an immediate VoNC. How she handles the 24 hours after the Brexit vote (and in particular, the 3 hours after it, to set the narrative), will be critical. Labour's VoNC should be enough to prevent an immediate Tory Confidence vote but after the government sees it off (as it should) - then what?
The big problem with deposing May is that it means that the government can't do anything for about two months while the Tories sort themselves out - and very probably not afterwards either as a Con leadership election could only be won on a Hard Brexit mandate. That might be fine if you're after a No Deal Brexit but few of the Con MPs are - and those that aren't should be able to do the numbers sufficiently to realise that there's a good chance that they couldn't carry a confidence vote for that very reason. Besides, as long as there's no Plan B, they might end up with a No Deal outcome anyway, except that they would appear a lot less culpable.
Also it's very funny to think that having votes to leave one acronym-ridden European institution people would be happy to join another acronym-ridden one.
Dos the other acronym-ridden European institution need to steal our sovereignty for its own validity? Does it want an Army?
1. Nonsense 2. Who cares?
The EU doesn't want an army, though some powerful people within it want to give the impression it does.
I'll believe it's a serious runner when Dublin is content for Irish squaddies to be sent to Africa under a French general by a Dutch politician to intervene in some civil war and protect an economic investment.
Am I missing something or is it really likely that the government could lose by 150-170 votes?
I'm thinking of something like :
Aye - 217
Con 214 Lab 2 Ind 1
No - 378
Con 75 Lab 238 SNP 35 LD 12 DUP 10 Plaid 4 Green 1 Ind 3
Abstain - 42
Con 25 Lab 15 Ind 2
(Don't ask who the Lab rebels are. They could be Eurosceptics; they could be 'mandate' voters believing they had to back such Brexit as is on offer; they could be so worried that they see what's on the table as the best - indeed, only - way of avoiding No Deal. It doesn't really matter - I doubt there'll be many at all but there is a fair possibility of a handful).
I can't really see why any SNP or LDs would break ranks and I can't see pairing operating on such a critical vote (not that that should make any difference anyway).
If the deal does go down by 161 or so, what does that mean for May? There will of course be calls for her to resign and I'd expect Lab to table an immediate VoNC. How she handles the 24 hours after the Brexit vote (and in particular, the 3 hours after it, to set the narrative), will be critical. Labour's VoNC should be enough to prevent an immediate Tory Confidence vote but after the government sees it off (as it should) - then what?
The big problem with deposing May is that it means that the government can't do anything for about two months while the Tories sort themselves out - and very probably not afterwards either as a Con leadership election could only be won on a Hard Brexit mandate. That might be fine if you're after a No Deal Brexit but few of the Con MPs are - and those that aren't should be able to do the numbers sufficiently to realise that there's a good chance that they couldn't carry a confidence vote for that very reason. Besides, as long as there's no Plan B, they might end up with a No Deal outcome anyway, except that they would appear a lot less culpable.
We already know the LD MP for Eastbourne is voting for the Deal
Comments
My goal is May's deal minus the backstop. Would you find that agreeable? Would you back that?
Many Tory MPs would also oppose staying in the single market with free movement and as Corbyn also opposes staying in the single market that would be more likely to fail than a vote to stay in the Customs Union
Any other ad hominem attacks you would like to try?
For that reason if no other Morgan needed the sack.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-politics-44474661
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-44864496
Get it into your thick skulls that the backstop *is* the withdrawal agreement.
Likewise I would countenance a negotiated no deal withdrawal with ongoing trade talks to be settled at a later date.
Or Boles' EEA idea because only 12 months notice is needed to pull out of that.
Or even Remain because at least the decision to leave in future is one that could be unilaterally taken by the UK.
What I am not prepared to settle for is the national humiliation of being permanently locked into vassal status with it being ultimately up to the EU to decide whether the UK could ever escape from that.
Just Remain, and never speak of Brexit again.
The irony is at the start of this process it was suggested the EU would be harsh on the UK to prevent future exits, pour encourager let autres. But by pinning everything on the unique history of six counties it seems the EU has nothing positive to say about itself, and nothing negative about Brexit, and its simply Ireland that is the issue - with doesn't affect 'les autres'.
Are you saying that if the EU were to negotiate a withdrawal agreement with Sweden following a Swexit vote, that since they don't need the backstop not having their history with Ireland it would be a zero page agreement?
Mr Corbyn, I accuse you of failing to do your duty by not opposing in any real sense our government on the most important issue of our times – Brexit....
I had been a member of the Labour party until your non-position on the greatest issue of our times became apparent. It breaks my heart to have to write to you in this way, but you have given me no alternative. David Lammy, one of your most principled Labour MPs, said in an emotional speech last week that if you did not now lead the campaign for a people’s vote, Labour would be kept from office for a generation.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/26/letter-jeremy-corbyn-peoples-vote-brexit-labour-gina-miller
We are where we are. Either we have a much closer relationship to the EU, or we exist completely blind (or near as), or we stay. There's not much point in wishing the negotiations had gone differently.
The Financial Passport would somewhat protect the UK financial services industry but in a highly regulated business, it will lose out in terms of regulation which will increasingly be led by the ECB for EU provision.
Payments will be negotiated but I wouldn't expect them to be massively less than the net payments we made as members.
The Customs Union will limit our scope for independent trade agreements, but we will still probably get better trading arrangements than independently albeit less good than our previous arrangements through the EU.
We wouldn't necessarily join the EEA in this scenario but may have our own similar arrangement which includes a customs union.
In summary, the EEA has no advantages over membership, the rule taking is very problematic, but in terms of what we get, it is far better than any other form of Brexit.
Really, not to understand that disqualifies you from discussing the thing at all. Or should do.
Self-destruct if you want to, but do not take the country with you.
They have what they want and us over a barrel over too many other things to throw it all away on the backstop. If they get a choice of 2 more years with them having the upper hand in negotiations, us following all their years for 2 more years without a say in them, us handing them tens of billions of cash per annum for the next 2 years . . . the backstop is a price worth paying to secure all that. Not if they don't have to, but if they do have to they will.
This is all game theory in action.
BTW, it would also be worth posting up the money that Brexit has already cost - I have seen £500m per week mentioned which is more than our £350m p.w. membership (or more than twice our post-rebate membership of £248m per week). Put that on the side of a bus!
It is a shambles and it is a very expensive shambles and it gets costlier every week.
WA without the backstop is a transition period followed by, er, deal or no deal? (I guess, even though no deal then becomes the backstop, and so the circle of life continues)
Can we please remember there are two parties in this?
*Lest we forget:
https://www.centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk/news/press-release-may’s-‘precious-union’-has-little-support-brexit-britainw
2. Who cares?
Trump / corbyn different cheeks of the same arse.
Going to be like the standard CNN shouting match, I mean talking head panel discussion.
I'm thinking of something like :
Aye - 217
Con 214
Lab 2
Ind 1
No - 378
Con 75
Lab 238
SNP 35
LD 12
DUP 10
Plaid 4
Green 1
Ind 3
Abstain - 42
Con 25
Lab 15
Ind 2
(Don't ask who the Lab rebels are. They could be Eurosceptics; they could be 'mandate' voters believing they had to back such Brexit as is on offer; they could be so worried that they see what's on the table as the best - indeed, only - way of avoiding No Deal. It doesn't really matter - I doubt there'll be many at all but there is a fair possibility of a handful).
I can't really see why any SNP or LDs would break ranks and I can't see pairing operating on such a critical vote (not that that should make any difference anyway).
If the deal does go down by 161 or so, what does that mean for May? There will of course be calls for her to resign and I'd expect Lab to table an immediate VoNC. How she handles the 24 hours after the Brexit vote (and in particular, the 3 hours after it, to set the narrative), will be critical. Labour's VoNC should be enough to prevent an immediate Tory Confidence vote but after the government sees it off (as it should) - then what?
The big problem with deposing May is that it means that the government can't do anything for about two months while the Tories sort themselves out - and very probably not afterwards either as a Con leadership election could only be won on a Hard Brexit mandate. That might be fine if you're after a No Deal Brexit but few of the Con MPs are - and those that aren't should be able to do the numbers sufficiently to realise that there's a good chance that they couldn't carry a confidence vote for that very reason. Besides, as long as there's no Plan B, they might end up with a No Deal outcome anyway, except that they would appear a lot less culpable.
I'll believe it's a serious runner when Dublin is content for Irish squaddies to be sent to Africa under a French general by a Dutch politician to intervene in some civil war and protect an economic investment.