Very good thread header once again David, thank-you!
I agree with lots of this except the last sentence - I don't think it's the only solution, nor the simplest. Others already covered at length include:
- Pushing her Deal, subject to confirmation in a Ref2. - Agreeing to call a spring GE in return for Labour MV abstention. - Calling a snap GE with her Deal as the flagship Tory policy (it won't be liked amongst Tories but who can stop her?)
Theresa May has publicly promised that she won’t lead the Conservatives into the next election. If she agrees to an early election, it seems to me that she will be duty-bound to step down immediately.
I thought she hedged it so that she promised not to fight a 2022 election.
Personally, I would have thought a GE much less likely to resolve the issue than a #peoplesvote, and the latter far less likely to break her party. She may even be able to get her Deal through that way.
Why on earth would a second referendum resolve the issue?
If the result of the first is not respected, why respect the result of the second?
The result has been respected. The PM has spent hours/days/weeks/months on the matter, and has come to the conclusion that leaving without a deal is going to be very damaging. It would be a very foolish, indeed criminally foolish, Government which let the country descend into chaos as a result of leaving. Further the PM is above all a devoted and dedicated Conservative. If the country descends into chaos as the result of the actions of a Conservative Government, that Government would, at the next election be very severely punished.
Very good thread header once again David, thank-you!
I agree with lots of this except the last sentence - I don't think it's the only solution, nor the simplest. Others already covered at length include:
- Pushing her Deal, subject to confirmation in a Ref2. - Agreeing to call a spring GE in return for Labour MV abstention. - Calling a snap GE with her Deal as the flagship Tory policy (it won't be liked amongst Tories but who can stop her?)
Theresa May has publicly promised that she won’t lead the Conservatives into the next election. If she agrees to an early election, it seems to me that she will be duty-bound to step down immediately.
I thought she hedged it so that she promised not to fight a 2022 election.
Personally, I would have thought a GE much less likely to resolve the issue than a #peoplesvote, and the latter far less likely to break her party. She may even be able to get her Deal through that way.
Why on earth would a second referendum resolve the issue?
If the result of the first is not respected, why respect the result of the second?
Ratify the deal or revoke notification. It’s simple and can be acted upon straight away after a democratic decision without making it a thought crime to disagree with the result. The reason the 2016 referendum was so devisive is that it purported to represent the national will that we all must “respect”.
Exactly, with Deal vs Remain as the #peoplesvote there would be a cross Parliamentary majority, and it could be implemented immediately.
On a forced choice May might prefer a Remain v Deal referendum to having to abandon her Deal and cave in to Corbyn completely by offering the EU and Parliament permanent Customs Union membership, which would also see an even bigger rebellion in Tory ranks though might keep the DUP on board if applied to the whole UK.
I think Parliament voting for a Remain v Deal referendum using the Grieve amendment and with Bercow's support and May reluctantly accepting it is more likely than May proposing permanent Customs Union membership to Parliament
We didn't vote to stay in the customs union, and might as well stay in properly rather than pretend to leave properly and end up with a daft halfway house.
Actually you could argue that 45 years ago that's exactly what we did, and by a very much larger percentage margin that the Leave in 2016.
The Tory manifesto commitment on which they retained office in 2017 contained a commitment to leave the customs union.
Yawn
You obviously find it acceptable to be lied to.
He’s not a Tory voter. He’s fine with Tory voters being pissed off
I don't think I said I preferred another referendum; I think it could be less toxic on a 1-2 year horizon than signing the WA would be. Revocation plus a commitment (Royal Commission, people's assembly, constitutional convention and so on) to look at how we could leave without chaos or the need for unicorns, followed by a referendum on the outcome of that process seems better than either right now.
OK, sorry, I was using 'prefer another referendum' as short hand for 'IYO another referendum is better than', not in any way to imply you are a big PV supporter. Because, yes, ghastly thought, isn't it.
Right you are, revoke and remain, plus a RC etc to study the long-term realistic options for our relationship with the EU, I will go for that.
I do want that official apology for holding the 2016 referendum though.
"If the EU dictate the Referendum question, then I think the Referendum will only have one answer."
They won't dictate it. They will simply refuse an extension for a referendum which does not give them something they won't get just by waiting until March 29th.
It's brutal power politics. We should not be surprised. It is exactly how Britain behaved when it had the upper hand. Now it doesn't. We don't like it. And instead of coming to terms with the new reality we're thrashing around moaning that the world isn't fair, isn't like it should be. What are we: four? Time for Britain to grow up.
As long as the backstop is in place, there already is a de facto permanent customs deal. Otherwise, how can trading arrangements between UK and country X diverge from those of Ireland and country X?
Absolutely right.
In fact if we ignore the party politics of all this - which I know we cannot - there is a deal to be struck.
Norway Plus.
This is more or less Labour's Brexit, the DUP would accept it, so would many pragmatic leavers and remainers, and it is also the Deal on the table - once we recognize that the Deal is essentially the Withdrawal Agreement, that it is purely this which we need to ratify in order to leave the EU with a transition period. The Political Declaration is not binding and in any case is not even close to being the finished article.
The Withdrawal Agreement is the only thing the EU care about at this point - Citizens rights, Money, Transition, Irish Backstop - and any 'soft' Brexit is compatible with it.
So, yes, Customs Union and Single Market. Norway Plus. If that cannot be done due to Lab and Con party political calculation, then I cannot see any resolution of Brexit with this parliament and we will have to have a general election.
How will a general election solve things when a third of Tory MPs back No Deal not May's Deal and a majority of Labour MPs back EUref2 with a Remain option not simply Corbyn's permanent Customs Union membership and more workers rights? Ultimately MPs have to vote on all options until the last one is left standing
We didn't vote to stay in the customs union, and might as well stay in properly rather than pretend to leave properly and end up with a daft halfway house.
There's no point, other than to make it easier to join again with the minimum of fuss.
We voted Conservative on a manifesto that said "No CU". Those cries of betrayal would be very loud - and entirely justified.
The only way May can avoid meltdown amongst the Conservative vote is to have a revised manifesto in a General Election, that proposes that CU - and see if people are prepared to change tack.
But adding CU is the worst of all worlds. If you think the current deal is Shit, then adding CU makes it Shit+. The Conservative vote would still meltdown.
Nevertheless that election didn't give her a majority, so even under the crooked rules of FPTnP she is obliged to compromise with others.
She did - with the DUP.
You compromise with the DUP; they don't compromise with you!
It’s never a compromise with the DUP
They are masters of transactional politics. Some things are sacred. Everything else has a price.
On a forced choice May might prefer a Remain v Deal referendum to having to abandon her Deal and cave in to Corbyn completely by offering the EU and Parliament permanent Customs Union membership, which would also see an even bigger rebellion in Tory ranks though might keep the DUP on board if applied to the whole UK.
I think Parliament voting for a Remain v Deal referendum using the Grieve amendment and with Bercow's support and May reluctantly accepting it is more likely than May proposing permanent Customs Union membership to Parliament
I think that is the most likely outcome. Whatever the result of that referendum there will be a lot of anger and bitterness ahead. I'm also not convinced that many in the EU would want a narrow remain win that was seen as illegitimate. The UK would then be a destabilising force and could also crash out again. Only a May style deal or a big remain win in a second referendum would resolve this for the medium term.
Fantastic piece by David Herdson. I'm biased as I entirely agree with it but regardless it's a great piece of writing. It reminds me why I never submit thread headers.
Also this is slightly off topic but the black swan event in the case of brexit is Trump and his tariffs on EU car imports. JLR, Mini and Honda all sell more cars to the USA from their UK factories than they do to the EU27. Trumps tariffs will be more of a significant hit than no deal brexit to them. It is rumoured that he is going to implement the tariffs, if he does no deal brexit will stop the impact on the UK manufacturers.
I’ve not followed this story at all, but is there any reason to suppose that the tariffs wouldn’t continue to apply to the UK when it leaves?
Tariffs are much less of an issue than the damage No Deal does to supply chains.
I agree, and @foxy makes a good point about rules of origin too. But even in the mythical situation where we build an all-UK auto industry in the next few months, I assume that Trump would apply protectionist tariffs to that as well even if outside the EU.
I recall some suggestions while back that he wouldn’t.
Mwahaha! The time is almost ripe for the enormo-haddock uprising!
Edited extra bit: sorry, that was meant to be sent elsewhere. There is no need for concern.
If a haddock uprising could offer us a way out of our present difficulties, I for one would be quite prepared to consider actively supporting it. (Especially an Albert Haddock uprising.)
"If the EU dictate the Referendum question, then I think the Referendum will only have one answer."
They won't dictate it. They will simply refuse an extension for a referendum which does not give them something they won't get just by waiting until March 29th.
It's brutal power politics. We should not be surprised. It is exactly how Britain behaved when it had the upper hand. Now it doesn't. We don't like it. And instead of coming to terms with the new reality we're thrashing around moaning that the world isn't fair, isn't like it should be. What are we: four? Time for Britain to grow up.
Yes: bend the knee or stand proud
Time for Britain to grow up indeed
Nonsense. This is just the real world taking back control.
Very good thread header once again David, thank-you!
I agree with lots of this except the last sentence - I don't think it's the only solution, nor the simplest. Others already covered at length include:
- Pushing her Deal, subject to confirmation in a Ref2. - Agreeing to call a spring GE in return for Labour MV abstention. - Calling a snap GE with her Deal as the flagship Tory policy (it won't be liked amongst Tories but who can stop her?)
Theresa May has publicly promised that she won’t lead the Conservatives into the next election. If she agrees to an early election, it seems to me that she will be duty-bound to step down immediately.
I thought she hedged it so that she promised not to fight a 2022 election.
Personally, I would have thought a GE much less likely to resolve the issue than a #peoplesvote, and the latter far less likely to break her party. She may even be able to get her Deal through that way.
Why on earth would a second referendum resolve the issue?
If the result of the first is not respected, why respect the result of the second?
I don't follow your logic there. We've discovered that implementing the vote is a lot tougher than nearly all of us assumed. We're all agreed that Project Fear was blatant lies remember - so that includes the most remainy of remainers as underestimating the difficulty. But even so the result of the vote isn't simply being dismissed. The second referendum will simply ask for confirmation that people still think it is a good idea.
There was talk earlier about betting on No Deal/early Brexit as an insurance policy against the financial consequences of the same.
Any thoughts on spread betting on the value of the pound as an alternative?
As long as you are prepared to lose potentially a lot of money. Because the pound will move on other issues i.e Trump tarrifs on Cars, Putin invades somewhere, China invades Taiwan.
As they say: only poor people and professionals trade in FX
There was talk earlier about betting on No Deal/early Brexit as an insurance policy against the financial consequences of the same.
Any thoughts on spread betting on the value of the pound as an alternative?
As long as you are prepared to lose potentially a lot of money. Because the pound will move on other issues i.e Trump tarrifs on Cars, Putin invades somewhere, China invades Taiwan.
Yes. And lose potentially a lot of money if Brexit is resolved without a No-Deal. A conventional bet on No Deal/early Brexit seems to be more akin to a traditional insurance policy, as well as more specific.
Also this is slightly off topic but the black swan event in the case of brexit is Trump and his tariffs on EU car imports. JLR, Mini and Honda all sell more cars to the USA from their UK factories than they do to the EU27. Trumps tariffs will be more of a significant hit than no deal brexit to them. It is rumoured that he is going to implement the tariffs, if he does no deal brexit will stop the impact on the UK manufacturers.
I’ve not followed this story at all, but is there any reason to suppose that the tariffs wouldn’t continue to apply to the UK when it leaves?
Tariffs are much less of an issue than the damage No Deal does to supply chains.
Indeed, depending on local content rules as I understand them, those exports to the EU may well qualify for US tarrifs aimed at the EU even with No Deal.
Well I am going to assume that when you say "exports to the EU" you mean USA. Rules of origin are only used in preferential FTA deals. The EU does not have one with the USA for cars. So RoO do not apply. US car tariffs are 2.5%.
So take JLR 180K sales into USA current Tariffs 2.5% new Trumpian tariffs 25% JLR sales to EU27 126K current tariffs 0% new no deal tariffs 10%.
Which one would you prefer?
Make no mistake, If Trump puts tariffs of 25% on UK car exports, the redundancies are going to be large.
I'm not an expert on customs duties and tariffs, but my understanding is that RoO are an inseparable element of assessing which country or countries any import comes from - so this is considered when deciding whether goods are within the scope of a particular FTA or on WTO terms, and relevant for considering MFN applicability etc. In this situation (and now further beyond my knowledge) isn't the risk that stuff shipped from the UK to the EU which has a heavy EU component and service element could be treated as EU-originated and therefore subject to the same tariffs regardless of the UK's status?
Yes you are correct that RoO are used to determine MFN, but countries also apply "substantial transformation" rules as well.
But to answer your question USA non MFN tariffs for cars 2.5% - USA MFN Tariffs for cars 2.5% (so it does not matter in this case)
So the real question is would Trump apply the 25% special tariff to the UK if the UK no deals from the EU. If we have legally left and Trump's tariffs were legally against the EU as opposed to individual countries of the EU. Then we would be out of them unless he specifically names us.
Thanks also to David Herdson for the earlier Trump piece. There is so much noise of that topic it's easy to miss genuine developments abd there is now a lot of polling evidence the shutdown is hurting Trump. So it's good that has been picked up.
On a forced choice May might prefer a Remain v Deal referendum to having to abandon her Deal and cave in to Corbyn completely by offering the EU and Parliament permanent Customs Union membership, which would also see an even bigger rebellion in Tory ranks though might keep the DUP on board if applied to the whole UK.
I think Parliament voting for a Remain v Deal referendum using the Grieve amendment and with Bercow's support and May reluctantly accepting it is more likely than May proposing permanent Customs Union membership to Parliament
I think that is the most likely outcome. Whatever the result of that referendum there will be a lot of anger and bitterness ahead. I'm also not convinced that many in the EU would want a narrow remain win that was seen as illegitimate. The UK would then be a destabilising force and could also crash out again. Only a May style deal or a big remain win in a second referendum would resolve this for the medium term.
There are no easy options left, I think if May's Deal lost and we narrowly voted to Remain the EU might consider something like the outer EU tier Macron has talked of which we could join with Sweden, Denmark, Poland and other non Eurozone nations in the EU
There was talk earlier about betting on No Deal/early Brexit as an insurance policy against the financial consequences of the same.
Any thoughts on spread betting on the value of the pound as an alternative?
As long as you are prepared to lose potentially a lot of money. Because the pound will move on other issues i.e Trump tarrifs on Cars, Putin invades somewhere, China invades Taiwan.
As they say: only poor people and professionals trade in FX
It is hard to see much further medium term downside for the £, the sh*t we are in already
59% of Americans polled backed the proposal for a 70% top tax rate on those earning more than $10 million a year, though as barely any of them would be affected anyway they can afford to.
Of course under Carter the top income tax rate in the US was indeed 70% until Reagan cut it to 50% in 1981 and 28% in 1987.
There are plenty of votes to be gained in proposing to raise taxes on the rich but plenty of votes to be lost if you propose to raise taxes on the middle class as well
Does anyone know what we are expecting in the HoC on Monday?
May to announce Plan B, which given the talks with other parties appear to have gone nowhere (since everyone, including her, is just saying 'do what I want'), is probably going to be 'I will go to the EU to discuss the concerns raised during the MV, and we'll pick up in 2 weeks'. Another can kicking, and further unicorns proposed in response.
@IanB2 That's the nub of it. Nearly everyone including myself has fallen into this trap of " respecting " the referendum result like it's a Chelsea Pensioner or the Duchess of Cambridge. It's one dated and marginal election result wh8ch has already been partially discharged vua A50 invocation. It's had the entire bandwith of the UK government thrown at it as well as 10s of Billions of quid in direct and indirect costs. It's had more than it's fair share of respect already. We should be far more robust on this point.
Afternoon. If it is so vital this government honours its manifesto, then when will we see a Bill introducing lots of grammar schools, and a free vote on fox hunting? Or is that different?
Very good thread header once again David, thank-you!
I agree with lots of this except the last sentence - I don't think it's the only solution, nor the simplest. Others already covered at length include:
- Pushing her Deal, subject to confirmation in a Ref2. - Agreeing to call a spring GE in return for Labour MV abstention. - Calling a snap GE with her Deal as the flagship Tory policy (it won't be liked amongst Tories but who can stop her?)
Theresa May has publicly promised that she won’t lead the Conservatives into the next election. If she agrees to an early election, it seems to me that she will be duty-bound to step down immediately.
Perhaps she wants to fit in three election "wins" (albeit in about 2.5 years) to equal Blair and Thatch.
I see Frank Field is proposing a series of indicative votes, an idea which I like.
Isn't the danger that everything gets defeated except for options the Government won't accept?
If there is a vote which gets a majority in Parliament the Government will have to accept it as Parliament is sovereign
Er... I don't think they would. Happy to stand corrected but given these would be indicative votes I don't think they would be binding on the Government (unless the Govt stated that in advance, I suppose).
I see Frank Field is proposing a series of indicative votes, an idea which I like.
Isn't the danger that everything gets defeated except for options the Government won't accept?
If I were PM, I 'd say that I'd stand down, in the event that the decision was one I could not accept, so that Parliament could appoint a government to enact it.
In any case, we've heard far too much about what MP's don't want. Let them take responsibility, and set out what they do want.
There was talk earlier about betting on No Deal/early Brexit as an insurance policy against the financial consequences of the same.
Any thoughts on spread betting on the value of the pound as an alternative?
As long as you are prepared to lose potentially a lot of money. Because the pound will move on other issues i.e Trump tarrifs on Cars, Putin invades somewhere, China invades Taiwan.
As they say: only poor people and professionals trade in FX
It is hard to see much further medium term downside for the £, the sh*t we are in already
You don't think the value of the pound would fall if we left without a deal in March?
Very good thread header once again David, thank-you!
I agree with lots of this except the last sentence - I don't think it's the only solution, nor the simplest. Others already covered at length include:
- Pushing her Deal, subject to confirmation in a Ref2. - Agreeing to call a spring GE in return for Labour MV abstention. - Calling a snap GE with her Deal as the flagship Tory policy (it won't be liked amongst Tories but who can stop her?)
Theresa May has publicly promised that she won’t lead the Conservatives into the next election. If she agrees to an early election, it seems to me that she will be duty-bound to step down immediately.
No doubt these will be extraordinary circumstances which require her to remain in place to Deliver Brexit because Nothing Is Allowed To Change
There was talk earlier about betting on No Deal/early Brexit as an insurance policy against the financial consequences of the same.
Any thoughts on spread betting on the value of the pound as an alternative?
As long as you are prepared to lose potentially a lot of money. Because the pound will move on other issues i.e Trump tarrifs on Cars, Putin invades somewhere, China invades Taiwan.
As they say: only poor people and professionals trade in FX
It is hard to see much further medium term downside for the £, the sh*t we are in already
You don't think the value of the pound would fall if we left without a deal in March?
@IanB2 That's the nub of it. Nearly everyone including myself has fallen into this trap of " respecting " the referendum result like it's a Chelsea Pensioner or the Duchess of Cambridge. It's one dated and marginal election result wh8ch has already been partially discharged vua A50 invocation. It's had the entire bandwith of the UK government thrown at it as well as 10s of Billions of quid in direct and indirect costs. It's had more than it's fair share of respect already. We should be far more robust on this point.
I have repeatedly said that the "Will of the Nation" is actually the "will of 37%".
The coming generation (anyone under 45) have been screwed by stagnant wages, Internet monopolies, the gig economy, and massive asset inflation. The shibboleths of neo-liberal economics no longer make sense.
Final thought: What's fascinating and imho really healthy is this was the week we finally began to frame Brexit as an internal political crisis. Which it largely is. We seem to have finally abandoned the framing tthat the EU is going to collapse, split, fold in the negotiations, offer us a better deal etc etc. We are finally debating Brexit as a domestic issue. The questions are what we want and whether we have the political capacity to answer that question in time. In psychotherapeutic terms that's progress.
By 2025, post-Brexit even Middlesbrough will beat Vienna.....
Vienna is overrated. It’s a great city, but very small, and the lack of smoking ban in the bars ruins much of the nightlife. I go there every year for business, so know it well. The food scene isn’t amazing - there are some decent places but you run out of new things very quickly.
London is massively underrated. By far, the best city in the world.
Afternoon. If it is so vital this government honours its manifesto, then when will we see a Bill introducing lots of grammar schools, and a free vote on fox hunting? Or is that different?
They've not got carte blanche to abandon everything in it without consequence, they need to consider which are reasonable to not follow anymore. CU is a big one, but then again it is a big decision, and such a big switch is only on the cards because 100 of them didn't want to listen to their own government anyway. If the deal had lost by a lot lot less the Tories would not need to give in so much, but they need 100+ votes, which means Labour get to be heavily involved.
I think that’s right, which is why I can’t see how any reasonable person supports the deal. It effectively commits to something a bit like Norway+ until we either find a suitable unicorn or agree to an Irish Sea border. In the continuing absence of unicorns the EU can probably insist on the Irish Sea border. And unlike EU membership where we have the power to leave, we don’t have any right to exit the new arrangement.
Concerns about the impact of a new referendum on our democracy and political climate aren’t unreasonable but the impact of the public gradually realising what they’ve been tied into under the deal would surely be worse.
I suspect the end state for us if we exit via the Withdrawal Agreement (regardless of what the Political Declaration says) is permanent membership of the Single Market and the Customs Union. The Backstop drives us to that. That is, in reality, TM's deal, although she presents it as something else.
So I perfectly understand the Brexiteer objection (this is not Brexit) and the Remainer objection (we may as well retain our full membership of the EU).
The deal is a stupid deal.
However, unlike you I prefer it to another referendum or to crashing out with no deal at all.
A straightforward revoke and remain, plus an apology to the British people for holding the 2106 referendum, is my ideal world outcome.
I don't think I said I preferred another referendum; I think it could be less toxic on a 1-2 year horizon than signing the WA would be. Revocation plus a commitment (Royal Commission, people's assembly, constitutional convention and so on) to look at how we could leave without chaos or the need for unicorns, followed by a referendum on the outcome of that process seems better than either right now.
Why would signing the WA be toxic? Within 3 months there would be EU elections when even the most un-engaged voters would notice the UK's absence. Job done. And given the unsavouriness of some of the people likely to be elected in those elections, a lot of people will also think "well shot".
@IanB2 That's the nub of it. Nearly everyone including myself has fallen into this trap of " respecting " the referendum result like it's a Chelsea Pensioner or the Duchess of Cambridge. It's one dated and marginal election result wh8ch has already been partially discharged vua A50 invocation. It's had the entire bandwith of the UK government thrown at it as well as 10s of Billions of quid in direct and indirect costs. It's had more than it's fair share of respect already. We should be far more robust on this point.
I have repeatedly said that the "Will of the Nation" is actually the "will of 37%".
You can imagine the responses....
That such is true in any election, and that it is at least slightly more reasonable than the will of even less than that who claim they are the will of the nation?
I see Frank Field is proposing a series of indicative votes, an idea which I like.
Isn't the danger that everything gets defeated except for options the Government won't accept?
If there is a vote which gets a majority in Parliament the Government will have to accept it as Parliament is sovereign
Er... I don't think they would. Happy to stand corrected but given these would be indicative votes I don't think they would be binding on the Government (unless the Govt stated that in advance, I suppose).
May has already said as her Deal has not got through she will let Parliament come up with the alternative, if that alternative is a Remain v Deal referendum then she would have to reluctantly accept it though she would not propose it herself.
An indicative vote cannot on its own overturn Article 50 but if the Commons voted for a second referendum on Remain or the Deal as did the Lords and the Queen then signed that into law (constitutionally the Queen is Head of the Executive, May merely her Chief Minister in Parliament), as she almost certainly would, that is what would happen and the result of that referendum would then determine whether we Remained and Parliament revoked Article 50 or we left with the Deal
Final thought: What's fascinating and imho really healthy is this was the week we finally began to frame Brexit as an internal political crisis. Which it largely is. We seem to have finally abandoned the framing tthat the EU is going to collapse, split, fold in the negotiations, offer us a better deal etc etc. We are finally debating Brexit as a domestic issue. The questions are what we want and whether we have the political capacity to answer that question in time. In psychotherapeutic terms that's progress.
If only, the 'EU will give us a better deal' is still alive and well as an idea, and I suspect will be May's Plan B to avoid just such the progress you identify, not least because it is still Corbyn's plan too.
Final thought: What's fascinating and imho really healthy is this was the week we finally began to frame Brexit as an internal political crisis. Which it largely is. We seem to have finally abandoned the framing tthat the EU is going to collapse, split, fold in the negotiations, offer us a better deal etc etc. We are finally debating Brexit as a domestic issue. The questions are what we want and whether we have the political capacity to answer that question in time. In psychotherapeutic terms that's progress.
If only, the 'EU will give us a better deal' is still alive and well as an idea, and I suspect will be May's Plan B to avoid just such the progress you identify, not least because it is still Corbyn's plan too.
The coming generation (anyone under 45) have been screwed by stagnant wages, Internet monopolies, the gig economy, and massive asset inflation. The shibboleths of neo-liberal economics no longer make sense.
The young are the ones earning the money and paying the tax. The rich retired boomers aren't going to pay much tax on their assets.
If the young want to make things more equal then they need to think about taxing assets and not earnings.
@IanB2 That's the nub of it. Nearly everyone including myself has fallen into this trap of " respecting " the referendum result like it's a Chelsea Pensioner or the Duchess of Cambridge. It's one dated and marginal election result wh8ch has already been partially discharged vua A50 invocation. It's had the entire bandwith of the UK government thrown at it as well as 10s of Billions of quid in direct and indirect costs. It's had more than it's fair share of respect already. We should be far more robust on this point.
I have repeatedly said that the "Will of the Nation" is actually the "will of 37%".
You can imagine the responses....
That such is true in any election, and that it is at least slightly more reasonable than the will of even less than that who claim they are the will of the nation?
It's the will of the majority of people who got off their lazy arses to vote. No vote, no voice.
Of course, if we have a second referendum it will be no vote the way we like? no voice. And that is why it is so dangerous.
@IanB2 That's the nub of it. Nearly everyone including myself has fallen into this trap of " respecting " the referendum result like it's a Chelsea Pensioner or the Duchess of Cambridge. It's one dated and marginal election result wh8ch has already been partially discharged vua A50 invocation. It's had the entire bandwith of the UK government thrown at it as well as 10s of Billions of quid in direct and indirect costs. It's had more than it's fair share of respect already. We should be far more robust on this point.
I have repeatedly said that the "Will of the Nation" is actually the "will of 37%".
You can imagine the responses....
That such is true in any election, and that it is at least slightly more reasonable than the will of even less than that who claim they are the will of the nation?
34% did indeed vote Remain, but if Brexit goes bad the Leavers will be starting with 63% who do NOT support their position.
If Remain happened, life would continue as before and the 30% who could not be bothered to vote would probably still not be bothered. 63% "happy" and 37% "annoyed".
The arithmetic is worse for Leavers - that is just the way it is.
The coming generation (anyone under 45) have been screwed by stagnant wages, Internet monopolies, the gig economy, and massive asset inflation. The shibboleths of neo-liberal economics no longer make sense.
From 1945 to about the mid to late 1980s top tax rates of 70% were common across the West, including the USA and the UK, as was a more mixed economy and even centre right parties accepted them. However we were heading for socialism and as a result Thatcher and Reagan and Berlusconi and Aznar and John Howard etc led the swingback for capitalism which held sway from the late 1980s through the 1990s up until 2008. Now the mood is for a mixed economy again I think, voters do not necessarily want socialism but pure laissez faire capitalism for most has gone too far
That all said, there are shit cities with a great food scene. Atlanta must be up there. Awful city. Awesome food. The Optimist would be Michelin starred if it were in Europe.
@IanB2 That's the nub of it. Nearly everyone including myself has fallen into this trap of " respecting " the referendum result like it's a Chelsea Pensioner or the Duchess of Cambridge. It's one dated and marginal election result wh8ch has already been partially discharged vua A50 invocation. It's had the entire bandwith of the UK government thrown at it as well as 10s of Billions of quid in direct and indirect costs. It's had more than it's fair share of respect already. We should be far more robust on this point.
I have repeatedly said that the "Will of the Nation" is actually the "will of 37%".
You can imagine the responses....
That such is true in any election, and that it is at least slightly more reasonable than the will of even less than that who claim they are the will of the nation?
34% did indeed vote Remain, but if Brexit goes bad the Leavers will be starting with 63% who do NOT support their position.
If Remain happened, life would continue as before and the 30% who could not be bothered to vote would probably still not be bothered. 63% "happy" and 37% "annoyed".
The arithmetic is worse for Leavers - that is just the way it is.
There are some absolutely absurd mental gymnastics on here trying to pretend that leave didn't win the referendum.
@IanB2 That's the nub of it. Nearly everyone including myself has fallen into this trap of " respecting " the referendum result like it's a Chelsea Pensioner or the Duchess of Cambridge. It's one dated and marginal election result wh8ch has already been partially discharged vua A50 invocation. It's had the entire bandwith of the UK government thrown at it as well as 10s of Billions of quid in direct and indirect costs. It's had more than it's fair share of respect already. We should be far more robust on this point.
I have repeatedly said that the "Will of the Nation" is actually the "will of 37%".
You can imagine the responses....
That such is true in any election, and that it is at least slightly more reasonable than the will of even less than that who claim they are the will of the nation?
34% did indeed vote Remain, but if Brexit goes bad the Leavers will be starting with 63% who do NOT support their position.
If Remain happened, life would continue as before and the 30% who could not be bothered to vote would probably still not be bothered. 63% "happy" and 37% "annoyed".
The arithmetic is worse for Leavers - that is just the way it is.
I don't think one can assume that non-voters should be added to one side or another.
I see Frank Field is proposing a series of indicative votes, an idea which I like.
Isn't the danger that everything gets defeated except for options the Government won't accept?
If there is a vote which gets a majority in Parliament the Government will have to accept it as Parliament is sovereign
Er... I don't think they would. Happy to stand corrected but given these would be indicative votes I don't think they would be binding on the Government (unless the Govt stated that in advance, I suppose).
May has already said as her Deal has not got through she will let Parliament come up with the alternative, if that alternative is a Remain v Deal referendum then she would have to reluctantly accept it though she would not propose it herself.
An indicative vote cannot on its own overturn Article 50 but if the Commons voted for a second referendum on Remain or the Deal as did the Lords and the Queen then signed that into law (constitutionally the Queen is Head of the Executive, May merely her Chief Minister in Parliament), as she almost certainly would, that is what would happen and the result of that referendum would then determine whether we Remained and Parliament revoked Article 50 or we left with the Deal
A new referendum is a decision to pass the buck.
Give the Commons a free vote, so they can take a decision.
I see Frank Field is proposing a series of indicative votes, an idea which I like.
Isn't the danger that everything gets defeated except for options the Government won't accept?
If there is a vote which gets a majority in Parliament the Government will have to accept it as Parliament is sovereign
Er... I don't think they would. Happy to stand corrected but given these would be indicative votes I don't think they would be binding on the Government (unless the Govt stated that in advance, I suppose).
May has already said as her Deal has not got through she will let Parliament come up with the alternative, if that alternative is a Remain v Deal referendum then she would have to reluctantly accept it though she would not propose it herself.
An indicative vote cannot on its own overturn Article 50 but if the Commons voted for a second referendum on Remain or the Deal as did the Lords and the Queen then signed that into law (constitutionally the Queen is Head of the Executive, May merely her Chief Minister in Parliament), as she almost certainly would, that is what would happen and the result of that referendum would then determine whether we Remained and Parliament revoked Article 50 or we left with the Deal
A new referendum is a decision to pass the buck.
Give the Commons a free vote, so they can take a decision.
Agreed. That’s my position too. Seems to me to be the obvious way forward.
I see Frank Field is proposing a series of indicative votes, an idea which I like.
Isn't the danger that everything gets defeated except for options the Government won't accept?
If there is a vote which gets a majority in Parliament the Government will have to accept it as Parliament is sovereign
Er... I don't think they would. Happy to stand corrected but given these would be indicative votes I don't think they would be binding on the Government (unless the Govt stated that in advance, I suppose).
May has already said as her Deal has not got through she will let Parliament come up with the alternative, if that alternative is a Remain v Deal referendum then she would have to reluctantly accept it though she would not propose it herself.
An indicative vote cannot on its own overturn Article 50 but if the Commons voted for a second referendum on Remain or the Deal as did the Lords and the Queen then signed that into law (constitutionally the Queen is Head of the Executive, May merely her Chief Minister in Parliament), as she almost certainly would, that is what would happen and the result of that referendum would then determine whether we Remained and Parliament revoked Article 50 or we left with the Deal
A new referendum is a decision to pass the buck.
Give the Commons a free vote, so they can take a decision.
The problem is there is no Commons majority for anything ie 326 MPs or more as far as I can see.
100-150 MPs back No Deal, 202 back the Deal, 300 odd at a push back Remain or BINO ie permanent Single Market and/or Customs Union for the whole UK.
However combine Remain/BINO backers and Deal backers and you get at least 500 MPs combined which would be more than enough for a majority for a Remain v Deal referendum to choose between the 2 as a last resort
Final thought: What's fascinating and imho really healthy is this was the week we finally began to frame Brexit as an internal political crisis. Which it largely is. We seem to have finally abandoned the framing tthat the EU is going to collapse, split, fold in the negotiations, offer us a better deal etc etc. We are finally debating Brexit as a domestic issue. The questions are what we want and whether we have the political capacity to answer that question in time. In psychotherapeutic terms that's progress.
If only, the 'EU will give us a better deal' is still alive and well as an idea, and I suspect will be May's Plan B to avoid just such the progress you identify, not least because it is still Corbyn's plan too.
@IanB2 That's the nub of it. Nearly everyone including myself has fallen into this trap of " respecting " the referendum result like it's a Chelsea Pensioner or the Duchess of Cambridge. It's one dated and marginal election result wh8ch has already been partially discharged vua A50 invocation. It's had the entire bandwith of the UK government thrown at it as well as 10s of Billions of quid in direct and indirect costs. It's had more than it's fair share of respect already. We should be far more robust on this point.
I have repeatedly said that the "Will of the Nation" is actually the "will of 37%".
You can imagine the responses....
That such is true in any election, and that it is at least slightly more reasonable than the will of even less than that who claim they are the will of the nation?
34% did indeed vote Remain, but if Brexit goes bad the Leavers will be starting with 63% who do NOT support their position.
If Remain happened, life would continue as before and the 30% who could not be bothered to vote would probably still not be bothered. 63% "happy" and 37% "annoyed".
The arithmetic is worse for Leavers - that is just the way it is.
I don't think one can assume that non-voters should be added to one side or another.
People tend to get worked up if something upsets or irritates them. "Remain" is likely to mean carrying on with no disruption. Various Brexits involve some degree of disruption because, to get past the Ultras, it needs to be sufficiently detached. That means some degree of upset which upsets the otherwise lazy non-voter.
If I am wrong and we No Deal, then no harm done. If I am right then Leave has a problem.
Choose!
As a Remainer, I will be critical of any deal that makes things worse. I could not give a monkeys about whether Brexit will liberate Britain to become an economic behemoth dominating the world of the 22nd Century.
I see Frank Field is proposing a series of indicative votes, an idea which I like.
Isn't the danger that everything gets defeated except for options the Government won't accept?
If there is a vote which gets a majority in Parliament the Government will have to accept it as Parliament is sovereign
Er... I don't think they would. Happy to stand corrected but given these would be indicative votes I don't think they would be binding on the Government (unless the Govt stated that in advance, I suppose).
May has already said as her Deal has not got through she will let Parliament come up with the alternative, if that alternative is a Remain v Deal referendum then she would have to reluctantly accept it though she would not propose it herself.
An indicative vote cannot on its own overturn Article 50 but if the Commons voted for a second referendum on Remain or the Deal as did the Lords and the Queen then signed that into law (constitutionally the Queen is Head of the Executive, May merely her Chief Minister in Parliament), as she almost certainly would, that is what would happen and the result of that referendum would then determine whether we Remained and Parliament revoked Article 50 or we left with the Deal
A new referendum is a decision to pass the buck.
Give the Commons a free vote, so they can take a decision.
The problem is there is no Commons majority for anything ie 326 MPs or more as far as I can see.
100-150 MPs back No Deal, 202 back the Deal, 300 odd at a push back Remain or BINO ie permanent Single Market and Customs Union (and the backstop would require both for NI at least).
However combine Remain/BINO backers and Deal backers and you get at least 500 MPs combined which would be more than enough for a majority for a Remain v Deal referendum to choose between the 2 as a last resort
The way I'd do it is to have a series of votes, eliminating the least popular one in turn. The winner is the last option standing. And If the winner is Remain, these MP's have to justify themselves to the voters. After all, they've spent weeks, solemnly quoting Burke.
I see Frank Field is proposing a series of indicative votes, an idea which I like.
Isn't the danger that everything gets defeated except for options the Government won't accept?
If there is a vote which gets a majority in Parliament the Government will have to accept it as Parliament is sovereign
Er... I don't think they would. Happy to stand corrected but given these would be indicative votes I don't think they would be binding on the Government (unless the Govt stated that in advance, I suppose).
May has already said as her Deal has not got through she will let Parliament come up with the alternative, if that alternative is a Remain v Deal referendum then she would have to reluctantly accept it though she would not propose it herself.
An indicative vote cannot on its own overturn Article 50 but if the Commons voted for a second referendum on Remain or the Deal as did the Lords and the Queen then signed that into law (constitutionally the Queen is Head of the Executive, May merely her Chief Minister in Parliament), as she almost certainly would, that is what would happen and the result of that referendum would then determine whether we Remained and Parliament revoked Article 50 or we left with the Deal
A new referendum is a decision to pass the buck.
Give the Commons a free vote, so they can take a decision.
The problem is there is no Commons majority for anything ie 326 MPs or more as far as I can see.
100-150 MPs back No Deal, 202 back the Deal, 300 odd at a push back Remain or BINO ie permanent Single Market and/or Customs Union for the whole UK.
However combine Remain/BINO backers and Deal backers and you get at least 500 MPs combined which would be more than enough for a majority for a Remain v Deal referendum to choose between the 2 as a last resort
All fair analysis HYUFD, but what I would say is that a series of indicative votes would flush out sure fire losers. Then, MPs might coalesce around a ‘good enough’ option. I think it might be a catalyst for gainful compromise.
I see Frank Field is proposing a series of indicative votes, an idea which I like.
Isn't the danger that everything gets defeated except for options the Government won't accept?
If there is a vote which gets a majority in Parliament the Government will have to accept it as Parliament is sovereign
Er... I don't think they would. Happy to stand corrected but given these would be indicative votes I don't think they would be binding on the Government (unless the Govt stated that in advance, I suppose).
May has already said as her Deal has not got through she will let Parliament come up with the alternative, if that alternative is a Remain v Deal referendum then she would have to reluctantly accept it though she would not propose it herself.
An indicative vote cannot on its own overturn Article 50 but if the Commons voted for a second referendum on Remain or the Deal as did the Lords and the Queen then signed that into law (constitutionally the Queen is Head of the Executive, May merely her Chief Minister in Parliament), as she almost certainly would, that is what would happen and the result of that referendum would then determine whether we Remained and Parliament revoked Article 50 or we left with the Deal
A new referendum is a decision to pass the buck.
Give the Commons a free vote, so they can take a decision.
The leaders won't risk it, and while willing to rebel most MPs don't seem brave enough to rebel forsomething, only against something, at least for now. But any saying they have to ask the people again is clearly lying, MPs are perfectly well equipped to do so, they are not required to check what the people first. Sadly they won't want to do that. Hopefully they won't get the choice to avoid a decision.
I see Frank Field is proposing a series of indicative votes, an idea which I like.
Isn't the danger that everything gets defeated except for options the Government won't accept?
If there is a vote which gets a majority in Parliament the Government will have to accept it as Parliament is sovereign
Er... I don't think they would. Happy to stand corrected but given these would be indicative votes I don't think they would be binding on the Government (unless the Govt stated that in advance, I suppose).
May has already said as her Deal has not got through she will let Parliament come up with the alternative, if that alternative is a Remain v Deal referendum then she would have to reluctantly accept it though she would not propose it herself.
An indicative vote cannot on its own overturn Article 50 but if the Commons voted for a second referendum on Remain or the Deal as did the Lords and the Queen then signed that into law (constitutionally the Queen is Head of the Executive, May merely her Chief Minister in Parliament), as she almost certainly would, that is what would happen and the result of that referendum would then determine whether we Remained and Parliament revoked Article 50 or we left with the Deal
A new referendum is a decision to pass the buck.
Give the Commons a free vote, so they can take a decision.
Then have a referendum to either a) support that option agreed by MPs or b) leave with No Deal......
Afternoon. If it is so vital this government honours its manifesto, then when will we see a Bill introducing lots of grammar schools, and a free vote on fox hunting? Or is that different?
They've not got carte blanche to abandon everything in it without consequence, they need to consider which are reasonable to not follow anymore. CU is a big one, but then again it is a big decision, and such a big switch is only on the cards because 100 of them didn't want to listen to their own government anyway. If the deal had lost by a lot lot less the Tories would not need to give in so much, but they need 100+ votes, which means Labour get to be heavily involved.
Which was kinda my point. "It was in the manifesto, therefore must be done" argument only really applies if a majority is won. Certainly, things should be done also if enough other opposition parties to make a majority also had it in their manifesto too. "It was in the Manifesto, so we must do it, even though we don't have the votes in Parliament," frankly is a daft argument. The free vote on fox hunting one is interesting though. Surely there is a moral imperative there? Since, firstly, it is a free vote, and secondly, even with a majority of 100, it would be unlikely to win.
Isn't the danger that everything gets defeated except for options the Government won't accept?
Lock the doors, nobody gets out until they decide on something.
Attractive, if unworkable, idea.
People make awful decisions when tired. You would be better off choosing three at random from each party and sticking them around a well irrigated debating table in the Red Lion.
@IanB2 That's the nub of it. Nearly everyone including myself has fallen into this trap of " respecting " the referendum result like it's a Chelsea Pensioner or the Duchess of Cambridge. It's one dated and marginal election result wh8ch has already been partially discharged vua A50 invocation. It's had the entire bandwith of the UK government thrown at it as well as 10s of Billions of quid in direct and indirect costs. It's had more than it's fair share of respect already. We should be far more robust on this point.
I have repeatedly said that the "Will of the Nation" is actually the "will of 37%".
You can imagine the responses....
That such is true in any election, and that it is at least slightly more reasonable than the will of even less than that who claim they are the will of the nation?
34% did indeed vote Remain, but if Brexit goes bad the Leavers will be starting with 63% who do NOT support their position.
If Remain happened, life would continue as before and the 30% who could not be bothered to vote would probably still not be bothered. 63% "happy" and 37% "annoyed".
The arithmetic is worse for Leavers - that is just the way it is.
There are some absolutely absurd mental gymnastics on here trying to pretend that leave didn't win the referendum.
Try reading what I wrote and not what you think I wrote. I never said "Leave" did not win. I said that the will of 37% is NOT the will of the Nation.
You may also misunderstand my motives. I do not give a flying monkeys if we Brexit, but if we do then Leave does not have the arithmetic in its favour if the nation is upset.
I see Frank Field is proposing a series of indicative votes, an idea which I like.
Isn't the danger that everything gets defeated except for options the Government won't accept?
If there is a vote which gets a majority in Parliament the Government will have to accept it as Parliament is sovereign
Er... I don't think they would. Happy to stand corrected but given these would be indicative votes I don't think they would be binding on the Government (unless the Govt stated that in advance, I suppose).
May has already said as her Deal has not got through she will let Parliament come up with the alternative, if that alternative is a Remain v Deal referendum then she would have to reluctantly accept it though she would not propose it herself.
An indicative vote cannot on its own overturn Article 50 but if the Commons voted for a second referendum on Remain or the Deal as did the Lords and the Queen then signed that into law (constitutionally the Queen is Head of the Executive, May merely her Chief Minister in Parliament), as she almost certainly would, that is what would happen and the result of that referendum would then determine whether we Remained and Parliament revoked Article 50 or we left with the Deal
A new referendum is a decision to pass the buck.
Give the Commons a free vote, so they can take a decision.
The leaders won't risk it, and while willing to rebel most MPs don't seem brave enough to rebel forsomething, only against something, at least for now. But any saying they have to ask the people again is clearly lying, MPs are perfectly well equipped to do so, they are not required to check what the people first. Sadly they won't want to do that. Hopefully they won't get the choice to avoid a decision.
My suggestion would compel them to make a decision. And the Speaker, Dominic Grieve, Nick Boles et al can hardly complain about control being handed to the Commons.
On 28 March we shall see Boris Johnson on the cliffs of Dover waving a stick and shouting expecto Volkswagen.
You think he will be competent at magic? No doubt he will be yelling "I expect a Volkswagen". Details are, after all, important and as for business, well...... it can go and f--- itself.
Isn't the danger that everything gets defeated except for options the Government won't accept?
Lock the doors, nobody gets out until they decide on something.
Attractive, if unworkable, idea.
People make awful decisions when tired. You would be better off choosing three at random from each party and sticking them around a well irrigated debating table in the Red Lion.
Once again my idea of death matches is completely rejected as an option. We'd find out who wants Brexit/Remain the most then. Boris would make a flashy entrance, flail unconvincingly then collapse after the first hit. Grieve would have to be forced into the ring, then spend the entire time trying to trick his combatant into disqualifying themselves, Corbyn and May would both stand stock still, absorb all blows and try to wear the other person down, Jeremy Hunt would cover himself in grease to try to ensure any blows slide off him, Vince Cable would hope to sneak through by being invisible, and so on.
Comments
Edited extra bit: sorry, that was meant to be sent elsewhere. There is no need for concern.
I think Parliament voting for a Remain v Deal referendum using the Grieve amendment and with Bercow's support and May reluctantly accepting it is more likely than May proposing permanent Customs Union membership to Parliament
Right you are, revoke and remain, plus a RC etc to study the long-term realistic options for our relationship with the EU, I will go for that.
I do want that official apology for holding the 2016 referendum though.
Time for Britain to grow up indeed
They are masters of transactional politics. Some things are sacred. Everything else has a price.
https://twitter.com/NYMag/status/1086477575189393408?s=19
What is disrespectful about that?
Ulp...
But to answer your question USA non MFN tariffs for cars 2.5% - USA MFN Tariffs for cars 2.5% (so it does not matter in this case)
So the real question is would Trump apply the 25% special tariff to the UK if the UK no deals from the EU. If we have legally left and Trump's tariffs were legally against the EU as opposed to individual countries of the EU. Then we would be out of them unless he specifically names us.
Of course under Carter the top income tax rate in the US was indeed 70% until Reagan cut it to 50% in 1981 and 28% in 1987.
There are plenty of votes to be gained in proposing to raise taxes on the rich but plenty of votes to be lost if you propose to raise taxes on the middle class as well
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_candidacy#United_States
A rare thing in politics these days.....
Revoke Article 50?
https://www.farandwide.com/s/europes-most-livable-cities-71985994306c4df6?utm_campaign=europelivable-ea4be4fc5dde4c97&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=out&utm_term=Sky+Sports+(British+Sky+Broadcasting+Ltd)
In any case, we've heard far too much about what MP's don't want. Let them take responsibility, and set out what they do want.
You can imagine the responses....
The coming generation (anyone under 45) have been screwed by stagnant wages, Internet monopolies, the gig economy, and massive asset inflation. The shibboleths of neo-liberal economics no longer make sense.
London is massively underrated. By far, the best city in the world.
Within 3 months there would be EU elections when even the most un-engaged voters would notice the UK's absence. Job done. And given the unsavouriness of some of the people likely to be elected in those elections, a lot of people will also think "well shot".
An indicative vote cannot on its own overturn Article 50 but if the Commons voted for a second referendum on Remain or the Deal as did the Lords and the Queen then signed that into law (constitutionally the Queen is Head of the Executive, May merely her Chief Minister in Parliament), as she almost certainly would, that is what would happen and the result of that referendum would then determine whether we Remained and Parliament revoked Article 50 or we left with the Deal
https://twitter.com/leaveeuofficial/status/1086040231701291010?s=21
If the young want to make things more equal then they need to think about taxing assets and not earnings.
Of course, if we have a second referendum it will be no vote the way we like? no voice. And that is why it is so dangerous.
If Remain happened, life would continue as before and the 30% who could not be bothered to vote would probably still not be bothered. 63% "happy" and 37% "annoyed".
The arithmetic is worse for Leavers - that is just the way it is.
Give the Commons a free vote, so they can take a decision.
100-150 MPs back No Deal, 202 back the Deal, 300 odd at a push back Remain or BINO ie permanent Single Market and/or Customs Union for the whole UK.
However combine Remain/BINO backers and Deal backers and you get at least 500 MPs combined which would be more than enough for a majority for a Remain v Deal referendum to choose between the 2 as a last resort
If I am wrong and we No Deal, then no harm done. If I am right then Leave has a problem.
Choose!
As a Remainer, I will be critical of any deal that makes things worse. I could not give a monkeys about whether Brexit will liberate Britain to become an economic behemoth dominating the world of the 22nd Century.
"It was in the Manifesto, so we must do it, even though we don't have the votes in Parliament," frankly is a daft argument.
The free vote on fox hunting one is interesting though. Surely there is a moral imperative there? Since, firstly, it is a free vote, and secondly, even with a majority of 100, it would be unlikely to win.
You may also misunderstand my motives. I do not give a flying monkeys if we Brexit, but if we do then Leave does not have the arithmetic in its favour if the nation is upset.
Is that clear enough for you?
We remain in the customs union until the moment all those better trade deals the Brexiteers promised us if we left are agreed and signed.
Liam Fox is on the case, there's nothing to be worried about eh?