As Yanis Varoufakis points out, the EU are masters of fudge. If they genuinely believed that a fudge would get May over the line, they'd give her whatever she wanted.
But they don't believe that. They rightly believe she cannot pass her deal. There is a stench of political death hanging around her, and they can all smell it. They simply will not go out on a limb for her.
FFS its 2018. Why do people still argue tariffs work?
I'm not talking about whats right and whats wrong, but on what is politically possible.
Conservative MPs, a great number of whom are from rural constituencies, are not going to vote to eliminate tariffs on the imports of agricultural produce from places with much lower costs of production. (And New Zealand land costs are perhaps 10% of that of the UK, so that would include NZ.)
When can we expect another YouTube video good sir?
Remain heading towards 60% on the latest YouGov. I remember when PBers said once polling reached 60% the game will change. Not there yet. But not far off.
Last night provided a very strong argument for remaining. Our politicians are simply not up to the job of negotiating on the world stage. I wish it wasn't so, but it is.
This is actually one of my reasons for leaving. Being in the EU has hollowed out our political class. Signing off directives is easier than having to think for yourself.
Easier money elsewhere has hollowed out our political classes. Nothing is going to fix that in a world with Social Media and 24 hour news - you have to be insane to do it for any money let alone the little you get paid.
Heck I work from home and rarely do anything and earn more than an MP does...
Commentators confirm the ERG position that if we leave on no deal in March the EU will be forced into erecting a border and they have a real blind spot on this
The EU has said they won't erect a hard border in any circumstances (as as ROI and UK? )
Have they? On the radio last night they were saying that they (and we) would be obliged to under WTO rules.
I thought WTO had said exceptions can be made when the political situation is particularly "delicate" like with NI and ROI?
Is there any truth in this?
Yes and No.
We could choose not to enforce a hard border but another nation could bring a complaint which could force a hard border.
“There is nothing in WTO rules that forces anyone to put up border posts,” said WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell on a visit to Dublin last week.
“Someone has to bring a complaint and say that their interests have been hurt.”
Given how many nations are looking to use the WTO to get a better deal from the UK a successful complaint is inevitable.
We must treat every country that shares a land border with us equally and fairly.
If only it was that simple.
Is there any example of the WTO insisting on a hard border even if it would cause political upheaval and possibly bloodshed?
I am really dubious that this would ever happen.
It's not about a physical border: it's about the explicit choice not to collect tariffs from a particular country.
The remedy the WTO would insist on would not be a border in Northern Ireland, but that the Uruguayan meat exporter was allowed to send their produce to the UK tariff free.
Which, by the way, means that the Professor Minford policy of "zero tariffs" would be a sensible way forward, except that it would be a disaster for rural seats in the rest of the UK.
Why would it be a disaster there? We set the standards and can tailor them somewhat to assist domestic producers. And if the Uruguayans can meet those standards then at least our consumers benefit.
If we set standards, who will enforce them and where? And if our standards are different from Europe's (or anyone else's) then exports will also need to be inspected.
As Yanis Varoufakis points out, the EU are masters of fudge. If they genuinely believed that a fudge would get May over the line, they'd give her whatever she wanted.
But they don't believe that. They rightly believe she cannot pass her deal. There is a stench of political death hanging around her, and they can all smell it. They simply will not go out on a limb for her.
I don't even think it's that. EUCO is a political body, not a legal one. The Commons doesn't want fudge, they want a legal undertaking. May is walking into a fishmongers and asking for a cabbage.
Looks like May's relationship with the main players in Europe has completely broken, needs to go.
I don't understand why the party kept her. No need to replace her with an ERGer. Someone sane in cabinet like Javid, Hunt or Gove could do the job.
Because there was a risk of an ERGer succeeding her.
As we’ve seen the ERG aren’t interested in compromise and welcome No Deal.
Whereas May is deadweight dragging us there.
The ERG have always said they are open to a deal but are ok with no deal. One of them in charge would, Nixon to China like, help get a deal over the line. If one of them takes over, gets the civil service in their ear, reaches a deal then that would be easier to ratify.
Why would it be a disaster there? We set the standards and can tailor them somewhat to assist domestic producers. And if the Uruguayans can meet those standards then at least our consumers benefit.
There are almost no agricultural products - whether milk, or wheat, or beef - where UK farmers are competitive with world prices. Our land is too expensive. Our farms are too small.
Look, I think we coddle our farmers, and it's just an industry like any other. We would be much better off being realistic, and saying "compete on the world stage, and let consumers decide if they want organic or GMO or not". But that's not going to fly with Conservative MPs in rural seats.
Commentators confirm the ERG position that if we leave on no deal in March the EU will be forced into erecting a border and they have a real blind spot on this
The EU has said they won't erect a hard border in any circumstances (as as ROI and UK? )
Is there any truth in this?
Yes and No.
We could choose not to enforce a hard border but another nation could bring a complaint which could force a hard border.
“There is nothing in WTO rules that forces anyone to put up border posts,” said WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell on a visit to Dublin last week.
“Someone has to bring a complaint and say that their interests have been hurt.”
Given how many nations are looking to use the WTO to get a better deal from the UK a successful complaint is inevitable.
We must treat every country that shares a land border with us equally and fairly.
If only it was that simple.
Is there any example of the WTO insisting on a hard border even if it would cause political upheaval and possibly bloodshed?
I am really dubious that this would ever happen.
If I'm a French milk
France or Denmark are not going to insist on a hard border in Ireland. Neither are Norway.
Do people really believe that they will?
The WTO would not insist on a hard border in Northern Ireland, they would say that the the French farmer should be allowed to export to the UK under the same terms as an Irish one. Effectively, the EU would get tariff free exports to the UK.
And the UK tariff free exports to the EU. Simples. Problem solved.
But then someone like Argentina kicks up a fuss and wins their complaint.
They have already been making noises.
This would give the EU the incentive to make a free trade deal with us. It's them blocking the deal and not us.
A hard border is not going to happen.
They are not blocking such a deal. Just the small matter of the UK signing the WA on the dotted line first.
Why would it be a disaster there? We set the standards and can tailor them somewhat to assist domestic producers. And if the Uruguayans can meet those standards then at least our consumers benefit.
If we set standards, who will enforce them and where? And if our standards are different from Europe's (or anyone else's) then exports will also need to be inspected.
No we could agree to the principle of mutual recognition in a trade deal.
Why would it be a disaster there? We set the standards and can tailor them somewhat to assist domestic producers. And if the Uruguayans can meet those standards then at least our consumers benefit.
There are almost no agricultural products - whether milk, or wheat, or beef - where UK farmers are competitive with world prices. Our land is too expensive. Our farms are too small.
Look, I think we coddle our farmers, and it's just an industry like any other. We would be much better off being realistic, and saying "compete on the world stage, and let consumers decide if they want organic or GMO or not". But that's not going to fly with Conservative MPs in rural seats.
Well then the argument should be that we can't leave on WTO terms because it would mean cheaper food for everyone and British famers will suffer and not scaremongering about a hard border.
The hard border is a complete red herring put about by people desperate to stay in the EU.
As Yanis Varoufakis points out, the EU are masters of fudge. If they genuinely believed that a fudge would get May over the line, they'd give her whatever she wanted.
But they don't believe that. They rightly believe she cannot pass her deal. There is a stench of political death hanging around her, and they can all smell it. They simply will not go out on a limb for her.
I don't even think it's that. EUCO is a political body, not a legal one. The Commons doesn't want fudge, they want a legal undertaking. May is walking into a fishmongers and asking for a cabbage.
EUCO communiques are legal documents. They are multilateral undertakings made by national leaders, that establish a policy direction for the Union.
They could be described as "legally binding" if you squint your brain a bit.
Sadly, in this case, the communique has reaffirmed the backstop, which is the opposite of what May was asking for.
As Yanis Varoufakis points out, the EU are masters of fudge. If they genuinely believed that a fudge would get May over the line, they'd give her whatever she wanted.
But they don't believe that. They rightly believe she cannot pass her deal. There is a stench of political death hanging around her, and they can all smell it. They simply will not go out on a limb for her.
I don't even think it's that. EUCO is a political body, not a legal one. The Commons doesn't want fudge, they want a legal undertaking. May is walking into a fishmongers and asking for a cabbage.
EUCO communiques are legal documents. They are multilateral undertakings made by national leaders, that establish a policy direction for the Union.
They could be described as "legally binding" if you squint your brain a bit.
Sadly, in this case, the communique has reaffirmed the backstop, which is the opposite of what May was asking for.
Because she won her vote of confidence. They are never going to give an iota more to May.
Commentators confirm the ERG position that if we leave on no deal in March the EU will be forced into erecting a border and they have a real blind spot on this
The EU has said they won't erect a hard border in any circumstances (as as ROI and UK? )
Is there any truth in this?
Yes and No.
“There is nothing in WTO rules that forces anyone to put up border posts,” said WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell on a visit to Dublin last week.
“Someone has to bring a complaint and say that their interests have been hurt.”
Given how many nations are looking to use the WTO to get a better deal from the UK a successful complaint is inevitable.
We must treat every country that shares a land border with us equally and fairly.
If only it was that simple.
I am really dubious that this would ever happen.
If I'm a French milk
Do people really believe that they will?
The WTO would not insist on a hard border in Northern Ireland, they would say that the the French farmer should be allowed to export to the UK under the same terms as an Irish one. Effectively, the EU would get tariff free exports to the UK.
And the UK tariff free exports to the EU. Simples. Problem solved.
But then someone like Argentina kicks up a fuss and wins their complaint.
They have already been making noises.
This would give the EU the incentive to make a free trade deal with us. It's them blocking the deal and not us.
A hard border is not going to happen.
They are not blocking such a deal. Just the small matter of the UK signing the WA on the dotted line first.
I'm talking about once we've left on WTO no deal. There will be no WA for them to peddle anymore, we would be in a completely different situation.
Then they would be open to negotiating on an even playing field and any WTO complaints would hasten a deal as it will be in both parties' interests.
Then they would be open to negotiating on an even playing field and any WTO complaints would hasten a deal as it will be in both parties' interests.
Here's the WTO director-general from 2005-2013 explaining how going from the Single Market to WTO terms is like going from the Premiership to the 4th division.
Commentators confirm the ERG position that if we leave on no deal in March the EU will be forced into erecting a border and they have a real blind spot on this
The EU has said they won't erect a hard border in any circumstances (as as ROI and UK? )
Have they? On the radio last night they were saying that they (and we) would be obliged to under WTO rules.
I thought WTO had said exceptions can be made when the political situation is particularly "delicate" like with NI and ROI?
Is there any truth in this?
Yes and No.
We could choose not to enforce a hard border but another nation could bring a complaint which could force a hard border.
“There is nothing in WTO rules that forces anyone to put up border posts,” said WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell on a visit to Dublin last week.
“Someone has to bring a complaint and say that their interests have been hurt.”
Given how many nations are looking to use the WTO to get a better deal from the UK a successful complaint is inevitable.
We must treat every country that shares a land border with us equally and fairly.
If only it was that simple.
Is there any example of the WTO insisting on a hard border even if it would cause political upheaval and possibly bloodshed?
I am really dubious that this would ever happen.
The WTO is just an admin office. It can't call in a UN peacekeeping force. We can have whatever border we wish.
The trouble is that if the UK diverges from the EU in its regulations then a hard border becomes necessary. It the UK doesn't diverge, then what exactly was the point of this whole Brexit business?
Why would it be a disaster there? We set the standards and can tailor them somewhat to assist domestic producers. And if the Uruguayans can meet those standards then at least our consumers benefit.
If we set standards, who will enforce them and where? And if our standards are different from Europe's (or anyone else's) then exports will also need to be inspected.
No we could agree to the principle of mutual recognition in a trade deal.
Yes, but we cannot have mutual recognition of two completely different standards without inspections.
Remain heading towards 60% on the latest YouGov. I remember when PBers said once polling reached 60% the game will change. Not there yet. But not far off.
I think the exact phrase was 'wake me up when remain reaches 60%'. In the meantime they are presumably still asleep.
Commentators confirm the ERG position that if we leave on no deal in March the EU will be forced into erecting a border and they have a real blind spot on this
The EU has said they won't erect a hard border in any circumstances (as as ROI and UK? )
Have they? On the radio last night they were saying that they (and we) would be obliged to under WTO rules.
I thought WTO had said exceptions can be made when the political situation is particularly "delicate" like with NI and ROI?
Is there any truth in this?
Yes and No.
We could choose not to enforce a hard border but another nation could bring a complaint which could force a hard border.
“There is nothing in WTO rules that forces anyone to put up border posts,” said WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell on a visit to Dublin last week.
“Someone has to bring a complaint and say that their interests have been hurt.”
Given how many nations are looking to use the WTO to get a better deal from the UK a successful complaint is inevitable.
We must treat every country that shares a land border with us equally and fairly.
If only it was that simple.
Is there any example of the WTO insisting on a hard border even if it would cause political upheaval and possibly bloodshed?
I am really dubious that this would ever happen.
The WTO is just an admin office. It can't call in a UN peacekeeping force. We can have whatever border we wish.
The trouble is that if the UK diverges from the EU in its regulations then a hard border becomes necessary. It the UK doesn't diverge, then what exactly was the point of this whole Brexit business?
No it isn't necessary. Mutual recognition is an alternative option but the EU don't want to give us that.
Why would it be a disaster there? We set the standards and can tailor them somewhat to assist domestic producers. And if the Uruguayans can meet those standards then at least our consumers benefit.
If we set standards, who will enforce them and where? And if our standards are different from Europe's (or anyone else's) then exports will also need to be inspected.
No we could agree to the principle of mutual recognition in a trade deal.
Yes, but we cannot have mutual recognition of two completely different standards without inspections.
Yes we can. That's the whole point of mutual recognition. When we first joined the EEC mutual recognition is the principle that underpinned most trade within it.
Remain heading towards 60% on the latest YouGov. I remember when PBers said once polling reached 60% the game will change. Not there yet. But not far off.
I think the exact phrase was 'wake me up when remain reaches 60%'. In the meantime they are presumably still asleep.
I've always been up for a second referendum. Democracy is a process not an event. Just make it happen, I don't see why I should have to do all the work around here.
Commentators confirm the ERG position that if we leave on no deal in March the EU will be forced into erecting a border and they have a real blind spot on this
The EU has said they won't erect a hard border in any circumstances (as as ROI and UK? )
Have they? On the radio last night they were saying that they (and we) would be obliged to under WTO rules.
I thought WTO had said exceptions can be made when the political situation is particularly "delicate" like with NI and ROI?
Is there any truth in this?
Yes and No.
We could choose not to enforce a hard border but another nation could bring a complaint which could force a hard border.
“There is nothing in WTO rules that forces anyone to put up border posts,” said WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell on a visit to Dublin last week.
“Someone has to bring a complaint and say that their interests have been hurt.”
Given how many nations are looking to use the WTO to get a better deal from the UK a successful complaint is inevitable.
We must treat every country that shares a land border with us equally and fairly.
If only it was that simple.
Is there any example of the WTO insisting on a hard border even if it would cause political upheaval and possibly bloodshed?
I am really dubious that this would ever happen.
The WTO is just an admin office. It can't call in a UN peacekeeping force. We can have whatever border we wish.
The trouble is that if the UK diverges from the EU in its regulations then a hard border becomes necessary. It the UK doesn't diverge, then what exactly was the point of this whole Brexit business?
No it isn't necessary. Mutual recognition is an alternative option but the EU don't want to give us that.
I remember mutual recognition of drug licensing when the EMA was still new. I don't recommend it.
Remain heading towards 60% on the latest YouGov. I remember when PBers said once polling reached 60% the game will change. Not there yet. But not far off.
I think the exact phrase was 'wake me up when remain reaches 60%'. In the meantime they are presumably still asleep.
I've always been up for a second referendum. Democracy is a process not an event. Just make it happen, I don't see why I should have to do all the work around here.
If you adjust for don't knows, it is very close to that threshold now.
No it isn't necessary. Mutual recognition is an alternative option but the EU don't want to give us that.
Mutual recognition applies *only* to goods that are outside of EU harmonisation. Believing that the EU would give the UK, and only the UK, untrammeled permission to water down any and all EU standards as it saw fit, and carry on trading with the EU regardless?
Insanity. It's cake and unicorns. It's a unicorn made of cake.
Why would it be a disaster there? We set the standards and can tailor them somewhat to assist domestic producers. And if the Uruguayans can meet those standards then at least our consumers benefit.
If we set standards, who will enforce them and where? And if our standards are different from Europe's (or anyone else's) then exports will also need to be inspected.
No we could agree to the principle of mutual recognition in a trade deal.
Yes, but we cannot have mutual recognition of two completely different standards without inspections.
Yes we can. That's the whole point of mutual recognition.
No we can't. It only works once. As soon as you introduce a second such deal with a third country, you need inspections. Otherwise how does country A know we are not trying to slip them goods made to country B's different standards?
Why would it be a disaster there? We set the standards and can tailor them somewhat to assist domestic producers. And if the Uruguayans can meet those standards then at least our consumers benefit.
If we set standards, who will enforce them and where? And if our standards are different from Europe's (or anyone else's) then exports will also need to be inspected.
No we could agree to the principle of mutual recognition in a trade deal.
Yes, but we cannot have mutual recognition of two completely different standards without inspections.
Yes we can. That's the whole point of mutual recognition. When we first joined the EEC mutual recognition is the principle that underpinned most trade within it.
Again, mutual recognition applies only to markets where there has been no EU harmonisation.
This may come as a surprise to you, but there's been a *lot* of harmonisation in the last four decades.
Remain heading towards 60% on the latest YouGov. I remember when PBers said once polling reached 60% the game will change. Not there yet. But not far off.
I think the exact phrase was 'wake me up when remain reaches 60%'. In the meantime they are presumably still asleep.
I've always been up for a second referendum. Democracy is a process not an event. Just make it happen, I don't see why I should have to do all the work around here.
If you adjust for don't knows, it is very close to that threshold now.
I've never insisted on any threshold. Behold the Tories. Behold Labour. One of them needs to instigate a referendum. Only they need to do it sharpish on account of the UK trundling inexorably towards the bright sunlit uplands/crocodile pit of doom (delete according to your sensibilities) on March 29th.
Why would it be a disaster there? We set the standards and can tailor them somewhat to assist domestic producers. And if the Uruguayans can meet those standards then at least our consumers benefit.
If we set standards, who will enforce them and where? And if our standards are different from Europe's (or anyone else's) then exports will also need to be inspected.
No we could agree to the principle of mutual recognition in a trade deal.
Yes, but we cannot have mutual recognition of two completely different standards without inspections.
Yes we can. That's the whole point of mutual recognition.
No we can't. It only works once. As soon as you introduce a second such deal with a third country, you need inspections. Otherwise how does country A know we are not trying to slip them goods made to country B's different standards?
If the DUP want to kill the hated Deal. They just need to vote with Labour on a VONC
Simples
Why would they give up their stranglehold on the Tories ?
If the DUP VONC the government simply as a warning shot. Vote with Labour, government falls. 14 day clock starts ticking. May would then be forced to find her majority somewhere else. Practically, that would leave May only one other option: the Lib Dems. I really doubt the DUP are minded to drive May into the arms of the Lib Dems.
Cable's price would be a 2nd referendum.
Well at least it breaks the deadlock and avoids Corbyn as PM.
Commentators confirm the ERG position that if we leave on no deal in March the EU will be forced into erecting a border and they have a real blind spot on this
The EU has said they won't erect a hard border in any circumstances (as as ROI and UK? )
Have they? On the radio last night they were saying that they (and we) would be obliged to under WTO rules.
I thought WTO had said exceptions can be made when the political situation is particularly "delicate" like with NI and ROI?
Is there any truth in this?
Yes and No.
We could choose not to enforce a hard border but another nation could bring a complaint which could force a hard border.
“There is nothing in WTO rules that forces anyone to put up border posts,” said WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell on a visit to Dublin last week.
“Someone has to bring a complaint and say that their interests have been hurt.”
Given how many nations are looking to use the WTO to get a better deal from the UK a successful complaint is inevitable.
We must treat every country that shares a land border with us equally and fairly.
If only it was that simple.
Is there any example of the WTO insisting on a hard border even if it would cause political upheaval and possibly bloodshed?
I am really dubious that this would ever happen.
The WTO is just an admin office. It can't call in a UN peacekeeping force. We can have whatever border we wish.
The trouble is that if the UK diverges from the EU in its regulations then a hard border becomes necessary. It the UK doesn't diverge, then what exactly was the point of this whole Brexit business?
No it isn't necessary. Mutual recognition is an alternative option but the EU don't want to give us that.
I remember mutual recognition of drug licensing when the EMA was still new. I don't recommend it.
So it's ok for Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Israel, Japan, Switzerland and USA but not us?
Why would it be a disaster there? We set the standards and can tailor them somewhat to assist domestic producers. And if the Uruguayans can meet those standards then at least our consumers benefit.
If we set standards, who will enforce them and where? And if our standards are different from Europe's (or anyone else's) then exports will also need to be inspected.
No we could agree to the principle of mutual recognition in a trade deal.
Yes, but we cannot have mutual recognition of two completely different standards without inspections.
Yes we can. That's the whole point of mutual recognition. When we first joined the EEC mutual recognition is the principle that underpinned most trade within it.
Again, mutual recognition applies only to markets where there has been no EU harmonisation.
This may come as a surprise to you, but there's been a *lot* of harmonisation in the last four decades.
Within the EU it does. Not with external trade deals and we would be external. Hence why the EMA (harmonied) has mutual recognition with others in trade deals.
Opinium has Remain leading 45% to 33% over the Deal, in a second referendum. Switchers from Leave to Remain, and Remain to Deal cancel each other out, but far more Leavers than Remainers are undecided.
Deal would likely win, if enough Brexiters could bring themselves to support it.
Supplementary questions suggest how that could be achieved.
Mr. T, shifts in sentiment only matter if there's another referendum. It's a credible possibility but far from nailed on.
(I hedged my 6.5 on one happening by backing 1.72 on it not a day or two ago).
By next year it will have percolated through to the public that we indeed heading for a big crash. It may only cause whiplash and bruises, or it may break an arm, both legs and take out an eye. Either way, no one denies we are heading towards a significant jolt.
The polls could swing 65-35 Remain/Leave, even 70-30. Could any prime minister ignore that?
Why would it be a disaster there? We set the standards and can tailor them somewhat to assist domestic producers. And if the Uruguayans can meet those standards then at least our consumers benefit.
If we set standards, who will enforce them and where? And if our standards are different from Europe's (or anyone else's) then exports will also need to be inspected.
No we could agree to the principle of mutual recognition in a trade deal.
Yes, but we cannot have mutual recognition of two completely different standards without inspections.
Yes we can. That's the whole point of mutual recognition.
No we can't. It only works once. As soon as you introduce a second such deal with a third country, you need inspections. Otherwise how does country A know we are not trying to slip them goods made to country B's different standards?
Several, yes, but not many, hardly comprehensive, and they still depend on inspections, not magic. It is just accepting that it can be done in the other country.
Commentators confirm the ERG position that if we leave on no deal in March the EU will be forced into erecting a border and they have a real blind spot on this
The EU has said they won't erect a hard border in any circumstances (as as ROI and UK? )
Have they? On the radio last night they were saying that they (and we) would be obliged to under WTO rules.
?
Is there any truth in this?
Yes and No. r.
“There is nothing in WTO rules that forces anyone to put up border posts,” said WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell on a visit to Dublin last week.
“Someone has to bring a complaint and say that their interests have been hurt.”
Given how many nations are looking to use the WTO to get a better deal from the UK a successful complaint is inevitable.
We must treat every country that shares a land border with us equally and fairly.
If only it was that simple.
Is there any example of the WTO insisting on a hard border even if it would cause political upheaval and possibly bloodshed?
I am really dubious that this would ever happen.
The WTO is just an admin office. It can't call in a UN peacekeeping force. We can have whatever border we wish.
The trouble is that if the UK diverges from the EU in its regulations then a hard border becomes necessary. It the UK doesn't diverge, then what exactly was the point of this whole Brexit business?
No it isn't necessary. Mutual recognition is an alternative option but the EU don't want to give us that.
I remember mutual recognition of drug licensing when the EMA was still new. I don't recommend it.
So it's ok for Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Israel, Japan, Switzerland and USA but not us?
I think he exaggerated a little for dramatic effect, but I heard a talk about the international harmonisation of the pharmacopeial monograph for benzyl alcohol, which took from something like 1854 to 1992 to agree. Sure you can do it, but it isn't fun.
Why would it be a disaster there? We set the standards and can tailor them somewhat to assist domestic producers. And if the Uruguayans can meet those standards then at least our consumers benefit.
If we set standards, who will enforce them and where? And if our standards are different from Europe's (or anyone else's) then exports will also need to be inspected.
No we could agree to the principle of mutual recognition in a trade deal.
Yes, but we cannot have mutual recognition of two completely different standards without inspections.
Yes we can. That's the whole point of mutual recognition.
No we can't. It only works once. As soon as you introduce a second such deal with a third country, you need inspections. Otherwise how does country A know we are not trying to slip them goods made to country B's different standards?
Several, yes, but not many, hardly comprehensive, and they still depend on inspections, not magic. It is just accepting that it can be done in the other country.
Bingo! No magic and not at the border.
We sign a mutual recognition agreement with the EU. We do inspections at businesses within the country.
No magic. No hard border. No unicorns, fairies or cake.
No magic. No hard border. No unicorns, fairies or cake.
All it takes is for the EU to wind back 40 years of harmonization and completely rewrite the very foundation of the single market as it has existed since the early 90s!
Clear where the momentum is heading here. And surely it is going to move even more in that direction by early next year....
OK. These are big shifts. Finally. The stupid, witless, jellified, cowardly, spineless proles have got the heebie-jeebies, thank God.
Let's have another vote.
No.
Why do you hate democracy?
Because democracy is generally expressed through parliament, yet, right now, parliament is literally incapable of making a decision. There is a majority against No Deal, there is a majority against the only Deal on offer. It is the very definition of an impasse.
With parliament entirely paralysed, I think it is fair to go for the only other solution (none of this is ideal, clearly) and hand the choice back to the people.
I genuinely do not know who would win, but at least it is closer to sensible democracy than the shambling omnifuck we see in the Commons daily.
the considered view of the regulars after several pints last night was theyre all a shower of shit. One bloke asked who would you vote for today and nobody in the pub could think of anyone. Across the board the politicans are damaging themselves.
Clear where the momentum is heading here. And surely it is going to move even more in that direction by early next year....
OK. These are big shifts. Finally. The stupid, witless, jellified, cowardly, spineless proles have got the heebie-jeebies, thank God.
Let's have another vote.
No.
Why do you hate democracy?
Because democracy is generally expressed through parliament, yet, right now, parliament is literally incapable of making a decision. There is a majority against No Deal, there is a majority against the only Deal on offer. It is the very definition of an impasse.
With parliament entirely paralysed, I think it is fair to go for the only other solution (none of this is ideal, clearly) and hand the choice back to the people.
I genuinely do not know who would win, but at least it is closer to sensible democracy than the shambling omnifuck we see in the Commons daily.
We made the decision in June 2016.
The country was told No Deal was a possibility but they still voted Leave.
Say we have another referendum and Remain wins are Leavers going to accept it? Hell no.
We’ll be in never ending referenda.
The only way this is solved is by experiencing a few years outside the EU.
Clear where the momentum is heading here. And surely it is going to move even more in that direction by early next year....
OK. These are big shifts. Finally. The stupid, witless, jellified, cowardly, spineless proles have got the heebie-jeebies, thank God.
Let's have another vote.
No.
Why do you hate democracy?
Because democracy is generally expressed through parliament, yet, right now, parliament is literally incapable of making a decision. There is a majority against No Deal, there is a majority against the only Deal on offer. It is the very definition of an impasse.
With parliament entirely paralysed, I think it is fair to go for the only other solution (none of this is ideal, clearly) and hand the choice back to the people.
I genuinely do not know who would win, but at least it is closer to sensible democracy than the shambling omnifuck we see in the Commons daily.
The people have already voted to Leave so presumably you would be asking the people to choose by which route to Leave?
Clear where the momentum is heading here. And surely it is going to move even more in that direction by early next year....
OK. These are big shifts. Finally. The stupid, witless, jellified, cowardly, spineless proles have got the heebie-jeebies, thank God.
Let's have another vote.
No.
Why do you hate democracy?
Because democracy is generally expressed through parliament, yet, right now, parliament is literally incapable of making a decision. There is a majority against No Deal, there is a majority against the only Deal on offer. It is the very definition of an impasse.
With parliament entirely paralysed, I think it is fair to go for the only other solution (none of this is ideal, clearly) and hand the choice back to the people.
I genuinely do not know who would win, but at least it is closer to sensible democracy than the shambling omnifuck we see in the Commons daily.
the considered view of the regulars after several pints last night was theyre all a shower of shit. One bloke asked who would you vote for today and nobody in the pub could think of anyone. Across the board the politicans are damaging themselves.
Remain heading towards 60% on the latest YouGov. I remember when PBers said once polling reached 60% the game will change. Not there yet. But not far off.
I think the exact phrase was 'wake me up when remain reaches 60%'. In the meantime they are presumably still asleep.
I've always been up for a second referendum. Democracy is a process not an event. Just make it happen, I don't see why I should have to do all the work around here.
I guess that what happens is somewhat defined by what is happening in marginal Labour seats in the Midlands and Northern suburbs. If local canvassing indicates that those have tipped from Leave to Remain, it might change things a bit.
Clear where the momentum is heading here. And surely it is going to move even more in that direction by early next year....
OK. These are big shifts. Finally. The stupid, witless, jellified, cowardly, spineless proles have got the heebie-jeebies, thank God.
Let's have another vote.
No.
Why do you hate democracy?
Because democracy is generally expressed through parliament, yet, right now, parliament is literally incapable of making a decision. There is a majority against No Deal, there is a majority against the only Deal on offer. It is the very definition of an impasse.
With parliament entirely paralysed, I think it is fair to go for the only other solution (none of this is ideal, clearly) and hand the choice back to the people.
I genuinely do not know who would win, but at least it is closer to sensible democracy than the shambling omnifuck we see in the Commons daily.
The people have already voted to Leave so presumably you would be asking the people to choose by which route to Leave?
That is indeed what most respondents to the Opinium poll I cited think.
No magic. No hard border. No unicorns, fairies or cake.
All it takes is for the EU to wind back 40 years of harmonization and completely rewrite the very foundation of the single market as it has existed since the early 90s!
WHAT IS UNREASONABLE ABOUT THAT REQUEST?
Well if they want to keep the border open ...
... plus they have done it for other countries.
It is a legitimate, viable solution. Just because they don't like the idea does not make it less so.
Clear where the momentum is heading here. And surely it is going to move even more in that direction by early next year....
OK. These are big shifts. Finally. The stupid, witless, jellified, cowardly, spineless proles have got the heebie-jeebies, thank God.
Let's have another vote.
Hold on. Didn't you vote for all this? Or did I miss something?
You missed SeanT's flip-flopping.,. you should be used to it by now.
but the numbers and the 'big mo' are going one way really..
Let's stay and piss inside their tent....
I think theyll get the full bladder. In an election if the stay in option is used we'll have a reaction like the SNP boost post Indyref imo. We will send a lot of very pissed off disruptive people to Brussels.
Clear where the momentum is heading here. And surely it is going to move even more in that direction by early next year....
OK. These are big shifts. Finally. The stupid, witless, jellified, cowardly, spineless proles have got the heebie-jeebies, thank God.
Let's have another vote.
Hold on. Didn't you vote for all this? Or did I miss something?
Yep, I voted for this. I still think it was the right moral choice. We should be Out. I had under-estimated, however, the complete nightmare that is Article 50 (which, of course, should not and would not exist if we had been given our promised referendum, and then voted down the Lisbon Treaty).
Leaving under A50 without extreme pain is almost impossible. It is definitely impossible if you are led by a stubborn, autistic heifer with the political skills of the Ebola virus. From that first speech setting out her red lines, to the needless triggering of A50, on and on she went, error after error.
Now we are truly screwed.
Article 50 would still exist (although of course be of no relevance to us).
I do query, however, the assumption that 'no' would have won a referendum on the Lisbon treaty (pre-Brown's signing), or that a 'no' would have automatically have led to us leaving the EU.
A referendum on Lisbon *after* Brown had signed would have been an expensive and meaningless affair.
Clear where the momentum is heading here. And surely it is going to move even more in that direction by early next year....
OK. These are big shifts. Finally. The stupid, witless, jellified, cowardly, spineless proles have got the heebie-jeebies, thank God.
Let's have another vote.
No.
Why do you hate democracy?
Because democracy is generally expressed through parliament, yet, right now, parliament is literally incapable of making a decision. There is a majority against No Deal, there is a majority against the only Deal on offer. It is the very definition of an impasse.
With parliament entirely paralysed, I think it is fair to go for the only other solution (none of this is ideal, clearly) and hand the choice back to the people.
I genuinely do not know who would win, but at least it is closer to sensible democracy than the shambling omnifuck we see in the Commons daily.
We made the decision in June 2016.
The country was told No Deal was a possibility but they still voted Leave.
Say we have another referendum and Remain wins are Leavers going to accept it? Hell no.
We’ll be in never ending referenda.
The only way this is solved is by experiencing a few years outside the EU.
If a second referendum did result in our staying in, because enough Leavers stayed at home, there would likely be considerable buyers' remorse.
Again, Opinium have 57% believing we'll just be asked again until we give the "right" answer.
Clear where the momentum is heading here. And surely it is going to move even more in that direction by early next year....
OK. These are big shifts. Finally. The stupid, witless, jellified, cowardly, spineless proles have got the heebie-jeebies, thank God.
Let's have another vote.
Two years of project fear and bleating about how "impossible" it is and then make us vote again.
It was obvious from the start that they'd never let us leave.
Nonsense. We can leave, there's a perfectly good deal on the table, all 500+ pages of it fully agreed. It can come into force on the 29th March.
Bizarrely, though, a significant group of those who campaigned for exactly what is on the table have decided to throw their toys out of the pram. Lord only knows why, but that's what they are doing. They have trashed the deal, and therefore they have trashed Brexit. Up to them, of course, but you can't blame Remainers, or the government, for the fact that Brexiteers have changed their minds when faced with Brexit.
Anecdote. I sat down with my 23 year old wife last night and explained, as non-patronisingly as possible, exactly what Brexit means, and what No Deal could entail (she asked me to tell her, I did not offer this pompous advice)
She was sincerely horrified. She had literally no clue about any of it. She is smart, has 3As at A Level, went to SOAS (tho dropped out because it's too PC), etc. She just finds the news boring and depressing and avoids it. She says all of her friends are the same, none of them think or talk about Brexit, let alone worry about it. She also reckons this is true of much of her family, and relatives.
How many are like her. Have no real idea what is happening, or about to happen?
A lot - The fall out from No Deal is going to come as shock to a lot of people.
Commentators confirm the ERG position that if we leave on no deal in March the EU will be forced into erecting a border and they have a real blind spot on this
The EU has said they won't erect a hard border in any circumstances (as as ROI and UK? )
Is there any truth in this?
Yes and No.
“There is nothing in WTO rules that forces anyone to put up border posts,” said WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell on a visit to Dublin last week.
“Someone has to bring a complaint and say that their interests have been hurt.”
Comments
But they don't believe that. They rightly believe she cannot pass her deal. There is a stench of political death hanging around her, and they can all smell it. They simply will not go out on a limb for her.
Heck I work from home and rarely do anything and earn more than an MP does...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/14/labour-prepare-second-referendum-peoples-vote
https://twitter.com/tony_nog/status/1073534471385829377
The ERG have always said they are open to a deal but are ok with no deal. One of them in charge would, Nixon to China like, help get a deal over the line. If one of them takes over, gets the civil service in their ear, reaches a deal then that would be easier to ratify.
Look, I think we coddle our farmers, and it's just an industry like any other. We would be much better off being realistic, and saying "compete on the world stage, and let consumers decide if they want organic or GMO or not". But that's not going to fly with Conservative MPs in rural seats.
No we could agree to the principle of mutual recognition in a trade deal.
The hard border is a complete red herring put about by people desperate to stay in the EU.
They could be described as "legally binding" if you squint your brain a bit.
Sadly, in this case, the communique has reaffirmed the backstop, which is the opposite of what May was asking for.
Then they would be open to negotiating on an even playing field and any WTO complaints would hasten a deal as it will be in both parties' interests.
increasingly looking like the gilets jaunes are back on the streets tomorrow
http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2018/12/14/01016-20181214ARTFIG00072-gilets-jaunes-acte-v-la-prefecture-de-police-se-prepare-au-scenario-le-plus-difficile.php
https://twitter.com/JezzyB/status/1070801726515625986
The trouble is that if the UK diverges from the EU in its regulations then a hard border becomes necessary. It the UK doesn't diverge, then what exactly was the point of this whole Brexit business?
https://twitter.com/iainjwatson/status/1073538476241547264
https://twitter.com/jamescrisp6/status/1073378170898919424?s=21
Insanity. It's cake and unicorns. It's a unicorn made of cake.
My deal is the only deal on the table.
I am getting on with the job of delivering Brexit.
This may come as a surprise to you, but there's been a *lot* of harmonisation in the last four decades.
I’m really looking forward to No Deal.
We survived WWII we can survive this.
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/research-development/compliance/good-manufacturing-practice/mutual-recognition-agreements-mra
Soon no more whining supercilious Adonis on our screens.
Trump is about to get impeached.
(I hedged my 6.5 on one happening by backing 1.72 on it not a day or two ago).
A bit of short term pain for the long term gain of Rejoining.
...OK, so it might have been a primary school class on a trip, but they looked the part!
Why do you hate democracy?
Opinium has Remain leading 45% to 33% over the Deal, in a second referendum. Switchers from Leave to Remain, and Remain to Deal cancel each other out, but far more Leavers than Remainers are undecided.
Deal would likely win, if enough Brexiters could bring themselves to support it.
Supplementary questions suggest how that could be achieved.
Sigh.
Then I remembered who our PM is
I think that question's been answered just recently.
He can’t say he wasn’t warned about No Deal.
He needs to sack up.
http://www.historynet.com/a-kamikaze-who-lived-to-tell-the-tale.htm
Is it a Brexit?
Is it a Brexit?
We sign a mutual recognition agreement with the EU. We do inspections at businesses within the country.
No magic. No hard border. No unicorns, fairies or cake.
WHAT IS UNREASONABLE ABOUT THAT REQUEST?
The country was told No Deal was a possibility but they still voted Leave.
Say we have another referendum and Remain wins are Leavers going to accept it? Hell no.
We’ll be in never ending referenda.
The only way this is solved is by experiencing a few years outside the EU.
but the numbers and the 'big mo' are going one way really..
Let's stay and piss inside their tent....
... plus they have done it for other countries.
It is a legitimate, viable solution. Just because they don't like the idea does not make it less so.
It was obvious from the start that they'd never let us leave.
We live in bounteous times.
I do query, however, the assumption that 'no' would have won a referendum on the Lisbon treaty (pre-Brown's signing), or that a 'no' would have automatically have led to us leaving the EU.
A referendum on Lisbon *after* Brown had signed would have been an expensive and meaningless affair.
Again, Opinium have 57% believing we'll just be asked again until we give the "right" answer.
Bizarrely, though, a significant group of those who campaigned for exactly what is on the table have decided to throw their toys out of the pram. Lord only knows why, but that's what they are doing. They have trashed the deal, and therefore they have trashed Brexit. Up to them, of course, but you can't blame Remainers, or the government, for the fact that Brexiteers have changed their minds when faced with Brexit.
We will have Left. Referendum fulfilled. If we vote Leave again we stay out.
Their serial fuckups have cost them their lives dream. Heart of stone and all that.