Clearly, if we sign up to the CU we are accepting no freedom to do our own trade deals. We are accepting being bound by the deals the EU negotiates. These have greatly favoured goods over services to our disadvantage even inside the EU so they are hardly likely to get better once we have left. We are bound by EU tariffs which give EU states a continued competitive advantage in our market. We are likely to be bound to comply with EU regulations in relation to goods etc because the overlap between the CU and the SM are considerable in that both are intended to facilitate free movement of goods. OTOH Disruption of trade and supply chain links with the EU largely disappear. The backstop largely ceases to be an issue. There is probably a majority for it in the Commons.
Like Max it is not what I would have chosen but given where we are it seems the best viable option (assuming May's deal isn't).
Because "trade deals" were what politicians said we voted for. When they were unable or unwilling to admit it was immigration.
But we don't have any because we left that idiot Fox in charge of negotiating them. And we probably won't get any until he has been moved on to somewhere less damaging.
Given how confused even us wonks can get about what is the customs union or a customs union and what the single market is or Norway+ and Malthouse and Chequers and this and that, I don't think there would be as much difficulty in trying to sell customs union Brexit as Brexit enough for most people.
If May had said that we need a permanent customs union at the outset to resolve the Irish issue...it would be done and dusted.... She should have put her red line at the single market...
Seriously, who gives a fuck about doing trade deals with fuck knows where...for fuck knows what.... when we do all our trade in the EU?
A lot of the 'libertarian pirate island' Conservatives do obsess about trade deals - or at least did, seeing Liam Fox in action has perhaps been a bit of a downer for them.
It would also be anathema to the ERG death culters.
Keeping EU customs and agriculture solves the Irish border, and most of the other Channel isdues and keeps out chlorinated chicken. Clearly these are all good.
Am I right that 3rd party EU trade deals, such as South Korea, don't automatically carry over to UK?
I think you are.
I'm not sure what the score is on your namesake rolling them over.
HOC to pass MV3 was evens (or even marginally shorter) earlier on. It went out to 3/1 on the DUP's announcement, now back to 2/1.
Putting the MV3 effectively into the WA and having it as a confidence vote on Friday seems like the only shot the PM's got to get the deal through. On my maths she'd get 312 Con votes (Clarke not standing again so he, and the DUP, abstain). She'd still need a couple of Flint / Barron / Hoey / Skinner to tie, and of course she'd need one more because, y'know, Bercow.
Given how confused even us wonks can get about what is the customs union or a customs union and what the single market is or Norway+ and Malthouse and Chequers and this and that, I don't think there would be as much difficulty in trying to sell customs union Brexit as Brexit enough for most people.
If May had said that we need a permanent customs union at the outset to resolve the Irish issue...it would be done and dusted.... She should have put her red line at the single market...
Seriously, who gives a fuck about doing trade deals with fuck knows where...for fuck knows what.... when we do all our trade in the EU?
A lot of the 'libertarian pirate island' Conservatives do obsess about trade deals - or at least did, seeing Liam Fox in action has perhaps been a bit of a downer for them.
It would also be anathema to the ERG death culters.
Keeping EU customs and agriculture solves the Irish border, and most of the other Channel isdues and keeps out chlorinated chicken. Clearly these are all good.
Am I right that 3rd party EU trade deals, such as South Korea, don't automatically carry over to UK?
I think you are.
I'm not sure what the score is on your namesake rolling them over.
It's going badly, 7 out of ~45 I think covering about 3% of exports.
Given how confused even us wonks can get about what is the customs union or a customs union and what the single market is or Norway+ and Malthouse and Chequers and this and that, I don't think there would be as much difficulty in trying to sell customs union Brexit as Brexit enough for most people.
If May had said that we need a permanent customs union at the outset to resolve the Irish issue...it would be done and dusted.... She should have put her red line at the single market...
Seriously, who gives a fuck about doing trade deals with fuck knows where...for fuck knows what.... when we do all our trade in the EU?
A lot of the 'libertarian pirate island' Conservatives do obsess about trade deals - or at least did, seeing Liam Fox in action has perhaps been a bit of a downer for them.
It would also be anathema to the ERG death culters.
Keeping EU customs and agriculture solves the Irish border, and most of the other Channel isdues and keeps out chlorinated chicken. Clearly these are all good.
Am I right that 3rd party EU trade deals, such as South Korea, don't automatically carry over to UK?
I think you are.
I'm not sure what the score is on your namesake rolling them over.
Clearly, if we sign up to the CU we are accepting no freedom to do our own trade deals. We are accepting being bound by the deals the EU negotiates. These have greatly favoured goods over services to our disadvantage even inside the EU so they are hardly likely to get better once we have left. We are bound by EU tariffs which give EU states a continued competitive advantage in our market. We are likely to be bound to comply with EU regulations in relation to goods etc because the overlap between the CU and the SM are considerable in that both are intended to facilitate free movement of goods. OTOH Disruption of trade and supply chain links with the EU largely disappear. The backstop largely ceases to be an issue. There is probably a majority for it in the Commons.
Like Max it is not what I would have chosen but given where we are it seems the best viable option (assuming May's deal isn't).
Because "trade deals" were what politicians said we voted for. When they were unable or unwilling to admit it was immigration.
It looks like the Tories have royally shafted themselves. They will get a kicking at next election of humongous proportions.
That’s more informative than I expected. Note how close Beckett was. It looks like when other options are struck out it will be the last standing.
EDIT Clarke is even closer. Those are the two serious contenders now.
Yes, I'm very surprised by how close the second referendum idea came. A lot less Labour MPs opposed than expected, presumably.
It's not a second referendum. It's a confirmatory referendum on the Deal. Remain wouldn't be on the ballot paper.
More to the point, it didn't specify what would be on the ballot paper. I guess it would have got fewer votes if it had.
They don't get to specify what goes on the ballot paper, the electoral commission does that based on the enabling act. This having the wording of "confirmatory" leads to a yes/no answer. The point of this isn't to have a second referendum, it's to fool gullible idiots into believing Labour are in favour of a second referendum.
But that's the point, the question would be based on this wording of "confirmatory" and the enabling act would have to reflect that.
Labour is leading it's remain supporters up the garden path with this wording. Otherwise why not just come out and say "deal vs remain"?
I'm not denying that Corbyn is a devious triangulating ratfucker but it's not his amendment, it's Kyle's. Kyle phrased it ambiguously to get more votes.
Given how confused even us wonks can get about what is the customs union or a customs union and what the single market is or Norway+ and Malthouse and Chequers and this and that, I don't think there would be as much difficulty in trying to sell customs union Brexit as Brexit enough for most people.
If May had said that we need a permanent customs union at the outset to resolve the Irish issue...it would be done and dusted.... She should have put her red line at the single market...
Seriously, who gives a fuck about doing trade deals with fuck knows where...for fuck knows what.... when we do all our trade in the EU?
A lot of the 'libertarian pirate island' Conservatives do obsess about trade deals - or at least did, seeing Liam Fox in action has perhaps been a bit of a downer for them.
It would also be anathema to the ERG death culters.
Keeping EU customs and agriculture solves the Irish border, and most of the other Channel isdues and keeps out chlorinated chicken. Clearly these are all good.
Am I right that 3rd party EU trade deals, such as South Korea, don't automatically carry over to UK?
I think you are.
I'm not sure what the score is on your namesake rolling them over.
It's going badly, 7 out of ~45 I think covering about 3% of exports.
So if we don't stay in the CU trade will actually be harder in at least the short term.
Given how confused even us wonks can get about what is the customs union or a customs union and what the single market is or Norway+ and Malthouse and Chequers and this and that, I don't think there would be as much difficulty in trying to sell customs union Brexit as Brexit enough for most people.
If May had said that we need a permanent customs union at the outset to resolve the Irish issue...it would be done and dusted.... She should have put her red line at the single market...
Seriously, who gives a fuck about doing trade deals with fuck knows where...for fuck knows what.... when we do all our trade in the EU?
A lot of the 'libertarian pirate island' Conservatives do obsess about trade deals - or at least did, seeing Liam Fox in action has perhaps been a bit of a downer for them.
It would also be anathema to the ERG death culters.
Keeping EU customs and agriculture solves the Irish border, and most of the other Channel isdues and keeps out chlorinated chicken. Clearly these are all good.
Am I right that 3rd party EU trade deals, such as South Korea, don't automatically carry over to UK?
I think you are.
I'm not sure what the score is on your namesake rolling them over.
It's going badly, 7 out of ~45 I think covering about 3% of exports.
So if we don't stay in the CU trade will actually be harder in at least the short term.
Yes, that's why the backstop is a favourable 5-7 stop over while we actually get trade deals signed.
That’s more informative than I expected. Note how close Beckett was. It looks like when other options are struck out it will be the last standing.
EDIT Clarke is even closer. Those are the two serious contenders now.
Yes, I'm very surprised by how close the second referendum idea came. A lot less Labour MPs opposed than expected, presumably.
It's not a second referendum. It's a confirmatory referendum on the Deal. Remain wouldn't be on the ballot paper.
I believe Remain and Revoke Art 50 would be the default alternative based on Kyle's statements and he drafted Beckett
He won't get to implement it though. If the amendment says confirmatory then it has to be a Yes/No question.
A confirmatory vote is a yes no question. You have a proposition, and are asked whether you want it or not. If you vote yes, you get it, and if you vote no, you don't, and things stay as they are.
Yes, things stay as they are - n days from leaving with no deal. A no vote in a confirmatory referendum brings us back to this point.
No, if people don't want the proposition then the process ends.
Well, that means No Deal. Not Remain. The process didn't start with the first referendum.
You know that isn't going to happen. No deal has been rejected comprehensively multiple times now. It is off the table; the PM said as much earlier in the week.
e right back where we started.
There is no point in having a referendum unless both sides of the question take us to a clear end state. And that end state is never going to be no deal. That's the simple political reality.
The end of a no isn't no deal, it's just where we are now asking Parliament to make any decision. You may be right that they would vote to revoke if it was a no, but that would be a decision taken by MPs rather than a no vote. If anything I expect it would lead to an extension and an election.
The one thing certain is that any further referendum will be one where either choice ends things (of course parliament will have to pass the legislation, but unlike last time it will be clear what needs to be done). There are tons of reasons why another vote is far from ideal, but I would bet a lot of money that no-one will hold a vote where one of the outcomes leaves matters unsettled.
HOC to pass MV3 was evens (or even marginally shorter) earlier on. It went out to 3/1 on the DUP's announcement, now back to 2/1.
Putting the MV3 effectively into the WA and having it as a confidence vote on Friday seems like the only shot the PM's got to get the deal through. On my maths she'd get 312 Con votes (Clarke not standing again so he, and the DUP, abstain). She'd still need a couple of Flint / Barron / Hoey / Skinner to tie, and of course she'd need one more because, y'know, Bercow.
THE DUP DO NOT ABSTAIN ON THE UNION. To quote,Dodds earlier.
That’s more informative than I expected. Note how close Beckett was. It looks like when other options are struck out it will be the last standing.
EDIT Clarke is even closer. Those are the two serious contenders now.
Yes, I'm very surprised by how close the second referendum idea came. A lot less Labour MPs opposed than expected, presumably.
It's not a second referendum. It's a confirmatory referendum on the Deal. Remain wouldn't be on the ballot paper.
More to the point, it didn't specify what would be on the ballot paper. I guess it would have got fewer votes if it had.
They don't get to specify what goes on the ballot paper, the electoral commission does that based on the enabling act. This having the wording of "confirmatory" leads to a yes/no answer. The point of this isn't to have a second referendum, it's to fool gullible idiots into believing Labour are in favour of a second referendum.
But that's the point, the question would be based on this wording of "confirmatory" and the enabling act would have to reflect that.
Labour is leading it's remain supporters up the garden path with this wording. Otherwise why not just come out and say "deal vs remain"?
I'm not denying that Corbyn is a devious triangulating ratfucker but it's not his amendment, it's Kyle's. Kyle phrased it ambiguously to get more votes.
Indeed, but if this is what parliament passes then this is what they are stuck with. An attempt to change it to deal vs remain would just get voted down, there isn't a majority in parliament for that referendum.
You made a general point. I was applying it to the next possible referendum. If it fails there, it's a special case you made up for this referendum. More importantly, If this CU plus May deal is tried out, am I right in assuming the backstop is no longer a problem and FOM can be junked (if the government wants to)?
Given how confused even us wonks can get about what is the customs union or a customs union and what the single market is or Norway+ and Malthouse and Chequers and this and that, I don't think there would be as much difficulty in trying to sell customs union Brexit as Brexit enough for most people.
If May had said that we need a permanent customs union at the outset to resolve the Irish issue...it would be done and dusted.... She should have put her red line at the single market...
Seriously, who gives a fuck about doing trade deals with fuck knows where...for fuck knows what.... when we do all our trade in the EU?
A lot of the 'libertarian pirate island' Conservatives do obsess about trade deals - or at least did, seeing Liam Fox in action has perhaps been a bit of a downer for them.
It would also be anathema to the ERG death culters.
Keeping EU customs and agriculture solves the Irish border, and most of the other Channel isdues and keeps out chlorinated chicken. Clearly these are all good.
Am I right that 3rd party EU trade deals, such as South Korea, don't automatically carry over to UK?
It depends.
If we are in 'The' Customs Union then they do roll over.
If we are in 'A' Customs Union then they do not roll over for us having tariff free access to the third party but they do roll over for the third party having tariff free access to our market.
It's not wholly unreasonable, but it's not wholly reasonable either. Enough people are on record as switching to the deal (if not as many as it might appear earlier as I expect ERGers will roll back now their masters in the DUP have spoken) that it is probably about as popular as those two options.
It's also not really a direct comparison when the WA was not included within the indicative votes today. Let's say we do hold MV3 this week and it gets more than those two options - will this person then agree that one of permanent customs union or confirmatory public vote should not be considered? I wouldn't take that bet.
You made a general point. I was applying it to the next possible referendum. If it fails there, it's a special case you made up for this referendum. More importantly, If this CU plus May deal is tried out, am I right in assuming the backstop is no longer a problem and FOM can be junked (if the government wants to)?
How about membership fees?
I was making the point about the EU referendum.
Backstop includes certain SM provisions for NI also don't forget.
It's interesting that if just 14 MPs had voted the other way, the option of holding a second referendum would have passed.
It’s a damn sight closer to passing than Mays deal.
Yeah but it doesn't include loads of the payroll vote in the no lobby.
The assumption - not a given admittedly - is that the government wants a consensus and would therefore remove the barriers they have put up to prevent such a consensus.
Bill Cash having a totally normal one, praising Cromwell on BBC News.
Cromwell is good for a quote and a more nuanced figure in many ways that people give him credit for, but I don't know that he is perfect for people to call on in these situations. He spoke out against perpetual parliaments for a start.
Given how confused even us wonks can get about what is the customs union or a customs union and what the single market is or Norway+ and Malthouse and Chequers and this and that, I don't think there would be as much difficulty in trying to sell customs union Brexit as Brexit enough for most people.
If May had said that we need a permanent customs union at the outset to resolve the Irish issue...it would be done and dusted.... She should have put her red line at the single market...
Seriously, who gives a fuck about doing trade deals with fuck knows where...for fuck knows what.... when we do all our trade in the EU?
A lot of the 'libertarian pirate island' Conservatives do obsess about trade deals - or at least did, seeing Liam Fox in action has perhaps been a bit of a downer for them.
It would also be anathema to the ERG death culters.
Keeping EU customs and agriculture solves the Irish border, and most of the other Channel isdues and keeps out chlorinated chicken. Clearly these are all good.
Am I right that 3rd party EU trade deals, such as South Korea, don't automatically carry over to UK?
I think you are.
I'm not sure what the score is on your namesake rolling them over.
It's going badly, 7 out of ~45 I think covering about 3% of exports.
So if we don't stay in the CU trade will actually be harder in at least the short term.
Yes, that's why the backstop is a favourable 5-7 stop over while we actually get trade deals signed.
HOC to pass MV3 was evens (or even marginally shorter) earlier on. It went out to 3/1 on the DUP's announcement, now back to 2/1.
Putting the MV3 effectively into the WA and having it as a confidence vote on Friday seems like the only shot the PM's got to get the deal through. On my maths she'd get 312 Con votes (Clarke not standing again so he, and the DUP, abstain). She'd still need a couple of Flint / Barron / Hoey / Skinner to tie, and of course she'd need one more because, y'know, Bercow.
I think the NI bigots said earlier that they would vote against, rather than abstain?
Clearly, if we sign up to the CU we are accepting no freedom to do our own trade deals. We are accepting being bound by the deals the EU negotiates. These have greatly favoured goods over services to our disadvantage even inside the EU so they are hardly likely to get better once we have left. We are bound by EU tariffs which give EU states a continued competitive advantage in our market. We are likely to be bound to comply with EU regulations in relation to goods etc because the overlap between the CU and the SM are considerable in that both are intended to facilitate free movement of goods. OTOH Disruption of trade and supply chain links with the EU largely disappear. The backstop largely ceases to be an issue. There is probably a majority for it in the Commons.
Like Max it is not what I would have chosen but given where we are it seems the best viable option (assuming May's deal isn't).
It also means any new deals the EU does the counter party gets access to our market while we don't get reciprocal rights to access theirs. Its why the Turks are reportedly thinking of exiting the CU they have with the EU.
It's not wholly unreasonable, but it's not wholly reasonable either. Enough people are on record as switching to the deal (if not as many as it might appear earlier as I expect ERGers will roll back now their masters in the DUP have spoken) that it is probably about as popular as those two options.
It's also not really a direct comparison when the WA was not included within the indicative votes today. Let's say we do hold MV3 this week and it gets more than those two options - will this person then agree that one of permanent customs union or confirmatory public vote should not be considered? I wouldn't take that bet.
As you say, though, I think the DUP input may have rolled some of those gains back. The government is essentially acting as if its option has unquestionably the greater support now, but that's very far from clear indeed, I would say.
It's interesting that if just 14 MPs had voted the other way, the option of holding a second referendum would have passed.
It’s a damn sight closer to passing than Mays deal.
Yeah but it doesn't include loads of the payroll vote in the no lobby.
The assumption - not a given admittedly - is that the government wants a consensus and would therefore remove the barriers they have put up to prevent such a consensus.
The explicit statement - as opposed to your assumption - is that May will not support anything that goes against her manifesto pledges. So no CU, no SM and no Losers Revote.
You made a general point. I was applying it to the next possible referendum. If it fails there, it's a special case you made up for this referendum. More importantly, If this CU plus May deal is tried out, am I right in assuming the backstop is no longer a problem and FOM can be junked (if the government wants to)?
Clearly, if we sign up to the CU we are accepting no freedom to do our own trade deals. We are accepting being bound by the deals the EU negotiates. These have greatly favoured goods over services to our disadvantage even inside the EU so they are hardly likely to get better once we have left. We are bound by EU tariffs which give EU states a continued competitive advantage in our market. We are likely to be bound to comply with EU regulations in relation to goods etc because the overlap between the CU and the SM are considerable in that both are intended to facilitate free movement of goods. OTOH Disruption of trade and supply chain links with the EU largely disappear. The backstop largely ceases to be an issue. There is probably a majority for it in the Commons.
Like Max it is not what I would have chosen but given where we are it seems the best viable option (assuming May's deal isn't).
It also means any new deals the EU does the counter party gets access to our market while we don't get reciprocal rights to access theirs. Its why the Turks are reportedly thinking of exiting the CU they have with the EU.
It depends if we stay in the customs union or join a customs union. It's all very fuzzy though.
That’s more informative than I expected. Note how close Beckett was. It looks like when other options are struck out it will be the last standing.
EDIT Clarke is even closer. Those are the two serious contenders now.
Yes, I'm very surprised by how close the second referendum idea came. A lot less Labour MPs opposed than expected, presumably.
It's not a second referendum. It's a confirmatory referendum on the Deal. Remain wouldn't be on the ballot paper.
I believe Remain and Revoke Art 50 would be the default alternative based on Kyle's statements and he drafted Beckett
He won't get to implement it though. If the amendment says confirmatory then it has to be a Yes/No question.
A confirmatory vote is a yes no question. You have a proposition, and are asked whether you want it or not. If you vote yes, you get it, and if you vote no, you don't, and things stay as they are.
Yes, things stay as they are - n days from leaving with no deal. A no vote in a confirmatory referendum brings us back to this point.
No, if people don't want the proposition then the process ends.
Well, that means No Deal. Not Remain. The process didn't start with the first referendum.
You know that isn't going to happen. No deal has been rejected comprehensively multiple times now. It is off the table; the PM said as much earlier in the week.
So has everything else.
Point is, confirmatory referendum means Yes/No. As you said, No means we stay as we are. Which, right now, is leaving with No Deal, unless something happens to change it. If we get an extension to hold a confirmatory referendum, then the default is still Leave with No Deal, only later. So if we vote No, we are right back where we started.
There is no point in having a referendum unless both sides of the question take us to a clear end state. And that end state is never going to be no deal. That's the simple political reality.
Ah, now we're getting somewhere. There is indeed no point in having a referendum.
However, wishing that an amendment calling for confirmation on the Deal actually includes an option for Remain is just that. Wishing.
HOC to pass MV3 was evens (or even marginally shorter) earlier on. It went out to 3/1 on the DUP's announcement, now back to 2/1.
Putting the MV3 effectively into the WA and having it as a confidence vote on Friday seems like the only shot the PM's got to get the deal through. On my maths she'd get 312 Con votes (Clarke not standing again so he, and the DUP, abstain). She'd still need a couple of Flint / Barron / Hoey / Skinner to tie, and of course she'd need one more because, y'know, Bercow.
THE DUP DO NOT ABSTAIN ON THE UNION. To quote,Dodds earlier.
Time to strengthen that Union by making abortion and same sex marriage legal throughout it.
HOC to pass MV3 was evens (or even marginally shorter) earlier on. It went out to 3/1 on the DUP's announcement, now back to 2/1.
Putting the MV3 effectively into the WA and having it as a confidence vote on Friday seems like the only shot the PM's got to get the deal through. On my maths she'd get 312 Con votes (Clarke not standing again so he, and the DUP, abstain). She'd still need a couple of Flint / Barron / Hoey / Skinner to tie, and of course she'd need one more because, y'know, Bercow.
THE DUP DO NOT ABSTAIN ON THE UNION. To quote,Dodds earlier.
Confidence and supply, Dixie, confidence and supply. In that position abstention's all they've got.
Given how confused even us wonks can get about what is the customs union or a customs union and what the single market is or Norway+ and Malthouse and Chequers and this and that, I don't think there would be as much difficulty in trying to sell customs union Brexit as Brexit enough for most people.
If May had said that we need a permanent customs union at the outset to resolve the Irish issue...it would be done and dusted.... She should have put her red line at the single market...
Seriously, who gives a fuck about doing trade deals with fuck knows where...for fuck knows what.... when we do all our trade in the EU?
A lot of the 'libertarian pirate island' Conservatives do obsess about trade deals - or at least did, seeing Liam Fox in action has perhaps been a bit of a downer for them.
It would also be anathema to the ERG death culters.
Keeping EU customs and agriculture solves the Irish border, and most of the other Channel isdues and keeps out chlorinated chicken. Clearly these are all good.
Am I right that 3rd party EU trade deals, such as South Korea, don't automatically carry over to UK?
It depends.
If we are in 'The' Customs Union then they do roll over.
If we are in 'A' Customs Union then they do not roll over for us having tariff free access to the third party but they do roll over for the third party having tariff free access to our market.
Sounds like The Customs Union is the better option then.
That’s more informative than I expected. Note how close Beckett was. It looks like when other options are struck out it will be the last standing.
EDIT Clarke is even closer. Those are the two serious contenders now.
Yes, I'm very surprised by how close the second referendum idea came. A lot less Labour MPs opposed than expected, presumably.
It's not a second referendum. It's a confirmatory referendum on the Deal. Remain wouldn't be on the ballot paper.
More to the point, it didn't specify what would be on the ballot paper. I guess it would have got fewer votes if it had.
They don't get to specify what goes on the ballot paper, the electoral commission does that based on the enabling act. This having the wording of "confirmatory" leads to a yes/no answer. The point of this isn't to have a second referendum, it's to fool gullible idiots into believing Labour are in favour of a second referendum.
But that's the point, the question would be based on this wording of "confirmatory" and the enabling act would have to reflect that.
Labour is leading it's remain supporters up the garden path with this wording. Otherwise why not just come out and say "deal vs remain"?
I'm not denying that Corbyn is a devious triangulating ratfucker but it's not his amendment, it's Kyle's. Kyle phrased it ambiguously to get more votes.
Isn't it Beckett's amendment that Kyle phrased in conjunction with Corbyn's office?
HOC to pass MV3 was evens (or even marginally shorter) earlier on. It went out to 3/1 on the DUP's announcement, now back to 2/1.
Putting the MV3 effectively into the WA and having it as a confidence vote on Friday seems like the only shot the PM's got to get the deal through. On my maths she'd get 312 Con votes (Clarke not standing again so he, and the DUP, abstain). She'd still need a couple of Flint / Barron / Hoey / Skinner to tie, and of course she'd need one more because, y'know, Bercow.
THE DUP DO NOT ABSTAIN ON THE UNION. To quote,Dodds earlier.
Time to strengthen that Union by making abortion and same sex marriage legal throughout it.
That’s more informative than I expected. Note how close Beckett was. It looks like when other options are struck out it will be the last standing.
EDIT Clarke is even closer. Those are the two serious contenders now.
Yes, I'm very surprised by how close the second referendum idea came. A lot less Labour MPs opposed than expected, presumably.
It's not a second referendum. It's a confirmatory referendum on the Deal. Remain wouldn't be on the ballot paper.
I believe Remain and Revoke Art 50 would be the default alternative based on Kyle's statements and he drafted Beckett
He won't get to implement it though. If the amendment says confirmatory then it has to be a Yes/No question.
A confirmatory vote is a yes no question. You have a proposition, and are asked whether you want it or not. If you vote yes, you get it, and if you vote no, you don't, and things stay as they are.
Yes, things stay as they are - n days from leaving with no deal. A no vote in a confirmatory referendum brings us back to this point.
No, if people don't want the proposition then the process ends.
Well, that means No Deal. Not Remain. The process didn't start with the first referendum.
You know that isn't going to happen. No deal has been rejected comprehensively multiple times now. It is off the table; the PM said as much earlier in the week.
So has everything else.
Point is, confirmatory referendum means Yes/No. As you said, No means we stay as we are. Which, right now, is leaving with No Deal, unless something happens to change it. If we get an extension to hold a confirmatory referendum, then the default is still Leave with No Deal, only later. So if we vote No, we are right back where we started.
There is no point in having a referendum unless both sides of the question take us to a clear end state. And that end state is never going to be no deal. That's the simple political reality.
Ah, now we're getting somewhere. There is indeed no point in having a referendum.
However, wishing that an amendment calling for confirmation on the Deal actually includes an option for Remain is just that. Wishing.
An educated guess as to what most MPs would prefer, IF one goes ahead.
It's not wholly unreasonable, but it's not wholly reasonable either. Enough people are on record as switching to the deal (if not as many as it might appear earlier as I expect ERGers will roll back now their masters in the DUP have spoken) that it is probably about as popular as those two options.
It's also not really a direct comparison when the WA was not included within the indicative votes today. Let's say we do hold MV3 this week and it gets more than those two options - will this person then agree that one of permanent customs union or confirmatory public vote should not be considered? I wouldn't take that bet.
As you say, though, I think the DUP input may have rolled some of those gains back. The government is essentially acting as if its option has unquestionably the greater support now, but that's very far from clear indeed, I would say.
It is far from clear, but they had gained a number even without the DUP. And while the government is udnerstandably being bullish about its plan having greater support, that doesn't make acting like it should be excluded as an option is not really ok either when at worst it is not far off those other two. It's probably reached as far as it will go, unlike those two, but the government has proven it has the support of not far off those two options.
Given how confused even us wonks can get about what is the customs union or a customs union and what the single market is or Norway+ and Malthouse and Chequers and this and that, I don't think there would be as much difficulty in trying to sell customs union Brexit as Brexit enough for most people.
If May had said that we need a permanent customs union at the outset to resolve the Irish issue...it would be done and dusted.... She should have put her red line at the single market...
Seriously, who gives a fuck about doing trade deals with fuck knows where...for fuck knows what.... when we do all our trade in the EU?
A lot of the 'libertarian pirate island' Conservatives do obsess about trade deals - or at least did, seeing Liam Fox in action has perhaps been a bit of a downer for them.
It would also be anathema to the ERG death culters.
Keeping EU customs and agriculture solves the Irish border, and most of the other Channel isdues and keeps out chlorinated chicken. Clearly these are all good.
Am I right that 3rd party EU trade deals, such as South Korea, don't automatically carry over to UK?
It depends.
If we are in 'The' Customs Union then they do roll over.
If we are in 'A' Customs Union then they do not roll over for us having tariff free access to the third party but they do roll over for the third party having tariff free access to our market.
Sounds like The Customs Union is the better option then.
the EU will not let us stay in the customs union,only a customs union
Given how confused even us wonks can get about what is the customs union or a customs union and what the single market is or Norway+ and Malthouse and Chequers and this and that, I don't think there would be as much difficulty in trying to sell customs union Brexit as Brexit enough for most people.
If May had said that we need a permanent customs union at the outset to resolve the Irish issue...it would be done and dusted.... She should have put her red line at the single market...
Seriously, who gives a fuck about doing trade deals with fuck knows where...for fuck knows what.... when we do all our trade in the EU?
A lot of the 'libertarian pirate island' Conservatives do obsess about trade deals - or at least did, seeing Liam Fox in action has perhaps been a bit of a downer for them.
It would also be anathema to the ERG death culters.
Keeping EU customs and agriculture solves the Irish border, and most of the other Channel isdues and keeps out chlorinated chicken. Clearly these are all good.
Am I right that 3rd party EU trade deals, such as South Korea, don't automatically carry over to UK?
It depends.
If we are in 'The' Customs Union then they do roll over.
If we are in 'A' Customs Union then they do not roll over for us having tariff free access to the third party but they do roll over for the third party having tariff free access to our market.
Sounds like The Customs Union is the better option then.
Actually that's EU membership. Turkey is trying to get more integrated into the EU Customs Union because they are missing out on third party arrangements.
That’s more informative than I expected. Note how close Beckett was. It looks like when other options are struck out it will be the last standing.
EDIT Clarke is even closer. Those are the two serious contenders now.
Yes, I'm very surprised by how close the second referendum idea came. A lot less Labour MPs opposed than expected, presumably.
It's not a second referendum. It's a confirmatory referendum on the Deal. Remain wouldn't be on the ballot paper.
I believe Remain and Revoke Art 50 would be the default alternative based on Kyle's statements and he drafted Beckett
He won't get to implement it though. If the amendment says confirmatory then it has to be a Yes/No question.
A confirmatory vote is a yes no question. You have a proposition, and are asked whether you want it or not. If you vote yes, you get it, and if you vote no, you don't, and things stay as they are.
Yes, things stay as they are - n days from leaving with no deal. A no vote in a confirmatory referendum brings us back to this point.
No, if people don't want the proposition then the process ends.
Well, that means No Deal. Not Remain. The process didn't start with the first referendum.
You know that isn't going to happen. No deal has been rejected comprehensively multiple times now. It is off the table; the PM said as much earlier in the week.
So has everything else.
Point is, confirmatory referendum means Yes/No. As you said, No means we stay as we are. Which, right now, is leaving with No Deal, unless something happens to change it. If we get an extension to hold a confirmatory referendum, then the default is still Leave with No Deal, only later. So if we vote No, we are right back where we started.
There is no point in having a referendum unless both sides of the question take us to a clear end state. And that end state is never going to be no deal. That's the simple political reality.
Ah, now we're getting somewhere. There is indeed no point in having a referendum.
However, wishing that an amendment calling for confirmation on the Deal actually includes an option for Remain is just that. Wishing.
It's not wishing, it's predicting what they would try to do regardless. I'd rather they be upfront about it.
Given how confused even us wonks can get about what is the customs union or a customs union and what the single market is or Norway+ and Malthouse and Chequers and this and that, I don't think there would be as much difficulty in trying to sell customs union Brexit as Brexit enough for most people.
If May had said that we need a permanent customs union at the outset to resolve the Irish issue...it would be done and dusted.... She should have put her red line at the single market...
Seriously, who gives a fuck about doing trade deals with fuck knows where...for fuck knows what.... when we do all our trade in the EU?
A lot of the 'libertarian pirate island' Conservatives do obsess about trade deals - or at least did, seeing Liam Fox in action has perhaps been a bit of a downer for them.
It would also be anathema to the ERG death culters.
Keeping EU customs and agriculture solves the Irish border, and most of the other Channel isdues and keeps out chlorinated chicken. Clearly these are all good.
Am I right that 3rd party EU trade deals, such as South Korea, don't automatically carry over to UK?
It depends.
If we are in 'The' Customs Union then they do roll over.
If we are in 'A' Customs Union then they do not roll over for us having tariff free access to the third party but they do roll over for the third party having tariff free access to our market.
The Clarke motion was for The (definitive article) Customs Union I believe Richard.
(P.S. it is testament to how Kafkaesque Brexit has become that we are now debating the definity of the article in Customs Union)
Given how confused even us wonks can get about what is the customs union or a customs union and what the single market is or Norway+ and Malthouse and Chequers and this and that, I don't think there would be as much difficulty in trying to sell customs union Brexit as Brexit enough for most people.
If May had said that we need a permanent customs union at the outset to resolve the Irish issue...it would be done and dusted.... She should have put her red line at the single market...
Seriously, who gives a fuck about doing trade deals with fuck knows where...for fuck knows what.... when we do all our trade in the EU?
A lot of the 'libertarian pirate island' Conservatives do obsess about trade deals - or at least did, seeing Liam Fox in action has perhaps been a bit of a downer for them.
It would also be anathema to the ERG death culters.
Keeping EU customs and agriculture solves the Irish border, and most of the other Channel isdues and keeps out chlorinated chicken. Clearly these are all good.
Am I right that 3rd party EU trade deals, such as South Korea, don't automatically carry over to UK?
It depends.
If we are in 'The' Customs Union then they do roll over.
If we are in 'A' Customs Union then they do not roll over for us having tariff free access to the third party but they do roll over for the third party having tariff free access to our market.
Sounds like The Customs Union is the better option then.
Both are very bad options but yes 'The' is better than 'A'.
The issue is that, unlike membership of the SM, membership of 'The' CU is actually only supposed to be available to full members of the EU (accepting a few tiny enclave exceptions). The EU has always said it would not accept permanent UK membership of 'The' EU because of the issues it would raise for existing treaties and the management of EU trade.
I have seen nothing to show that the EU has moved from this position and all the statements from EU officials seem to be carefully crafted to make sure they do not officially give way on this point.
Given how confused even us wonks can get about what is the customs union or a customs union and what the single market is or Norway+ and Malthouse and Chequers and this and that, I don't think there would be as much difficulty in trying to sell customs union Brexit as Brexit enough for most people.
If May had said that we need a permanent customs union at the outset to resolve the Irish issue...it would be done and dusted.... She should have put her red line at the single market...
Seriously, who gives a fuck about doing trade deals with fuck knows where...for fuck knows what.... when we do all our trade in the EU?
A lot of the 'libertarian pirate island' Conservatives do obsess about trade deals - or at least did, seeing Liam Fox in action has perhaps been a bit of a downer for them.
It would also be anathema to the ERG death culters.
Keeping EU customs and agriculture solves the Irish border, and most of the other Channel isdues and keeps out chlorinated chicken. Clearly these are all good.
Am I right that 3rd party EU trade deals, such as South Korea, don't automatically carry over to UK?
It depends.
If we are in 'The' Customs Union then they do roll over.
If we are in 'A' Customs Union then they do not roll over for us having tariff free access to the third party but they do roll over for the third party having tariff free access to our market.
Sounds like The Customs Union is the better option then.
Actually that's EU membership. Turkey is trying to get more integrated into the EU Customs Union because they are missing out on third party arrangements.
Given how confused even us wonks can get about what is the customs union or a customs union and what the single market is or Norway+ and Malthouse and Chequers and this and that, I don't think there would be as much difficulty in trying to sell customs union Brexit as Brexit enough for most people.
If May had said that we need a permanent customs union at the outset to resolve the Irish issue...it would be done and dusted.... She should have put her red line at the single market...
Seriously, who gives a fuck about doing trade deals with fuck knows where...for fuck knows what.... when we do all our trade in the EU?
A lot of the 'libertarian pirate island' Conservatives do obsess about trade deals - or at least did, seeing Liam Fox in action has perhaps been a bit of a downer for them.
It would also be anathema to the ERG death culters.
Keeping EU customs and agriculture solves the Irish border, and most of the other Channel isdues and keeps out chlorinated chicken. Clearly these are all good.
Am I right that 3rd party EU trade deals, such as South Korea, don't automatically carry over to UK?
It depends.
If we are in 'The' Customs Union then they do roll over.
If we are in 'A' Customs Union then they do not roll over for us having tariff free access to the third party but they do roll over for the third party having tariff free access to our market.
The Clarke motion was for The (definitive article) Customs Union I believe Richard.
(P.S. it is testament to how Kafkaesque Brexit has become that we are now debating the definity of the article in Customs Union)
This is like when Rangers went bust, and started the next season as The Rangers.
Perhaps we could vote to rename ourselves The Great Britain, put on a different hat, and rock up to the next European Council meeting like nothing has happened?
Given how confused even us wonks can get about what is the customs union or a customs union and what the single market is or Norway+ and Malthouse and Chequers and this and that, I don't think there would be as much difficulty in trying to sell customs union Brexit as Brexit enough for most people.
If May had said that we need a permanent customs union at the outset to resolve the Irish issue...it would be done and dusted.... She should have put her red line at the single market...
Seriously, who gives a fuck about doing trade deals with fuck knows where...for fuck knows what.... when we do all our trade in the EU?
A lot of the 'libertarian pirate island' Conservatives do obsess about trade deals - or at least did, seeing Liam Fox in action has perhaps been a bit of a downer for them.
It would also be anathema to the ERG death culters.
Keeping EU customs and agriculture solves the Irish border, and most of the other Channel isdues and keeps out chlorinated chicken. Clearly these are all good.
Am I right that 3rd party EU trade deals, such as South Korea, don't automatically carry over to UK?
It depends.
If we are in 'The' Customs Union then they do roll over.
If we are in 'A' Customs Union then they do not roll over for us having tariff free access to the third party but they do roll over for the third party having tariff free access to our market.
The Clarke motion was for The (definitive article) Customs Union I believe Richard.
(P.S. it is testament to how Kafkaesque Brexit has become that we are now debating the definity of the article in Customs Union)
Oh I agree. But if that is what Clarke was proposing then it seems he is trying to catch his own Unicorns. Mind you I am not entirely surprised given this was then man who proudly announced he had not read the Lisbon Treaty even though he was one of its strongest advocates.
Given how confused even us wonks can get about what is the customs union or a customs union and what the single market is or Norway+ and Malthouse and Chequers and this and that, I don't think there would be as much difficulty in trying to sell customs union Brexit as Brexit enough for most people.
If May had said that we need a permanent customs union at the outset to resolve the Irish issue...it would be done and dusted.... She should have put her red line at the single market...
Seriously, who gives a fuck about doing trade deals with fuck knows where...for fuck knows what.... when we do all our trade in the EU?
A lot of the 'libertarian pirate island' Conservatives do obsess about trade deals - or at least did, seeing Liam Fox in action has perhaps been a bit of a downer for them.
It would also be anathema to the ERG death culters.
Keeping EU customs and agriculture solves the Irish border, and most of the other Channel isdues and keeps out chlorinated chicken. Clearly these are all good.
Am I right that 3rd party EU trade deals, such as South Korea, don't automatically carry over to UK?
It depends.
If we are in 'The' Customs Union then they do roll over.
If we are in 'A' Customs Union then they do not roll over for us having tariff free access to the third party but they do roll over for the third party having tariff free access to our market.
The Clarke motion was for The (definitive article) Customs Union I believe Richard.
(P.S. it is testament to how Kafkaesque Brexit has become that we are now debating the definity of the article in Customs Union)
This is like when Rangers went bust, and started the next season as The Rangers.
Perhaps we could vote to rename ourselves The Great Britain, put on a different hat, and rock up to the next European Council meeting like nothing has happened?
Why Bercow disallowed my suggested indicative option of 'Let's just say Brexit happened and move on with our lives' I do not know.
So even for the biggest number of votes cast, there were still 60+ abstentions?
That’s the first lot I would throw out of parliament.
The Cabinet and Whips abstained. So, in reality, the majority against CU and Second referendum is 47 greater in each case.
Not necessarily. Individually they would break between both sides.
The main object of Monday's process is to get people to choose between the available options (there may be a case for inserting May's deal back into the process). So there aren't any "no" votes in the same way as electing an MP has no "none" option. Then hope that whatever emerges can carry the house at the end.
Most would vote against a second referendum, although I see that in fact junior whips did vote, leaving the Cabinet, Chief Whip, and a few others. That said, the majority against a second referendum would still be 50 to 60 on a full vote. There are still a lot more Labour MP's opposed than Conservatives in favour.
WA + CU is the only option that seems viable to me (unless MP's come round to WA).
They have intregrity, frustrating as it is, but he does not, given he is clearly willing to accept the WA but lacks the guts to do so without them. But he and others have been clear they have delegated their votes to the DUP before.
Given how confused even us wonks can get about what is the customs union or a customs union and what the single market is or Norway+ and Malthouse and Chequers and this and that, I don't think there would be as much difficulty in trying to sell customs union Brexit as Brexit enough for most people.
If May had said that we need a permanent customs union at the outset to resolve the Irish issue...it would be done and dusted.... She should have put her red line at the single market...
Seriously, who gives a fuck about doing trade deals with fuck knows where...for fuck knows what.... when we do all our trade in the EU?
A lot of the 'libertarian pirate island' Conservatives do obsess about trade deals - or at least did, seeing Liam Fox in action has perhaps been a bit of a downer for them.
It would also be anathema to the ERG death culters.
Keeping EU customs and agriculture solves the Irish border, and most of the other Channel isdues and keeps out chlorinated chicken. Clearly these are all good.
Am I right that 3rd party EU trade deals, such as South Korea, don't automatically carry over to UK?
It depends.
If we are in 'The' Customs Union then they do roll over.
If we are in 'A' Customs Union then they do not roll over for us having tariff free access to the third party but they do roll over for the third party having tariff free access to our market.
The Clarke motion was for The (definitive article) Customs Union I believe Richard.
(P.S. it is testament to how Kafkaesque Brexit has become that we are now debating the definity of the article in Customs Union)
This is like when Rangers went bust, and started the next season as The Rangers.
Perhaps we could vote to rename ourselves The Great Britain, put on a different hat, and rock up to the next European Council meeting like nothing has happened?
Or drop the definite article and just be United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Let's just declare that we have left this Friday on time. Here you go Brexiteers, we have left the European Union. What's that, why are we holding European Parliamentary elections if we haven't left? It's so you can chose people to go sit in Strasbourg and Brussels and insult foreign types.
Just like so many people cover over a performance gap by lying - I AM on a diet, I am going to the gym, I did remember to do that before you reminded me etc etc - we just lie, say we've left and move on.
There are very few tariffs on service exports. What exists are barriers to foreign firms competing in domestic services markets through non-tariff barriers.
So, for example, there are often media or airline ownership rules. And to provide legal or medical services you typically have to be licensed by local bodies. Banking and securities often combine these two forms of barriers: firms have to be majority local owned, and people need to have appropriate local licenses.
Where am I going with this?
Getting countries to lower these kind of barriers is incredibly hard.
Given how confused even us wonks can get about what is the customs union or a customs union and what the single market is or Norway+ and Malthouse and Chequers and this and that, I don't think there would be as much difficulty in trying to sell customs union Brexit as Brexit enough for most people.
If May had said that we need a permanent customs union at the outset to resolve the Irish issue...it would be done and dusted.... She should have put her red line at the single market...
Seriously, who gives a fuck about doing trade deals with fuck knows where...for fuck knows what.... when we do all our trade in the EU?
A lot of the 'libertarian pirate island' Conservatives do obsess about trade deals - or at least did, seeing Liam Fox in action has perhaps been a bit of a downer for them.
It would also be anathema to the ERG death culters.
Keeping EU customs and agriculture solves the Irish border, and most of the other Channel isdues and keeps out chlorinated chicken. Clearly these are all good.
Am I right that 3rd party EU trade deals, such as South Korea, don't automatically carry over to UK?
I think you are.
I'm not sure what the score is on your namesake rolling them over.
It's going badly, 7 out of ~45 I think covering about 3% of exports.
It's a bit better than that, but it's still sub 10% of exports.
(And Dr Fox should hang his head in shame. The DfIT has been an utter disaster on his watch.)
Given how confused even us wonks can get about what is the customs union or a customs union and what the single market is or Norway+ and Malthouse and Chequers and this and that, I don't think there would be as much difficulty in trying to sell customs union Brexit as Brexit enough for most people.
If May had said that we need a permanent customs union at the outset to resolve the Irish issue...it would be done and dusted.... She should have put her red line at the single market...
Seriously, who gives a fuck about doing trade deals with fuck knows where...for fuck knows what.... when we do all our trade in the EU?
A lot of the 'libertarian pirate island' Conservatives do obsess about trade deals - or at least did, seeing Liam Fox in action has perhaps been a bit of a downer for them.
It would also be anathema to the ERG death culters.
Keeping EU customs and agriculture solves the Irish border, and most of the other Channel isdues and keeps out chlorinated chicken. Clearly these are all good.
Am I right that 3rd party EU trade deals, such as South Korea, don't automatically carry over to UK?
It depends.
If we are in 'The' Customs Union then they do roll over.
If we are in 'A' Customs Union then they do not roll over for us having tariff free access to the third party but they do roll over for the third party having tariff free access to our market.
The Clarke motion was for The (definitive article) Customs Union I believe Richard.
(P.S. it is testament to how Kafkaesque Brexit has become that we are now debating the definity of the article in Customs Union)
Oh I agree. But if that is what Clarke was proposing then it seems he is trying to catch his own Unicorns. Mind you I am not entirely surprised given this was then man who proudly announced he had not read the Lisbon Treaty even though he was one of its strongest advocates.
I thought it was the Maastricht Treaty that Ken Clarke boasted about not having read ?
I dare say he's not read any of them as well as you have.
No, contest the European elections and renegotiate based on May's Deal plus Customs Union is what it will be. No Deal was resoundingly voted down by MPs tonight and May has made clear she will not implement No Deal unless MPs vote for it and will keep asking the EU for an extension instead until the Commons votes for a Deal
Comments
What’s more toxic: last minute revocation or a second referendum? Because that’s your choice.
I'm not sure what the score is on your namesake rolling them over.
Putting the MV3 effectively into the WA and having it as a confidence vote on Friday seems like the only shot the PM's got to get the deal through. On my maths she'd get 312 Con votes (Clarke not standing again so he, and the DUP, abstain). She'd still need a couple of Flint / Barron / Hoey / Skinner to tie, and of course she'd need one more because, y'know, Bercow.
http://twitter.com/AnnelieseDodds/status/1111025913221779456
To quote,Dodds earlier.
https://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2019/03/the-94-conservative-mps-who-voted-against-no-deal.html
You made a general point. I was applying it to the next possible referendum. If it fails there, it's a special case you made up for this referendum. More importantly, If this CU plus May deal is tried out, am I right in assuming the backstop is no longer a problem and FOM can be junked (if the government wants to)?
How about membership fees?
If we are in 'The' Customs Union then they do roll over.
If we are in 'A' Customs Union then they do not roll over for us having tariff free access to the third party but they do roll over for the third party having tariff free access to our market.
It's also not really a direct comparison when the WA was not included within the indicative votes today. Let's say we do hold MV3 this week and it gets more than those two options - will this person then agree that one of permanent customs union or confirmatory public vote should not be considered? I wouldn't take that bet.
Bebb, Greening, Grieve, Gyimah, Jo Johnson, Lee, Merriman, Sandbach
The following 10 Tories voted for revoke:
Bebb, Clarke, Duncan, Field, Freer, Greening, Grieve, Hammond, Harrington, Lee
There is a surprising lack of overlap between the two lists. Bebb, Greening, Grieve and Lee are the only ones on both.
Backstop includes certain SM provisions for NI also don't forget.
Why did they do that BTW ?
Admittedly, this morning feels like a long time ago, but even so, lol.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/26/juncker-may-backstop-eu-customs-union
However, wishing that an amendment calling for confirmation on the Deal actually includes an option for Remain is just that. Wishing.
https://petitionmap.unboxedconsulting.com/?petition=241584
eg https://www.dailysabah.com/business/2019/03/06/need-to-modernize-customs-union-lingers-24-years-on
It's not wishing, it's predicting what they would try to do regardless. I'd rather they be upfront about it.
(P.S. it is testament to how Kafkaesque Brexit has become that we are now debating the definity of the article in Customs Union)
Maybe May's best route to her deal lies with the 27 Labour MPs who opposed the Beckett motion.
What is the point of British politics?
The issue is that, unlike membership of the SM, membership of 'The' CU is actually only supposed to be available to full members of the EU (accepting a few tiny enclave exceptions). The EU has always said it would not accept permanent UK membership of 'The' EU because of the issues it would raise for existing treaties and the management of EU trade.
I have seen nothing to show that the EU has moved from this position and all the statements from EU officials seem to be carefully crafted to make sure they do not officially give way on this point.
Perhaps we could vote to rename ourselves The Great Britain, put on a different hat, and rock up to the next European Council meeting like nothing has happened?
WA + CU is the only option that seems viable to me (unless MP's come round to WA).
No one would notice!
How will she surprise us by still not doing so I wonder?
She's already compromised with the EU, and reality, something most of the Commons suggestions didn't do.
Just like so many people cover over a performance gap by lying - I AM on a diet, I am going to the gym, I did remember to do that before you reminded me etc etc - we just lie, say we've left and move on.
https://twitter.com/ParlyApp/status/1111014789034196994
There are very few tariffs on service exports. What exists are barriers to foreign firms competing in domestic services markets through non-tariff barriers.
So, for example, there are often media or airline ownership rules. And to provide legal or medical services you typically have to be licensed by local bodies. Banking and securities often combine these two forms of barriers: firms have to be majority local owned, and people need to have appropriate local licenses.
Where am I going with this?
Getting countries to lower these kind of barriers is incredibly hard.
EDIT: Oops, wrong forum!
(And Dr Fox should hang his head in shame. The DfIT has been an utter disaster on his watch.)
She’s probably stuffing fish down the back of the sofa as present to the next incumbent/person who her forced her out.
I dare say he's not read any of them as well as you have.
https://twitter.com/JoeMurphyLondon/status/1111046051711143937?s=20
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.130766060