A tax question: Where a company spins off a division and issues new shares in the new company to the existing shareholders pro rata I am being told this is being treated as a dividend. Is this correct? Seems odd to me. I don't understand why there should be any tax liability and certainly not an income one as this is a capital transaction. Instead of being an investor in one large company I am now going to be an investor in 2 slightly smaller companies. I haven't sold any shares nor received an income.
I am aware that this sounds tough and brutal. But the sovereign’s writ needs to run everywhere in the country. We have seen what happens when this does not happen - girls being taken out of school for marriage, abuse, honour killings; books being objected to, people being killed for what they have written. If we don’t stamp down on this sort of nonsense now, what will happen next will be very much worse. And it won’t just come from religious parents. It could well come from others saying that they don’t want their children to be taught about Islam or have Muslim teachers in school. How do we counter that if we give in to these parents?
Being taught PHSE in schools does not stop parents instilling their own values at home. That is the point which needs to be reiterated.
If Mordaunt does not want to do her job, you may as well abolish the post. Of course, if we had a strong PM they ought to be taking the lead on this.
This is a slightly weird argument in that I basically agree with at least 90% of what you're saying. The point I'm trying to make is that, as a society, we've got ourselves in a total mess over how to deal with the fact that our stated goal of tolerance to everyone requires us to do things that look "intolerant" to various groups. That contradiction needs resolving, and fast.
The problem in the short term is that it's an area the Tories can't touch with a bargepole, because Labour will weaponise whatever they do or say and paint it as Islamophobia. Any intervention is likely to not only make the situation worse, but also damage the party brand. I don't see why Mordaunt should harm her career on a point of principle unless she could actually do some good, and I'm absolutely certain that in this situation, she can't. Note that the Labour front bench have also been absolutely deafening in their response.
If the state was clear that people were free to follow their religion (as long as it doesn't conflict with the law) but could jog on when it comes to imposing it on anyone else, we'd be a lot better off. I suspect the reason the government's kept a low profile on this is more because they're scared how the CoE would react, rather than allegations of Islamophobia. And it's the CoE's grip on half the school governing bodies in the kingdom that causes the conflict.
If creationists tried to take their kids out of science lessons or change the curriculum in this country, (I'd hope) they'd get short shrift. Why not the same here?
Steve Baker being thoroughly unpleasant on Politics Live. Didn't rule out voting against May in a confidence motion if Customs Union passes but noted that he wouldn't vote against the government "as a Conservative MP".
I saw the discussion on whether or not the Tories should be aiming to abide by their manifesto commitments from 2017 last night, so I went to have a look at how they're doing.
Key policies - Real terms increases in NHS spending reaching £8bn extra per year by 2022/23 [not on track] - Scrapping the triple-lock on the state pension after 2020, replacing it with a "double lock", rising with earnings or inflation [abandoned immediately] - Means test winter fuel payments, taking away £300 from wealthier pensioners [abandoned immediately] - Raising cost of care threshold from £23,000 to £100,000 - but include value of home in calculation of assets for home care as well as residential care [abandoned immediately] - Scrap free school lunches for infants in England, but offer free breakfasts across the primary years [abandoned] - Pump an extra £4bn into schools by 2022 [not on track] - Net migration cut to below 100,000 [not on track] - Increase the amount levied on firms employing non-EU migrant workers [not sure on this one]
Strangely, not one of these seems to have been raised by those so incensed by the idea that the Tories could fail to enact one of their manifesto commitments.
It's almost as if they're less concerned on the point of principle of enforcing manifesto commitments than on getting something they personally wanted.
A Right of exit from Backstop - won't be called B No deal - 160 same as last time C Customs Union -300 (264 last time. Now modified to include word "minimum") D CM 2.0 - 290 (188 last time. Now heavily modified) E Confirmatory PV - 268 (same as last time) F PV to prevent No Deal - won't be called G Parliamentary Supremacy - 280? Not proposed last time. H EFTA and EEA - won't be called.
Mrs May's deal is not up for consideration. It got 286 votes last time out.
If as is likely May ends up putting her Deal head to head against her Deal plus Customs Union then Baker and the remaining ERG rebels plus the DUP could abstain and if the Deal gets the support of the 12 Labour MPs plus Frank Field who voted against a Customs Union last Wednesday the Deal could scrape through
Remove religion from school curriculums altogether. If people wish to subscribe to their chosen superstition at age 18, then we shouldn’t stop them. But teaching them in schools - other than as a humanity subject a la history of geography - is silly.
I am aware that this sounds tough and brutal. But the sovereign’s writ needs to run everywhere in the country. We have seen what happens when this does not happen - girls being taken out of school for marriage, abuse, honour killings; books being objected to, people being killed for what they have written. If we don’t stamp down on this sort of nonsense now, what will happen next will be very much worse. And it won’t just come from religious parents. It could well come from others saying that they don’t want their children to be taught about Islam or have Muslim teachers in school. How do we counter that if we give in to these parents?
Being taught PHSE in schools does not stop parents instilling their own values at home. That is the point which needs to be reiterated.
If Mordaunt does not want to do her job, you may as well abolish the post. Of course, if we had a strong PM they ought to be taking the lead on this.
This is a slightly weird argument in that I basically agree with at least 90% of what you're saying. The point I'm trying to make is that, as a society, we've got ourselves in a total mess over how to deal with the fact that our stated goal of tolerance to everyone requires us to do things that look "intolerant" to various groups. That contradiction needs resolving, and fast.
The problem in the short term is that it's an area the Tories can't touch with a bargepole, because Labour will weaponise whatever they do or say and paint it as Islamophobia. Any intervention is likely to not only make the situation worse, but also damage the party brand. I don't see why Mordaunt should harm her career on a point of principle unless she could actually do some good, and I'm absolutely certain that in this situation, she can't. Note that the Labour front bench have also been absolutely deafening in their response.
Fair points - but it is precisely the job of successful politicians to navigate such dilemmas, rather than quietly ignore them. It makes a mockery of those claiming Mordaunt is any kind of leadership material.
FT reporting more deselections possible in Tories.
Sounds like Blue Momentum fully on the march.
What a disaster for our democracy: both main parties swamped by extremists, whilst others walk away.
The Tories on the brink, Labour have already crossed the event horizon.
Central HQ could stop this, if they act now to stop UKIP (and worse) activists joining.
A lot of Tories left to join UKIP when Cameron was in charge. If they’ve learnt the error of their ways, your position is they shouldn’t be allowed in but converts from any other party - Labour, LibDem, etc - should be. What is the logic for that ?
"converts" is the operative word. Of course if an individual has changed their views and feel they should be in a different party, there shouldn't be a problem. People who haven't changed their views at all and are simply joining a party in order to get rid of their MP and change the party's stance are an entirely different proposition. There is also a big difference between the usual dribble of occasional conversions and an organised attempt to get people to switch parties in larger numbers.
Like all the socialsts and communists who joined a Labour to support Corbyn but didn’t change their views, you mean ?
Grieve is not supporting either the manifesto of the Gov so he deserves what he gets. Gauke to date is being loyal even though he clearly doesn’t want to be. Making a move against him makes no sense and brings the party into disrepute - as as all the idiots campaigning against Berger brought Labour into disrepute.
If disloyalty and the manifesto are the tests (skipping over how problematic the latter would be) then the ERG should be out on their ear. The Tory manifesto committed to an orderly exit with a deal, which they have sought to undermine at every turn.
A Right of exit from Backstop - won't be called B No deal - 160 same as last time C Customs Union -300 (264 last time. Now modified to include word "minimum") D CM 2.0 - 290 (188 last time. Now heavily modified) E Confirmatory PV - 268 (same as last time) F PV to prevent No Deal - won't be called G Parliamentary Supremacy - 280? Not proposed last time. H EFTA and EEA - won't be called.
Mrs May's deal is not up for consideration. It got 286 votes last time out.
Funny how the same posters here keep alternating between saying the ERG are screwing up by not backing the deal (even though most have now) and that there is a real risk of no deal. Both surely aren't right ...
Both are right. There is a risk either of crashing out with No Deal, or of Brexit being cancelled or heavily watered down.
But the WA is being blocked by those who would prefer one of "crashing out with No Deal, or of Brexit being cancelled or heavily watered down." Its a high risk strategy but it's not a screw up if their preference is an option.
Actually it's a screw up either way, as we will find out if (God forbid, although He doesn't seem to be on the case) we do crash out.
Its a screw up by those opposed to crashing out absolutely. To those who'd prefer it over the other options its eminently sensible.
A Right of exit from Backstop - won't be called B No deal - 160 same as last time C Customs Union -300 (264 last time. Now modified to include word "minimum") D CM 2.0 - 290 (188 last time. Now heavily modified) E Confirmatory PV - 268 (same as last time) F PV to prevent No Deal - won't be called G Parliamentary Supremacy - 280? Not proposed last time. H EFTA and EEA - won't be called.
Mrs May's deal is not up for consideration. It got 286 votes last time out.
I think there'll be a few extra for E (some have gone public already) and I don't think G will get as many as you suggest.
Do we know if the Cabinet members are participating this time?
If as is likely May ends up putting her Deal head to head against her Deal plus Customs Union then Baker and the remaining ERG rebels plus the DUP could abstain and if the Deal gets the support of the 12 Labour MPs plus Frank Field who voted against a Customs Union last Wednesday the Deal could scrape through
Can May call a head to head vote? I thought all votes ultimately have to be Aye or Nay. I don't think an either/or vote is possible.
Surely we have already hit the iceberg. Haven't the past two years been working out how or if the lifeboats work?
Someone proposed (yesterday ?) the rather good analogy that the bulk of Parliament had, post collision, headed back down to the dining room to argue about whether they should have venison or lamb for dinner.
A tax question: Where a company spins off a division and issues new shares in the new company to the existing shareholders pro rata I am being told this is being treated as a dividend. Is this correct? Seems odd to me. I don't understand why there should be any tax liability and certainly not an income one as this is a capital transaction. Instead of being an investor in one large company I am now going to be an investor in 2 slightly smaller companies. I haven't sold any shares nor received an income.
Advice?
It depends on the mechanism. There are a number of ways it could be structured to avoid a taxable distribution.
The tax legislation facilitates certain exempt distributions which your transaction may meet the necessary conditions. In practice few transactions are designed to meet these restrictive conditions.
The most common mechanism is currently via a capital reduction in a new holding company inserted above the existing holding company to create sufficient share capital/premium to reduce. This arrangement is structured to meet the conditions of a scheme of arrangement as set out in the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992.
Advance clearance from HMRC will typically have been sought to confirm that the arrangements are undertaken for bona fide commercial purposes and not for the avoidance of tax.
A tax question: Where a company spins off a division and issues new shares in the new company to the existing shareholders pro rata I am being told this is being treated as a dividend. Is this correct? Seems odd to me. I don't understand why there should be any tax liability and certainly not an income one as this is a capital transaction. Instead of being an investor in one large company I am now going to be an investor in 2 slightly smaller companies. I haven't sold any shares nor received an income.
Advice?
I am not a tax expert, but my understanding is the same as yours, i.e. usually there would be no income tax liability and in most cases no capital gains tax implications. However, it is a complex area and it will depend on the exact circumstances of this particular transaction.
Yes, if you're swopping one equity for another equity, no tax should be charged. However the base cost of the asset remains the base of your orginal investment. The new shares 'sit in the shoes' of the old one.
Edit; Although it 'can' be complicated and what looks like one thing can actually be another.
This happened when ICI demerged Zeneca (later Astrazeneca).
All holders of ICI shares got an identical number of shares in the new Zeneca Company. There were no tax implications as I remember though there was a base cost issue for future CGT. I immediately sold all my ICI shares and held onto Zeneca.
I am aware that this sounds tough and brutal. But the sovereign’s writ needs to run everywhere in the country. We have seen what happens when this does not happen - girls being taken out of school for marriage, abuse, honour killings; books being objected to, people being killed for what they have written. If we don’t stamp down on this sort of nonsense now, what will happen next will be very much worse. And it won’t just come from religious parents. It could well come from others saying that they don’t want their children to be taught about Islam or have Muslim teachers in school. How do we counter that if we give in to these parents?
Being taught PHSE in schools does not stop parents instilling their own values at home. That is the point which needs to be reiterated.
If Mordaunt does not want to do her job, you may as well abolish the post. Of course, if we had a strong PM they ought to be taking the lead on this.
This is a slightly weird argument in that I basically agree with at least 90% of what you're saying. The point I'm trying to make is that, as a society, we've got ourselves in a total mess over how to deal with the fact that our stated goal of tolerance to everyone requires us to do things that look "intolerant" to various groups. That contradiction needs resolving, and fast.
The problem in the short term is that it's an area the Tories can't touch with a bargepole, because Labour will weaponise whatever they do or say and paint it as Islamophobia. Any intervention is likely to not only make the situation worse, but also damage the party brand. I don't see why Mordaunt should harm her career on a point of principle unless she could actually do some good, and I'm absolutely certain that in this situation, she can't. Note that the Labour front bench have also been absolutely deafening in their response.
If the state was clear that people were free to follow their religion (as long as it doesn't conflict with the law) but could jog on when it comes to imposing it on anyone else, we'd be a lot better off. I suspect the reason the government's kept a low profile on this is more because they're scared how the CoE would react, rather than allegations of Islamophobia. And it's the CoE's grip on half the school governing bodies in the kingdom that causes the conflict.
If creationists tried to take their kids out of science lessons or change the curriculum in this country, (I'd hope) they'd get short shrift. Why not the same here?
Presumably because it's not on the national curriculum.
FT reporting more deselections possible in Tories.
Sounds like Blue Momentum fully on the march.
What a disaster for our democracy: both main parties swamped by extremists, whilst others walk away.
The Tories on the brink, Labour have already crossed the event horizon.
Central HQ could stop this, if they act now to stop UKIP (and worse) activists joining.
A lot of Tories left to join UKIP when Cameron was in charge. If they’ve learnt the error of their ways, your position is they shouldn’t be allowed in but converts from any other party - Labour, LibDem, etc - should be. What is the logic for that ?
"converts" is the operative word. Of course if an individual has changed their views and feel they should be in a different party, there shouldn't be a problem. People who haven't changed their views at all and are simply joining a party in order to get rid of their MP and change the party's stance are an entirely different proposition. There is also a big difference between the usual dribble of occasional conversions and an organised attempt to get people to switch parties in larger numbers.
Like all the socialsts and communists who joined a Labour to support Corbyn but didn’t change their views, you mean ?
Grieve is not supporting either the manifesto of the Gov so he deserves what he gets. Gauke to date is being loyal even though he clearly doesn’t want to be. Making a move against him makes no sense and brings the party into disrepute - as as all the idiots campaigning against Berger brought Labour into disrepute.
If disloyalty and the manifesto are the tests (skipping over how problematic the latter would be) then the ERG should be out on their ear. The Tory manifesto committed to an orderly exit with a deal, which they have sought to undermine at every turn.
The ERG is a mixed bag in my view but as the manifesto committed to no customs union or single market it’s hard to argue they’ve sought to undermine it.
If as is likely May ends up putting her Deal head to head against her Deal plus Customs Union then Baker and the remaining ERG rebels plus the DUP could abstain and if the Deal gets the support of the 12 Labour MPs plus Frank Field who voted against a Customs Union last Wednesday the Deal could scrape through
Can May call a head to head vote? I thought all votes ultimately have to be Aye or Nay. I don't think an either/or vote is possible.
I imagine parliament would first have to vote to have that form of vote. I think it's unlikely that would pass
If the state was clear that people were free to follow their religion (as long as it doesn't conflict with the law) but could jog on when it comes to imposing it on anyone else, we'd be a lot better off. I suspect the reason the government's kept a low profile on this is more because they're scared how the CoE would react, rather than allegations of Islamophobia. And it's the CoE's grip on half the school governing bodies in the kingdom that causes the conflict.
If creationists tried to take their kids out of science lessons or change the curriculum in this country, (I'd hope) they'd get short shrift. Why not the same here?
Can wealthy religious bigots and/or reactionaries use private schools to shield their children from exposure to nasty things like LGBT relationships?
FT reporting more deselections possible in Tories.
Sounds like Blue Momentum fully on the march.
What a disaster for our democracy: both main parties swamped by extremists, whilst others walk away.
The Tories on the brink, Labour have already crossed the event horizon.
Central HQ could stop this, if they act now to stop UKIP (and worse) activists joining.
A lot of Tories left to join UKIP when Cameron was in charge. If they’ve learnt the error of their ways, your position is they shouldn’t be allowed in but converts from any other party - Labour, LibDem, etc - should be. What is the logic for that ?
"converts" is the operative word. Of course if an individual has changed their views and feel they should be in a different party, there shouldn't be a problem. People who haven't changed their views at all and are simply joining a party in order to get rid of their MP and change the party's stance are an entirely different proposition. There is also a big difference between the usual dribble of occasional conversions and an organised attempt to get people to switch parties in larger numbers.
Like all the socialsts and communists who joined a Labour to support Corbyn but didn’t change their views, you mean ?
Grieve is not supporting either the manifesto of the Gov so he deserves what he gets. Gauke to date is being loyal even though he clearly doesn’t want to be. Making a move against him makes no sense and brings the party into disrepute - as as all the idiots campaigning against Berger brought Labour into disrepute.
If disloyalty and the manifesto are the tests (skipping over how problematic the latter would be) then the ERG should be out on their ear. The Tory manifesto committed to an orderly exit with a deal, which they have sought to undermine at every turn.
The ERG is a mixed bag in my view but as the manifesto committed to no customs union or single market it’s hard to argue they’ve sought to undermine it.
The manifesto also had, as was listed yesterday on here, a load of other stuff, which has all been dropped or kicked into long grass.
Some stuff was dropped, live on TV, within hours of its launch.
If as is likely May ends up putting her Deal head to head against her Deal plus Customs Union then Baker and the remaining ERG rebels plus the DUP could abstain and if the Deal gets the support of the 12 Labour MPs plus Frank Field who voted against a Customs Union last Wednesday the Deal could scrape through
Can May call a head to head vote? I thought all votes ultimately have to be Aye or Nay. I don't think an either/or vote is possible.
There is nothing in law I think requiring an Aye or Nay vote, precedent maybe but the Government and Commons can vote to change that
If as is likely May ends up putting her Deal head to head against her Deal plus Customs Union then Baker and the remaining ERG rebels plus the DUP could abstain and if the Deal gets the support of the 12 Labour MPs plus Frank Field who voted against a Customs Union last Wednesday the Deal could scrape through
Can May call a head to head vote? I thought all votes ultimately have to be Aye or Nay. I don't think an either/or vote is possible.
I imagine parliament would first have to vote to have that form of vote. I think it's unlikely that would pass
The final decision couldn't be made like that - MPs can't take away the right to oppose the proposition - but an earlier stage decision could. It is effectively an amendment, replacing whatever is on the table with the alternative, or not.
A Right of exit from Backstop - won't be called B No deal - 160 same as last time C Customs Union -300 (264 last time. Now modified to include word "minimum") D CM 2.0 - 290 (188 last time. Now heavily modified) E Confirmatory PV - 268 (same as last time) F PV to prevent No Deal - won't be called G Parliamentary Supremacy - 280? Not proposed last time. H EFTA and EEA - won't be called.
Mrs May's deal is not up for consideration. It got 286 votes last time out.
Are the same people abstaining as last time?
No. We've just heard that the 35 SNP who abstained on CM 2.0 are voting for it this time. There will be other switchers from abstain. Possibly not many from "No" to "Aye".
Maybe Peston should have actually found a quote of his calling for more reason and less hate, rather than making up an opinion and implying he's a hypocrite for not sticking to it.
If the state was clear that people were free to follow their religion (as long as it doesn't conflict with the law) but could jog on when it comes to imposing it on anyone else, we'd be a lot better off. I suspect the reason the government's kept a low profile on this is more because they're scared how the CoE would react, rather than allegations of Islamophobia. And it's the CoE's grip on half the school governing bodies in the kingdom that causes the conflict.
If creationists tried to take their kids out of science lessons or change the curriculum in this country, (I'd hope) they'd get short shrift. Why not the same here?
Can wealthy religious bigots and/or reactionaries use private schools to shield their children from exposure to nasty things like LGBT relationships?
You should be working for one of the polling companies if you can produce question wordings as bias-free as that one.
The private schools I went to did not shield their pupils from exposure to nasty things like LGBT relationships. Very much not.
A Right of exit from Backstop - won't be called B No deal - 160 same as last time C Customs Union -300 (264 last time. Now modified to include word "minimum") D CM 2.0 - 290 (188 last time. Now heavily modified) E Confirmatory PV - 268 (same as last time) F PV to prevent No Deal - won't be called G Parliamentary Supremacy - 280? Not proposed last time. H EFTA and EEA - won't be called.
Mrs May's deal is not up for consideration. It got 286 votes last time out.
I think there'll be a few extra for E (some have gone public already) and I don't think G will get as many as you suggest.
Do we know if the Cabinet members are participating this time?
If as is likely May ends up putting her Deal head to head against her Deal plus Customs Union then Baker and the remaining ERG rebels plus the DUP could abstain and if the Deal gets the support of the 12 Labour MPs plus Frank Field who voted against a Customs Union last Wednesday the Deal could scrape through
Can May call a head to head vote? I thought all votes ultimately have to be Aye or Nay. I don't think an either/or vote is possible.
I imagine parliament would first have to vote to have that form of vote. I think it's unlikely that would pass
The final decision couldn't be made like that - MPs can't take away the right to oppose the proposition - but an earlier stage decision could. It is effectively an amendment, replacing whatever is on the table with the alternative, or not.
Sounds totally dead in the water then. ERG&DUP would vote against both the amendment and the main motion.
FT reporting more deselections possible in Tories.
Sounds like Blue Momentum fully on the march.
What a disaster for our democracy: both main parties swamped by extremists, whilst others walk away.
The Tories on the brink, Labour have already crossed the event horizon.
Central HQ could stop this, if they act now to stop UKIP (and worse) activists joining.
A lot of Tories left to join UKIP when Cameron was in charge. If they’ve learnt the error of their ways, your position is they shouldn’t be allowed in but converts from any other party - Labour, LibDem, etc - should be. What is the logic for that ?
"converts" is the operative word. Of course if an individual has changed their views and feel they should be in a different party, there shouldn't be a problem. People who haven't changed their views at all and are simply joining a party in order to get rid of their MP and change the party's stance are an entirely different proposition. There is also a big difference between the usual dribble of occasional conversions and an organised attempt to get people to switch parties in larger numbers.
Like all the socialsts and communists who joined a Labour to support Corbyn but didn’t change their views, you mean ?
Grieve is not supporting either the manifesto of the Gov so he deserves what he gets. Gauke to date is being loyal even though he clearly doesn’t want to be. Making a move against him makes no sense and brings the party into disrepute - as as all the idiots campaigning against Berger brought Labour into disrepute.
If disloyalty and the manifesto are the tests (skipping over how problematic the latter would be) then the ERG should be out on their ear. The Tory manifesto committed to an orderly exit with a deal, which they have sought to undermine at every turn.
The ERG is a mixed bag in my view but as the manifesto committed to no customs union or single market it’s hard to argue they’ve sought to undermine it.
Everyone is picking out the wording they like from the manifesto and accusing others of undermining it, whilst ignoring the bits of the manifesto they don't happen to find convenient. There is no way that voting for a no deal exit - as Baker intends - is upholding the Tory manifesto as he claims.
A tax question: Where a company spins off a division and issues new shares in the new company to the existing shareholders pro rata I am being told this is being treated as a dividend. Is this correct? Seems odd to me. I don't understand why there should be any tax liability and certainly not an income one as this is a capital transaction. Instead of being an investor in one large company I am now going to be an investor in 2 slightly smaller companies. I haven't sold any shares nor received an income.
Advice?
Sounds like a dividend in specie to me.
Thanks for the advice everyone, such a useful place to come. It is conflicting however!
I don't think it is a dividend in specie as there is no cash alternative. There is no cash involved at all; it is a genuine spin off. A new company is being created and existing shareholders obviously get shares in it in proportion to their existing shareholding which presumably will drop in value in proportion to the value of the spun off division.
As far as I am concerned there is no distribution in the form of dividend or capital yet I am being told by the company that HMRC will treat it as a dividend, with a huge tax bill over which I have no control. I had no intention of selling the shares and will not be receiving a dividend from which to pay the tax!
Maybe Peston should have actually found a quote of his calling for more reason and less hate, rather than making up an opinion and implying he's a hypocrite for not sticking to it.
Difficult to get a steer from Lammy's remarks. If he thinks Marie Antoinette invented radium, fuck knows what he thinks the nazis actually did.
If as is likely May ends up putting her Deal head to head against her Deal plus Customs Union then Baker and the remaining ERG rebels plus the DUP could abstain and if the Deal gets the support of the 12 Labour MPs plus Frank Field who voted against a Customs Union last Wednesday the Deal could scrape through
Can May call a head to head vote? I thought all votes ultimately have to be Aye or Nay. I don't think an either/or vote is possible.
Hence the need for the IVs to narrow down all other alternative courses to a single one. Once the Letwin process has picked one (probably CU, CM or CR) then May can bring forward MV3 and point out to MPs that if they vote No, the pre-designated alternative will basically happen whatever she does. It forces the ERG (and Labour Leavers) to make a de facto choice between the two.
A tax question: Where a company spins off a division and issues new shares in the new company to the existing shareholders pro rata I am being told this is being treated as a dividend. Is this correct? Seems odd to me. I don't understand why there should be any tax liability and certainly not an income one as this is a capital transaction. Instead of being an investor in one large company I am now going to be an investor in 2 slightly smaller companies. I haven't sold any shares nor received an income.
Advice?
Sounds like a dividend in specie to me.
Thanks for the advice everyone, such a useful place to come. It is conflicting however!
I don't think it is a dividend in specie as there is no cash alternative. There is no cash involved at all; it is a genuine spin off. A new company is being created and existing shareholders obviously get shares in it in proportion to their existing shareholding which presumably will drop in value in proportion to the value of the spun off division.
As far as I am concerned there is no distribution in the form of dividend or capital yet I am being told by the company that HMRC will treat it as a dividend, with a huge tax bill over which I have no control. I had no intention of selling the shares and will not be receiving a dividend from which to pay the tax!
I recall the Vodaphone sale of its Verizon stake, where shareholders received a lump of cash taxable as income and some Verizon shares which I believe weren't, treated as capital with capital gains tax appying. That case (about which there's a lot of tax advice at the end of a Google search) suggests your original viewpoint is right.
Cool. I went to the Gatow air museum the time before last, good if you like your aircraft in sweaty 'original' condition. Mostly Cold War stuff though they had older exhibits in the main hangar.
The USAF Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB is the aircraft museum sans pareil. Just don't drive in the wrong gate unless you want an M4 stuck in your face by a 19 year old with poor trigger discipline. (Voice of experience)
I would make a plea for the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, both the one in Washington and the annex near the airport. 747s, Concorde, Space Shuttles, Apollo, SR71s, all the fun stuff. Plus it has the 707 prototype in the old Boeing banana-and-chocolate livery, which looked really good.
The ERG is a mixed bag in my view but as the manifesto committed to no customs union or single market it’s hard to argue they’ve sought to undermine it.
Everyone is picking out the wording they like from the manifesto and accusing others of undermining it, whilst ignoring the bits of the manifesto they don't happen to find convenient. There is no way that voting for a no deal exit - as Baker intends - is upholding the Tory manifesto as he claims.
Since the manifesto said we were leaving the customs union - and the backstop keeps us permanently trapped in it unless the EU deign to let us out - voting against is honouring the manifesto.
If we ratify May's crap deal will be out of the customs union and backstop by the next General Election like the manifesto pledged?
If as is likely May ends up putting her Deal head to head against her Deal plus Customs Union then Baker and the remaining ERG rebels plus the DUP could abstain and if the Deal gets the support of the 12 Labour MPs plus Frank Field who voted against a Customs Union last Wednesday the Deal could scrape through
Can May call a head to head vote? I thought all votes ultimately have to be Aye or Nay. I don't think an either/or vote is possible.
Hence the need for the IVs to narrow down all other alternative courses to a single one. Once the Letwin process has picked one (probably CU, CM or CR) then May can bring forward MV3 and point out to MPs that if they vote No, the pre-designated alternative will basically happen whatever she does. It forces the ERG (and Labour Leavers) to make a de facto choice between the two.
The overwhelming majority of the 33 million who voted leave and remain were and are democratic centrist moderates wanting the best for their country, people who vote for democratic centrist parties plus a few who were so moderate politically that they don't usually vote. (They aren't mostly people who don't vote because they are Nazis or Stalinists). I don't think their voice is being properly represented at the moment. The biggest thing most of them want at this moment is that high degree of competence we should expect from people who think they are the best at running the country and get paid for it.
A tax question: Where a company spins off a division and issues new shares in the new company to the existing shareholders pro rata I am being told this is being treated as a dividend. Is this correct? Seems odd to me. I don't understand why there should be any tax liability and certainly not an income one as this is a capital transaction. Instead of being an investor in one large company I am now going to be an investor in 2 slightly smaller companies. I haven't sold any shares nor received an income.
Advice?
Sounds like a dividend in specie to me.
Thanks for the advice everyone, such a useful place to come. It is conflicting however!
I don't think it is a dividend in specie as there is no cash alternative. There is no cash involved at all; it is a genuine spin off. A new company is being created and existing shareholders obviously get shares in it in proportion to their existing shareholding which presumably will drop in value in proportion to the value of the spun off division.
As far as I am concerned there is no distribution in the form of dividend or capital yet I am being told by the company that HMRC will treat it as a dividend, with a huge tax bill over which I have no control. I had no intention of selling the shares and will not be receiving a dividend from which to pay the tax!
What you are describing sounds like a dividend in specie, ie the holding company declares a dividend to be satisfied by the distribution of an asset in your case the shares in a subsidiary. No new shares are issued, just the transfer of existing shares. This is taxable as an income dividend (it does not need to be in cash) unless the restrictive rules of an exempt distribution are met.
If a new company is being formed and shares are being issued it looks as if the arrangements are designed to fall into the scheme of arrangement rules specifically so that it is not taxable as an income dividend.
I would recommend that you take specfic tax advice as this can be a complex area.
If as is likely May ends up putting her Deal head to head against her Deal plus Customs Union then Baker and the remaining ERG rebels plus the DUP could abstain and if the Deal gets the support of the 12 Labour MPs plus Frank Field who voted against a Customs Union last Wednesday the Deal could scrape through
Can May call a head to head vote? I thought all votes ultimately have to be Aye or Nay. I don't think an either/or vote is possible.
I imagine parliament would first have to vote to have that form of vote. I think it's unlikely that would pass
It would pass, the Tories would whip for it and enough Labour Leave MPs who oppose the Customs Union ie 12 plus Field would vote for it to see it pass
No. We've just heard that the 35 SNP who abstained on CM 2.0 are voting for it this time. There will be other switchers from abstain. Possibly not many from "No" to "Aye".
So CM2 should do well this time.
I wonder if Labour's aim is to muddy the waters as much as possible and avoid any clear 'winner'.
If as is likely May ends up putting her Deal head to head against her Deal plus Customs Union then Baker and the remaining ERG rebels plus the DUP could abstain and if the Deal gets the support of the 12 Labour MPs plus Frank Field who voted against a Customs Union last Wednesday the Deal could scrape through
Can May call a head to head vote? I thought all votes ultimately have to be Aye or Nay. I don't think an either/or vote is possible.
I imagine parliament would first have to vote to have that form of vote. I think it's unlikely that would pass
The final decision couldn't be made like that - MPs can't take away the right to oppose the proposition - but an earlier stage decision could. It is effectively an amendment, replacing whatever is on the table with the alternative, or not.
It could be done that way ie a vote to ensure Deal plus permanent Customs Union is the default if May's Deal fails again which would also likely pass if Deal plus permanent Customs Union wins the indicative votes
If as is likely May ends up putting her Deal head to head against her Deal plus Customs Union then Baker and the remaining ERG rebels plus the DUP could abstain and if the Deal gets the support of the 12 Labour MPs plus Frank Field who voted against a Customs Union last Wednesday the Deal could scrape through
Can May call a head to head vote? I thought all votes ultimately have to be Aye or Nay. I don't think an either/or vote is possible.
Hence the need for the IVs to narrow down all other alternative courses to a single one. Once the Letwin process has picked one (probably CU, CM or CR) then May can bring forward MV3 and point out to MPs that if they vote No, the pre-designated alternative will basically happen whatever she does. It forces the ERG (and Labour Leavers) to make a de facto choice between the two.
The ERG can vote against both options.
Not if Deal plus Customs Union becomes the new default if May's Deal fails again
FT reporting more deselections possible in Tories.
Sounds like Blue Momentum fully on the march.
What a disaster for our democracy: both main parties swamped by extremists, whilst others walk away.
The Tories on the brink, Labour have already crossed the event horizon.
Central HQ could stop this, if they act now to stop UKIP (and worse) activists joining.
A lot of Tories left to join UKIP when Cameron was in charge. If they’ve learnt the error of their ways, your position is they shouldn’t be allowed in but converts from any other party - Labour, LibDem, etc - should be. What is the logic for that ?
"converts" is the operative word. Of course if an individual has changed their views and feel they should be in a different party, there shouldn't be a problem. People who haven't changed their views at all and are simply joining a party in order to get rid of their MP and change the party's stance are an entirely different proposition. There is also a big difference between the usual dribble of occasional conversions and an organised attempt to get people to switch parties in larger numbers.
Like all the socialsts and communists who joined a Labour to support Corbyn but didn’t change their views, you mean ?
Grieve is not supporting either the manifesto of the Gov so he deserves what he gets. Gauke to date is being loyal even though he clearly doesn’t want to be. Making a move against him makes no sense and brings the party into disrepute - as as all the idiots campaigning against Berger brought Labour into disrepute.
If disloyalty and the manifesto are the tests (skipping over how problematic the latter would be) then the ERG should be out on their ear. The Tory manifesto committed to an orderly exit with a deal, which they have sought to undermine at every turn.
The ERG is a mixed bag in my view but as the manifesto committed to no customs union or single market it’s hard to argue they’ve sought to undermine it.
The manifesto also had, as was listed yesterday on here, a load of other stuff, which has all been dropped or kicked into long grass....
And did not include giving a veto on policy to the DUP.
May can never properly rule ANYTHING in or out can she ? Does she answer stuff "Have no intention" when she actually means "won't".
Mind you she repeatedly stated "We ARE leaving on the 29th March" too, so even her unequivocal statements seemingly have a large degree of equivocation.
If as is likely May ends up putting her Deal head to head against her Deal plus Customs Union then Baker and the remaining ERG rebels plus the DUP could abstain and if the Deal gets the support of the 12 Labour MPs plus Frank Field who voted against a Customs Union last Wednesday the Deal could scrape through
Can May call a head to head vote? I thought all votes ultimately have to be Aye or Nay. I don't think an either/or vote is possible.
Hence the need for the IVs to narrow down all other alternative courses to a single one. Once the Letwin process has picked one (probably CU, CM or CR) then May can bring forward MV3 and point out to MPs that if they vote No, the pre-designated alternative will basically happen whatever she does. It forces the ERG (and Labour Leavers) to make a de facto choice between the two.
The ERG can vote against both options.
Sure they can. But if (say) CM2 gets a majority today. then voting down MV3 on Wednesday is suddenly much more likely to lead to CM2 happening anyway.
If as is likely May ends up putting her Deal head to head against her Deal plus Customs Union then Baker and the remaining ERG rebels plus the DUP could abstain and if the Deal gets the support of the 12 Labour MPs plus Frank Field who voted against a Customs Union last Wednesday the Deal could scrape through
Can May call a head to head vote? I thought all votes ultimately have to be Aye or Nay. I don't think an either/or vote is possible.
I imagine parliament would first have to vote to have that form of vote. I think it's unlikely that would pass
The final decision couldn't be made like that - MPs can't take away the right to oppose the proposition - but an earlier stage decision could. It is effectively an amendment, replacing whatever is on the table with the alternative, or not.
If MPs and PMs were sensible, May and letwin would anounce the following vote on WA+CU, then a vote on WA-CU to supercede the first vote. If this is given as the option then WA+CU would essentially be the Labour Cabinet's wish and would almost certainly be passed, as fits the referendum, May's initial 2016 plan and bins No Deal. Then the government would have a very good shot at WA-CU as all Tories would then be voting for the government's prefered choice.
Maybe Peston should have actually found a quote of his calling for more reason and less hate, rather than making up an opinion and implying he's a hypocrite for not sticking to it.
I suppose by his mere presence Lammy is making sure there is less reason and more hate, so you might have a point
Having made it into the office at 7:10 am (after a 95 mile commute...) and a busy morning wrestling either the Monster Spreadsheet of Death or sitting in meetings, just been out for a 3k speed meander down the River Don. And feel great for it!
Perhaps some of the Cabinet might like to go for a walk down the Thames. And keep going. And don't come back.
FT reporting more deselections possible in Tories.
Sounds like Blue Momentum fully on the march.
What a disaster for our democracy: both main parties swamped by extremists, whilst others walk away.
The Tories on the brink, Labour have already crossed the event horizon.
Central HQ could stop this, if they act now to stop UKIP (and worse) activists joining.
A lot of Tories left to join UKIP when Cameron was in charge. If they’ve learnt the error of their ways, your position is they shouldn’t be allowed in but converts from any other party - Labour, LibDem, etc - should be. What is the logic for that ?
Like all the socialsts and communists who joined a Labour to support Corbyn but didn’t change their views, you mean ?
Grieve is not supporting either the manifesto of the Gov so he deserves what he gets. Gauke to date is being loyal even though he clearly doesn’t want to be. Making a move against him makes no sense and brings the party into disrepute - as as all the idiots campaigning against Berger brought Labour into disrepute.
If disloyalty and the manifesto are the tests (skipping over how problematic the latter would be) then the ERG should be out on their ear. The Tory manifesto committed to an orderly exit with a deal, which they have sought to undermine at every turn.
The ERG is a mixed bag in my view but as the manifesto committed to no customs union or single market it’s hard to argue they’ve sought to undermine it.
Everyone is picking out the wording they like from the manifesto and accusing others of undermining it, whilst ignoring the bits of the manifesto they don't happen to find convenient. There is no way that voting for a no deal exit - as Baker intends - is upholding the Tory manifesto as he claims.
No deal wasn’t there as policy - correct, but it’s entirely consistent with exiting the CU and the SM. There is nothing else on offer that is consistent.
The whole process was always going to be screwed once May agreed an agenda that excluded trade. The backstop is still a trap with no compensation whatsoever. A closer relationship with the EU means allowing the EU to dictate trade policy and trade regs.
It’s the same old debate and it’s too emotive because nobody is talking about anything else. We are going to end up with either no deal, no Brexit or Norway. May was foolish not to go for Canada’s model.
I am aware that this sounds tough and brutal. But the sovereign’s writ needs to run everywhere in the country. We have seen what happens when this does not happen - girls being taken out of school for marriage, abuse, honour killings; books being objected to, people being killed for what they have written. If we don’t stamp down on this sort of nonsense now, what will happen next will be very much worse. And it won’t just come from religious parents. It could well come from others saying that they don’t want their children to be taught about Islam or have Muslim teachers in school. How do we counter that if we give in to these parents?
Being taught PHSE in schools does not stop parents instilling their own values at home. That is the point which needs to be reiterated.
If Mordaunt does not want to do her job, you may as well abolish the post. Of course, if we had a strong PM they ought to be taking the lead on this.
This is a slightly weird argument in that I basically agree with at least 90% of what you're saying. The point I'm trying to make is that, as a society, we've got ourselves in a total mess over how to deal with the fact that our stated goal of tolerance to everyone requires us to do things that look "intolerant" to various groups. That contradiction needs resolving, and fast.
The problem in the short term is that it's an area the Tories can't touch with a bargepole, because Labour will weaponise whatever they do or say and paint it as Islamophobia. Any intervention is likely to not only make the situation worse, but also damage the party brand. I don't see why Mordaunt should harm her career on a point of principle unless she could actually do some good, and I'm absolutely certain that in this situation, she can't. Note that the Labour front bench have also been absolutely deafening in their response.
If the state was clear that people were free to follow their religion (as long as it doesn't conflict with the law) but could jog on when it comes to imposing it on anyone else, we'd be a lot better off. I suspect the reason the government's kept a low profile on this is more because they're scared how the CoE would react, rather than allegations of Islamophobia. And it's the CoE's grip on half the school governing bodies in the kingdom that causes the conflict.
If creationists tried to take their kids out of science lessons or change the curriculum in this country, (I'd hope) they'd get short shrift. Why not the same here?
Presumably because it's not on the national curriculum.
It will be soon enough - Sep 2020 (although I suspect the caveats about "age appropriate" and "with regard to religious background" will leave enough space for bigots.)
If as is likely May ends up putting her Deal head to head against her Deal plus Customs Union then Baker and the remaining ERG rebels plus the DUP could abstain and if the Deal gets the support of the 12 Labour MPs plus Frank Field who voted against a Customs Union last Wednesday the Deal could scrape through
Can May call a head to head vote? I thought all votes ultimately have to be Aye or Nay. I don't think an either/or vote is possible.
I imagine parliament would first have to vote to have that form of vote. I think it's unlikely that would pass
It would pass, the Tories would whip for it and enough Labour Leave MPs who oppose the Customs Union ie 12 plus Field would vote for it to see it pass
Tories whipping for it wouldn't stop the ERG from voting against.
Hi all, Hope everyone is enjoying the latest dramas. As we are looking at manifestos, I had a look at the 2015 Conservative manifesto, which promised the "in-out" referendum in the first place, to see what the "out" of "in-out" meant (at least according to that manifesto - which is perhaps not a bad place to start as nobody can agree in any other way).
There are a few references to the single-market: "we will safeguard British interests in the Single Market" "We say: yes to the Single Market" and a few others all very pro-Single Market
The only logical conclusion is that the "out" bit of the "in-out" referendum promised in that manifesto meant leaving the EU but staying in the Single Market, otherwise the manifesto is self-contradictory. So IF we want to actually honour the result of the 2016 referendum we should simply leave the EU and stay in the Single Market (IF we think what manifestos say should carry much weight).
There are no mentions of "customs union(s)", "backstop(s)", the ECJ, or the border in with the Republic of Ireland, so those are still up for debate I guess.
There is no contradiction between her two roles: minority religions are free to teach children the tenets of their religion but must also ensure that they do not prevent their children from being taught - just like every other child - what is the law of the land.
But aren't the Parkfield protests about lessons which are not on the national curriculum?
Yes, I think the law is on the side of the protestors.
It will be soon enough - Sep 2020 (although I suspect the caveats about "age appropriate" and "with regard to religious background" will leave enough space for bigots.)
Well there's the problem. Remove the "religious background" caveat. (By the way, do you have a source? I'd like to read exactly what's being added)
Everyone ready for another crazy day on the Westminster merry-go-round?
Morning GIN, PB is a mirror view of Westminster, full of loons spouting as if they were experts whilst running about frothing. Good to see the Tory panic.
Morning Malc,
I think most of our establishment are living on coffee, gin and valium now...
GIN, I am glad of the two week delay as I am off to Germany for a holiday at end of week, hopefully I will get back in.
Which part you going to Malc? We'd booked a holiday in Berlin last week, partially in the expectation that things might get complicated after the 29th, should have had more faith in Tessy's can kicking.
TUD, going to Lower Saxony , staying in Hamelin. Key was to be in proximity of Munster Tank museum ( did not stay there as limited accommodation choice ). Will be doing all the pied piper stuff and there is a nice small museum with JU52 nearby as well. Taking oldest grandson who is tank fanatic.
Cool. I went to the Gatow air museum the time before last, good if you like your aircraft in sweaty 'original' condition. Mostly Cold War stuff though they had older exhibits in the main hangar.
Have plan to go there, he also wants to go to the tank museum in Moscow which is supposed to be the best. Mind you he has a list in US and elsewhere also. Will definitely do Gatow at some point in near future.
Russian military museums are good because, for the price of a surprisingly affordable bribe, you can dismantle the exhibits for souvenirs.
Everyone ready for another crazy day on the Westminster merry-go-round?
Morning GIN, PB is a mirror view of Westminster, full of loons spouting as if they were experts whilst running about frothing. Good to see the Tory panic.
Morning Malc,
I think most of our establishment are living on coffee, gin and valium now...
GIN, I am glad of the two week delay as I am off to Germany for a holiday at end of week, hopefully I will get back in.
Enjoy; you'll probably be OK if you travel by surface; not quite so confident about air.
OKC , I am driving and taking ferry South Shields to Ijmuiden. So get a wee cruise as well.
I'd check and make that North Shields if I were you...lovely food on that boat.
Oops mixing up my Shields, yes I have splashed out this time and taken top cabins with free refreshments and booked the nice restaurant, should be excellent. First time I went years ago I let them just pick standard cabin for me and ended up on top of the engines , what a nightmare, never make that mistake again. Certainly nice ships.
I hope you enjoy yourself Malc, and come back with renewed vim and vigour. Is your booking a top cabin with free refreshments the same as the free glass of champagne that is offered in business or first class air travel*?
*ie not free.
Well , as you say not free and exactly like your example. I could try to drink my weight etc but boss will have me on best behaviour with grandson there.
Cool. I went to the Gatow air museum the time before last, good if you like your aircraft in sweaty 'original' condition. Mostly Cold War stuff though they had older exhibits in the main hangar.
The USAF Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB is the aircraft museum sans pareil. Just don't drive in the wrong gate unless you want an M4 stuck in your face by a 19 year old with poor trigger discipline. (Voice of experience)
I would make a plea for the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, both the one in Washington and the annex near the airport. 747s, Concorde, Space Shuttles, Apollo, SR71s, all the fun stuff. Plus it has the 707 prototype in the old Boeing banana-and-chocolate livery, which looked really good.
That 707 is the very plane that Tex Johnson barrel-rolled at an air display. There's footage on youtube somewhere. Nutter.
Comments
If creationists tried to take their kids out of science lessons or change the curriculum in this country, (I'd hope) they'd get short shrift. Why not the same here?
A Right of exit from Backstop - won't be called
B No deal - 160 same as last time
C Customs Union -300 (264 last time. Now modified to include word "minimum")
D CM 2.0 - 290 (188 last time. Now heavily modified)
E Confirmatory PV - 268 (same as last time)
F PV to prevent No Deal - won't be called
G Parliamentary Supremacy - 280? Not proposed last time.
H EFTA and EEA - won't be called.
Mrs May's deal is not up for consideration. It got 286 votes last time out.
Remove religion from school curriculums altogether. If people wish to subscribe to their chosen superstition at age 18, then we shouldn’t stop them. But teaching them in schools - other than as a humanity subject a la history of geography - is silly.
It makes a mockery of those claiming Mordaunt is any kind of leadership material.
Do we know if the Cabinet members are participating this time?
The tax legislation facilitates certain exempt distributions which your transaction may meet the necessary conditions. In practice few transactions are designed to meet these restrictive conditions.
The most common mechanism is currently via a capital reduction in a new holding company inserted above the existing holding company to create sufficient share capital/premium to reduce. This arrangement is structured to meet the conditions of a scheme of arrangement as set out in the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992.
Advance clearance from HMRC will typically have been sought to confirm that the arrangements are undertaken for bona fide commercial purposes and not for the avoidance of tax.
All holders of ICI shares got an identical number of shares in the new Zeneca Company. There were no tax implications as I remember though there was a base cost issue for future CGT. I immediately sold all my ICI shares and held onto Zeneca.
Some stuff was dropped, live on TV, within hours of its launch.
Therefore May should shed no tears about his resigning the whip as it would make it easier to replace him.
The private schools I went to did not shield their pupils from exposure to nasty things like LGBT relationships. Very much not.
I don't think it is a dividend in specie as there is no cash alternative. There is no cash involved at all; it is a genuine spin off. A new company is being created and existing shareholders obviously get shares in it in proportion to their existing shareholding which presumably will drop in value in proportion to the value of the spun off division.
As far as I am concerned there is no distribution in the form of dividend or capital yet I am being told by the company that HMRC will treat it as a dividend, with a huge tax bill over which I have no control. I had no intention of selling the shares and will not be receiving a dividend from which to pay the tax!
EDIT 3:30 to 4pm
Here is the order paper.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmagenda/ob190401.htm#_idTextAnchor003
On the curriculum, I mean, not in the showers.
If we ratify May's crap deal will be out of the customs union and backstop by the next General Election like the manifesto pledged?
No easy task if it doesn't deliver anything other than full fat Brexit.
Thwarting Brexit will be the easy bit. Living with the aftermath will be brutal.
If a new company is being formed and shares are being issued it looks as if the arrangements are designed to fall into the scheme of arrangement rules specifically so that it is not taxable as an income dividend.
I would recommend that you take specfic tax advice as this can be a complex area.
I wonder if Labour's aim is to muddy the waters as much as possible and avoid any clear 'winner'.
Mind you she repeatedly stated "We ARE leaving on the 29th March" too, so even her unequivocal statements seemingly have a large degree of equivocation.
vote on WA+CU, then a vote on WA-CU to supercede the first vote. If this is given as the option then WA+CU would essentially be the Labour Cabinet's wish and would almost certainly be passed, as fits the referendum, May's initial 2016 plan and bins No Deal. Then the government would have a very good shot at WA-CU as all Tories would then be voting for the government's prefered choice.
Perhaps some of the Cabinet might like to go for a walk down the Thames. And keep going. And don't come back.
The whole process was always going to be screwed once May agreed an agenda that excluded trade. The backstop is still a trap with no compensation whatsoever. A closer relationship with the EU means allowing the EU to dictate trade policy and trade regs.
It’s the same old debate and it’s too emotive because nobody is talking about anything else. We are going to end up with either no deal, no Brexit or Norway. May was foolish not to go for Canada’s model.
Hope everyone is enjoying the latest dramas.
As we are looking at manifestos, I had a look at the 2015 Conservative manifesto, which promised the "in-out" referendum in the first place, to see what the "out" of "in-out" meant (at least according to that manifesto - which is perhaps not a bad place to start as nobody can agree in any other way).
There are a few references to the single-market:
"we will safeguard British interests in the Single Market"
"We say: yes to the Single Market" and a few others all very pro-Single Market
The only logical conclusion is that the "out" bit of the "in-out" referendum promised in that manifesto meant leaving the EU but staying in the Single Market, otherwise the manifesto is self-contradictory. So IF we want to actually honour the result of the 2016 referendum we should simply leave the EU and stay in the Single Market (IF we think what manifestos say should carry much weight).
There are no mentions of "customs union(s)", "backstop(s)", the ECJ, or the border in with the Republic of Ireland, so those are still up for debate I guess.
NEW THREAD