The LibDems [are] a centrist party economically, but socially liberal, green and internationalist and appealing to the growing middle classes and the young. It isn't a replacement for the Labour Party. It has its own identity and destiny.
That's something I've been thinking about recently as people on here excite themselves with the idea of the Lib Dems replacing Labour.
We have to remember that the seats most vulnerable to the Lib Dems have always been mainly Conservative seats.
If the Lib Dems were to become strong enough to win a majority I think Labour would still win ~150 seats in core areas and it would be the Tories who would be in real trouble - at least under FPTP.
The only way to kill Labour is with PR of some sort.
Of course the instruction made perfect sense but due to a miscommunication they charged the wrong guns.
In a large proportion of Welsh seats there will be a "unite to Remain" candidate with two of LD/GRN/PC standing aside. That could make it harder in CON targets.
Unlikey to make much difference except in a few seats. Maybe help Plaid in Ynys Mon and LDs in Cardiff Central. But I dont see much love lost between Plaid and Lib Dems so dont assume there will be automatic switching of support....
I think this affects the following constituencies :
Brecon and Radnorshire & Montgomeryshire for LD vs Tory; Cardiff Central Lib Dem vs Labour Ynys Mons for Plaid vs mainly Labour and marginally Tory. Plaid in Ceredigion if the Lib Dems stand aside there as part of a deal for elsewhere.
I think the Greens are irrelevant in Wales generally though their not standing could help Labour at the margins in the Lab-Tory battlegrounds, but it's very very marginal.
Hmm, there's a lot of over-optimism, it seems to me. Remember the key point is that neither side wants to be blamed for the talks collapsing, but is it really plausible that there will be an agreed legal text by tonight, which the EU27 leaders will accept, and which differs sufficiently from the previous one to allow the ERGers and DUP to agree to it, and which gets past the EU parliament, and which also gets support from enough Labour MPs, ex-Tories and indies to pass in the UK parliament by Saturday?
Even in the most optimistic scenario, the best that can be hoped for is that the outline of a deal is looking possible, but more time will be needed to get it done.
What does Boris then do? He has done precisely zero to ease the naive expectations that he could deliver a deal by do-or-die date - in fact quite the opposite, he keeps doubling down on it. He'll be trapped by the Benn Act. He'll know that a No Deal crash out in a fortnight's time would be an utter disaster. He'll lose enormous credibility if we don't leave on that arbitrary date. He'll have Rees Mogg and the heavies breathing down his neck. He'll have Farage gleefully chucking rocks from the sidelines. He'll have the opposition parties trying to impale him on his stupid pledge.
All this suggests to me a messy extension which pleases no-one and which leaves Boris still striving, like Theresa May, to herd the cats in support of a deal no-one really likes.
Correct, Boris has painted himself and the country into a corner. Whatever happens we'll be worse off, only Revoke can get us out of the mess quickly or a 2nd ref more slowly.
Seems to me that Boris is gaming this pretty well. He's coming across as positive, optimistic and proactive. End of Brexit in sight. Should be able to largely reunite Party. Labour's foxes (NHS spending etc) are shot. LibDems stuck with revoke policy which will look pretty stupid if a deal is in sight. Don't think the vast majority of public will be that bothered by a short extension if process is underway.
Could all go wrong, of course. But there appears to be light at the end of the tunnel and voting for anyone else could cause the train to derail.
The end of Brexit is nowhere in sight. Any WA is merely the start of extensive negotiations, not just with the EU but with every other country with whom previous trading arrangements have just been torn up, to replicate alternatives. And that's just trading. There will have to be negotiations on data sharing, possibly even more important than - and in any event essential for - trade in a digital/AI world. All of this will consume time and energy which could have been used for other matters. The results of such negotiations will impact every aspect of British life and politics for years to come.
It is delusional to think that Brexit will be over any time soon. It will be quite entertaining, though, watching Brexiteers come to terms with their delusion.
You're wrong to ascribe this to Brexit though.
Government talk and negotiate all the time. It's what they do.
How many trade negotiations has the government been involved in in the last 25 years, say? Or data protection measures? Obviously exclude the ones done through the EU.
The subject of the negotiations isn't particularly relevant: trade negotiations are complex, but expertise can be learned and bought in if needed
For example, the negotiation with France over the treatment of migrants in Calais is one recent ish example
I think Ireland want this sorted out at this weeks summit.
All 27 have to be happy.
I must admit that I’m perplexed by the “scandis” comment. Sweden is ultra pro-deal, so he must be referring to Denmark or Finland (which isn’t actually “scandi”, but rather Nordic). I can’t imagine why either of them would be bothered, as long as Ireland is happy.
Unless, as is very possible, the Nordics were rather hoping Britain might stay in the end. Therefore any deal, as it gets close, is unwanted.
Certainly the Hanseatic and protestant European nations were the most dismayed by the original Brexit vote.
Does 'most dismayed' mean a bit less indifferent than the rest?
Hmm, there's a lot of over-optimism, it seems to me. Remember the key point is that neither side wants to be blamed for the talks collapsing, but is it really plausible that there will be an agreed legal text by tonight, which the EU27 leaders will accept, and which differs sufficiently from the previous one to allow the ERGers and DUP to agree to it, and which gets past the EU parliament, and which also gets support from enough Labour MPs, ex-Tories and indies to pass in the UK parliament by Saturday?
Even in the most optimistic scenario, the best that can be hoped for is that the outline of a deal is looking possible, but more time will be needed to get it done.
What does Boris then do? He has done precisely zero to ease the naive expectations that he could deliver a deal by do-or-die date - in fact quite the opposite, he keeps doubling down on it. He'll be trapped by the Benn Act. He'll know that a No Deal crash out in a fortnight's time would be an utter disaster. He'll lose enormous credibility if we don't leave on that arbitrary date. He'll have Rees Mogg and the heavies breathing down his neck. He'll have Farage gleefully chucking rocks from the sidelines. He'll have the opposition parties trying to impale him on his stupid pledge.
All this suggests to me a messy extension which pleases no-one and which leaves Boris still striving, like Theresa May, to herd the cats in support of a deal no-one really likes.
Deal agreed in principle, subject to ratification.
The postal votes are generally for the elderly, hence they benefit the Tories.
However, there remains a view - evidence-based, hearsay, scurrilous rumour, vile racist slander, take your pick - that in the south Asian communities there are sophisticated vote-harvesting operations by community leaders in favour of their Labour Party cronies.
There have been a number of cases on this which set out what has happened. While Labour has benefited in some cases, it has not just been Labour. The Tories too have benefited as have independents such as Lutfur Rahman.
Non-ID voting is a free licence for corruption and voter fraud. It needs to stop as a matter of principle.
Seems to me that Boris is gaming this pretty well. He's coming across as positive, optimistic and proactive. End of Brexit in sight. Should be able to largely reunite Party. Labour's foxes (NHS spending etc) are shot. LibDems stuck with revoke policy which will look pretty stupid if a deal is in sight. Don't think the vast majority of public will be that bothered by a short extension if process is underway.
Could all go wrong, of course. But there appears to be light at the end of the tunnel and voting for anyone else could cause the train to derail.
The end of Brexit is nowhere in sight. Any WA is merely the start of extensive negotiations, not just with the EU but with every other country with whom previous trading arrangements have just been torn up, to replicate alternatives. And that's just trading. There will have to be negotiations on data sharing, possibly even more important than - and in any event essential for - trade in a digital/AI world. All of this will consume time and energy which could have been used for other matters. The results of such negotiations will impact every aspect of British life and politics for years to come.
It is delusional to think that Brexit will be over any time soon. It will be quite entertaining, though, watching Brexiteers come to terms with their delusion.
You're wrong to ascribe this to Brexit though.
Government talk and negotiate all the time. It's what they do.
How many trade negotiations has the government been involved in in the last 25 years, say? Or data protection measures? Obviously exclude the ones done through the EU.
According to the Beeboids, at least 15 covering 40 countries :-D. May be more now though - it has had another fortnight.
I've assured her that a son who lives in Thailand drives while there on an International licence, but she's still bothered.
That's generally time-limited, eg in Japan it's limited to 3 months. It's also a massive rats nest of bilateral agreements, so if you're British you can convert your license with just bureaucracy and a weird check of old passports, but if you're American you have to take the full Japanese test.
Hmm, there's a lot of over-optimism, it seems to me. Remember the key point is that neither side wants to be blamed for the talks collapsing, but is it really plausible that there will be an agreed legal text by tonight, which the EU27 leaders will accept, and which differs sufficiently from the previous one to allow the ERGers and DUP to agree to it, and which gets past the EU parliament, and which also gets support from enough Labour MPs, ex-Tories and indies to pass in the UK parliament by Saturday?
Even in the most optimistic scenario, the best that can be hoped for is that the outline of a deal is looking possible, but more time will be needed to get it done.
What does Boris then do? He has done precisely zero to ease the naive expectations that he could deliver a deal by do-or-die date - in fact quite the opposite, he keeps doubling down on it. He'll be trapped by the Benn Act. He'll know that a No Deal crash out in a fortnight's time would be an utter disaster. He'll lose enormous credibility if we don't leave on that arbitrary date. He'll have Rees Mogg and the heavies breathing down his neck. He'll have Farage gleefully chucking rocks from the sidelines. He'll have the opposition parties trying to impale him on his stupid pledge.
All this suggests to me a messy extension which pleases no-one and which leaves Boris still striving, like Theresa May, to herd the cats in support of a deal no-one really likes.
Deal agreed in principle, subject to ratification.
Yes, because Boris Johnson has carefully been storing political capital with other actors, making them automatically predisposed to give him the benefit of the doubt...
Seems to me that Boris is gaming this pretty well. He's coming across as positive, optimistic and proactive. End of Brexit in sight. Should be able to largely reunite Party. Labour's foxes (NHS spending etc) are shot. LibDems stuck with revoke policy which will look pretty stupid if a deal is in sight. Don't think the vast majority of public will be that bothered by a short extension if process is underway.
Could all go wrong, of course. But there appears to be light at the end of the tunnel and voting for anyone else could cause the train to derail.
The end of Brexit is nowhere in sight. Any WA is merely the start of extensive negotiations, not just with the EU but with every other country with whom previous trading arrangements have just been torn up, to replicate alternatives. And that's just trading. There will have to be negotiations on data sharing, possibly even more important than - and in any event essential for - trade in a digital/AI world. All of this will consume time and energy which could have been used for other matters. The results of such negotiations will impact every aspect of British life and politics for years to come.
It is delusional to think that Brexit will be over any time soon. It will be quite entertaining, though, watching Brexiteers come to terms with their delusion.
You're wrong to ascribe this to Brexit though.
Government talk and negotiate all the time. It's what they do.
How many trade negotiations has the government been involved in in the last 25 years, say? Or data protection measures? Obviously exclude the ones done through the EU.
According to the Beeboids, at least 15 covering 40 countries :-D. May be more now though - it has had another fortnight.
Hmm, there's a lot of over-optimism, it seems to me. Remember the key point is that neither side wants to be blamed for the talks collapsing, but is it really plausible that there will be an agreed legal text by tonight, which the EU27 leaders will accept, and which differs sufficiently from the previous one to allow the ERGers and DUP to agree to it, and which gets past the EU parliament, and which also gets support from enough Labour MPs, ex-Tories and indies to pass in the UK parliament by Saturday?
Even in the most optimistic scenario, the best that can be hoped for is that the outline of a deal is looking possible, but more time will be needed to get it done.
What does Boris then do? He has done precisely zero to ease the naive expectations that he could deliver a deal by do-or-die date - in fact quite the opposite, he keeps doubling down on it. He'll be trapped by the Benn Act. He'll know that a No Deal crash out in a fortnight's time would be an utter disaster. He'll lose enormous credibility if we don't leave on that arbitrary date. He'll have Rees Mogg and the heavies breathing down his neck. He'll have Farage gleefully chucking rocks from the sidelines. He'll have the opposition parties trying to impale him on his stupid pledge.
All this suggests to me a messy extension which pleases no-one and which leaves Boris still striving, like Theresa May, to herd the cats in support of a deal no-one really likes.
Exactly Richard. That the talks are progressing seems clear. That the entire political leaderships of 28 states are going to hand Boris Johnson a triumph for the ages because he blackmailed them with an empty threat is less clear. The PB echo chamber is ignoring the EU's ulterior motives for sounding uber positive.
If we get to Thursday and the EU position is " We are making real progress on this plan you dumped on us 6 days ago. Lets keep working " what is Boris going to do ?
Boles quite clearly wouldnt vote for any deal no matter what was presented.
WTF should he? If 52% of the population voted to reintroduce the death penalty or worse I hope there would be people who would vote against it under all circumstances. He has the right to continue to believe Brexit is madness, which by most rational measure it is. Any "deal" is just lipstick on a pig, though I would happily support it just to move on. Mr Boles has a slightly different position and good luck to him.
In the event of a deal, the LibDems are going to have to take on Labour for the political turf of Sensible Centre-left. Once Corbyn has gone, they have lost their shot at taking it off them.
Just being the Party of Rejoin will see them losing seats, net of where they currently are after recent defections.
They will.struggle as they are entirely set up to take on the Tories only
Labour can be considered to be two distinct tribes: - socially conservative working class, nationalist, understandably looking after their own interests through unionisation, benefits etc. Geography Northern. - socially liberal, economically left wing (with a conscience) , internationalist, well educated and relatively well off. Geography Southern.
Eventually something has to give. But I don't think the LibDems will replace the Labour party.
LibDems are socially liberal and internationalist and won't appeal to Labour working class who increasingly will look to the Brexit Party.
The problem the LibDems have is their economic policy which has been the source of great division within the party (Orange Bookers etc). More right wing economic policies will appeal to socially liberal internationalist Tories. More left wing will appeal to the socially liberal internationalist Labourists.
I think the best approach for the LibDems is to be neither economically left nor right wing but pragmatic "what works best in the circumstances" and focus on social liberalism, greenery and an open international outlook.
The Labour party will naturally wither as it loses from both its tribes. The Tory party will also diminish as it loses its socially liberal internationalist wing but could merge with the Brexit party (some would say that's already in progress) to be a right wing populist party.
The LibDems is a centrist party economically, but socially liberal, green and internationalist and appealing to the growing middle classes and the young. It isn't a replacement for the Labour Party. It has its own identity and destiny.
Sounds like New Labour.
The Brexit Party seem to be doing well out of your analysis. I'd say they will be gone once we leave to be honest.
New Labour was politically successful. But it made a number of major mistakes that LibDems have learned from and will avoid.
The Brexit Party may formally disappear but its DNA will remain in the New Tory Party.
Merkel has inspired her own German verb. To Merkeln. So when she does make public interventions, signifigantly timed and to a relevent audience I think it's work taking notice.
Also note Merkel's public intervention this morning. She's absolutely right in her implied analysis of Boris' new PD and where it will lead. The Kinnockites will have noticed.
So what has Merkel said this morning as nothing is being reported
And I expect the negotiation continues based on a deal and if approved by the HOC a short technical extension would be agreed
The operative word is if the deal is approved by the HOC
From the Guardian blog: --------------- Speaking at a summit for Germany’s mechanical engineers in Berlin, the chancellor reiterated this morning that her government would push for a solution until the last possible moment, but also said the negotiations had got “very complicated” since it had become clear that Britain wanted to leave the customs union.
For the third time in just over a month, Merkel repeated a line that has raised some eyebrows in the UK: in Britain, Merkel said, “the European Union will have a further competitor right on the European Union’s doorstep”. --------------
Essentially the issue is whether the deal allows the UK to be a sort of pirate state, undercutting social and environmental protection regulations that inhibit its Continental competitors. Some Conservative MPs think this is a good idea (though they wouldn't agree it makes us pirates, merely "vigorously competitive"), but it's as un-Labour as it's possible to be: this stuff REALLY matters to us. It's the opposite of the May idea of alignment with EU rules, which ran into the vassal-state argument.
FFS. "A sort of pirate state" - i.e. an independent nation with its own trade and industrial policies, like those well known bloodthirsty brigands, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Australia, Korea...
It is the social and environmental policies that might be adopted that worry people - the suggestions that these would be significantly weakened and that the weakest or minorities in our country would, in consequence, suffer. In short, not just that Britain might be more competitive than, say, Germany but that the fruits of that competitiveness will be taken only by the rich in this country at the expense of the poor, the workers etc.
The very type of post-Brexit policies that might be adopted in this scenario would exacerbate the very conditions and concerns which gave rise to Brexit in the first place - the sense that the system worked only for a few not the many. Quite why the ultra Brexiteers don't see that long-term this is disastrous for the Tories, I don't know. But it is.
do you believe that an elected parliament should have the right to introduce the social and environmental policies that it believed appropriate?
Of course the instruction made perfect sense but due to a miscommunication they charged the wrong guns.
In a large proportion of Welsh seats there will be a "unite to Remain" candidate with two of LD/GRN/PC standing aside. That could make it harder in CON targets.
Unlikey to make much difference except in a few seats. Maybe help Plaid in Ynys Mon and LDs in Cardiff Central. But I dont see much love lost between Plaid and Lib Dems so dont assume there will be automatic switching of support....
The main branding is likely to be "unite fo remain"
And when we've already left? Is there really going to be any momentum for an open-ended "unite to rejoin"?
Seems to me that Boris is gaming this pretty well. He's coming across as positive, optimistic and proactive. End of Brexit in sight. Should be able to largely reunite Party. Labour's foxes (NHS spending etc) are shot. LibDems stuck with revoke policy which will look pretty stupid if a deal is in sight. Don't think the vast majority of public will be that bothered by a short extension if process is underway.
Could all go wrong, of course. But there appears to be light at the end of the tunnel and voting for anyone else could cause the train to derail.
The end of Brexit is nowhere in sight. Any WA is merely the start of extensive negotiations, not just with the EU but with every other country with whom previous trading arrangements have just been torn up, to replicate alternatives. And that's just trading. There will have to be negotiations on data sharing, possibly even more important than - and in any event essential for - trade in a digital/AI world. All of this will consume time and energy which could have been used for other matters. The results of such negotiations will impact every aspect of British life and politics for years to come.
It is delusional to think that Brexit will be over any time soon. It will be quite entertaining, though, watching Brexiteers come to terms with their delusion.
You're wrong to ascribe this to Brexit though.
Government talk and negotiate all the time. It's what they do.
How many trade negotiations has the government been involved in in the last 25 years, say? Or data protection measures? Obviously exclude the ones done through the EU.
The subject of the negotiations isn't particularly relevant: trade negotiations are complex, but expertise can be learned and bought in if needed
For example, the negotiation with France over the treatment of migrants in Calais is one recent ish example
Really, I didn't have you down as being quite so naive @Charles, if you don't mind me saying so.
The subject of the negotiations is absolutely critical.
Expertise in trade negotiations when Britain has not done any of this for 40 years is not something that can be acquired overnight or just bought in. Most experienced trade negotiators work for other governments. It will take a hell of a lot of time and money (Mrs Clegg, for instance, who knows a thing or two about trade negotiations will not come cheap) to replace what Britain doesn't have.
And Britain will be desperate to get something to show for it. Other countries will know we're desperate; see what Canada has said. And will see our relative inexperience and relative weakness as opportunities to be exploited for their benefit.
Hmm, there's a lot of over-optimism, it seems to me. Remember the key point is that neither side wants to be blamed for the talks collapsing, but is it really plausible that there will be an agreed legal text by tonight, which the EU27 leaders will accept, and which differs sufficiently from the previous one to allow the ERGers and DUP to agree to it, and which gets past the EU parliament, and which also gets support from enough Labour MPs, ex-Tories and indies to pass in the UK parliament by Saturday?
Even in the most optimistic scenario, the best that can be hoped for is that the outline of a deal is looking possible, but more time will be needed to get it done.
What does Boris then do? He has done precisely zero to ease the naive expectations that he could deliver a deal by do-or-die date - in fact quite the opposite, he keeps doubling down on it. He'll be trapped by the Benn Act. He'll know that a No Deal crash out in a fortnight's time would be an utter disaster. He'll lose enormous credibility if we don't leave on that arbitrary date. He'll have Rees Mogg and the heavies breathing down his neck. He'll have Farage gleefully chucking rocks from the sidelines. He'll have the opposition parties trying to impale him on his stupid pledge.
All this suggests to me a messy extension which pleases no-one and which leaves Boris still striving, like Theresa May, to herd the cats in support of a deal no-one really likes.
Exactly Richard. That the talks are progressing seems clear. That the entire political leaderships of 28 states are going to hand Boris Johnson a triumph for the ages because he blackmailed them with an empty threat is less clear. The PB echo chamber is ignoring the EU's ulterior motives for sounding uber positive.
If we get to Thursday and the EU position is " We are making real progress on this plan you dumped on us 6 days ago. Lets keep working " what is Boris going to do ?
Hmm. I wonder if the EU have played a blinder here - act all cuddly and reasonable so that they seem blameless when Boris is humiliated by the forces of No Deal, his authority in tatters. Thereafter, they'll be hoping, a phoenix of Revoke or Ref 2 will arise from the ashes of Boris's premiership.
Also note Merkel's public intervention this morning. She's absolutely right in her implied analysis of Boris' new PD and where it will lead. The Kinnockites will have noticed.
So what has Merkel said this morning as nothing is being reported
And I expect the negotiation continues based on a deal and if approved by the HOC a short technical extension would be agreed
The operative word is if the deal is approved by the HOC
From the Guardian blog: --------------- Speaking at a summit for Germany’s mechanical engineers in Berlin, the chancellor reiterated this morning that her government would push for a solution until the last possible moment, but also said the negotiations had got “very complicated” since it had become clear that Britain wanted to leave the customs union.
For the third time in just over a month, Merkel repeated a line that has raised some eyebrows in the UK: in Britain, Merkel said, “the European Union will have a further competitor right on the European Union’s doorstep”. --------------
Essentially the issue is whether the deal allows the UK to be a sort of pirate state, undercutting social and environmental protection regulations that inhibit its Continental competitors. Some Conservative MPs think this is a good idea (though they wouldn't agree it makes us pirates, merely "vigorously competitive"), but it's as un-Labour as it's possible to be: this stuff REALLY matters to us. It's the opposite of the May idea of alignment with EU rules, which ran into the vassal-state argument.
FFS. "A sort of pirate state" - i.e. an independent nation with its own trade and industrial policies, like those well known bloodthirsty brigands, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Australia, Korea...
Question: were the pirates of old* any more bloodthirsty than the kingly states that existed at the time? We're talking about the time of the Thirty Years' War, which was a particularly nasty, brutish and... well, not so short.
*I'm assuming that's what was in mind, rather than more modern piracy.
Hmm, there's a lot of over-optimism, it seems to me. Remember the key point is that neither side wants to be blamed for the talks collapsing, but is it really plausible that there will be an agreed legal text by tonight, which the EU27 leaders will accept, and which differs sufficiently from the previous one to allow the ERGers and DUP to agree to it, and which gets past the EU parliament, and which also gets support from enough Labour MPs, ex-Tories and indies to pass in the UK parliament by Saturday?
Even in the most optimistic scenario, the best that can be hoped for is that the outline of a deal is looking possible, but more time will be needed to get it done.
What does Boris then do? He has done precisely zero to ease the naive expectations that he could deliver a deal by do-or-die date - in fact quite the opposite, he keeps doubling down on it. He'll be trapped by the Benn Act. He'll know that a No Deal crash out in a fortnight's time would be an utter disaster. He'll lose enormous credibility if we don't leave on that arbitrary date. He'll have Rees Mogg and the heavies breathing down his neck. He'll have Farage gleefully chucking rocks from the sidelines. He'll have the opposition parties trying to impale him on his stupid pledge.
All this suggests to me a messy extension which pleases no-one and which leaves Boris still striving, like Theresa May, to herd the cats in support of a deal no-one really likes.
Exactly Richard. That the talks are progressing seems clear. That the entire political leaderships of 28 states are going to hand Boris Johnson a triumph for the ages because he blackmailed them with an empty threat is less clear. The PB echo chamber is ignoring the EU's ulterior motives for sounding uber positive.
If we get to Thursday and the EU position is " We are making real progress on this plan you dumped on us 6 days ago. Lets keep working " what is Boris going to do ?
Refuse unless the EU commit to remove the backstop
Really, I didn't have you down as being quite so naive @Charles, if you don't mind me saying so.
The subject of the negotiations is absolutely critical.
Expertise in trade negotiations when Britain has not done any of this for 40 years is not something that can be acquired overnight or just bought in. Most experienced trade negotiators work for other governments. It will take a hell of a lot of time and money (Mrs Clegg, for instance, who knows a thing or two about trade negotiations will not come cheap) to replace what Britain doesn't have.
And Britain will be desperate to get something to show for it. Other countries will know we're desperate; see what Canada has said. And will see our relative inexperience and relative weakness as opportunities to be exploited for their benefit.
Your point is that we should never do anything different because we don't have any experience
We will negotiate deals. If they are not good enough we won't sign them.
(and at what point was the UK demos asked for their consent for the decisions that parliament made to hand away so much power)
Hmm, there's a lot of over-optimism, it seems to me. Remember the key point is that neither side wants to be blamed for the talks collapsing, but is it really plausible that there will be an agreed legal text by tonight, which the EU27 leaders will accept, and which differs sufficiently from the previous one to allow the ERGers and DUP to agree to it, and which gets past the EU parliament, and which also gets support from enough Labour MPs, ex-Tories and indies to pass in the UK parliament by Saturday?
Even in the most optimistic scenario, the best that can be hoped for is that the outline of a deal is looking possible, but more time will be needed to get it done.
What does Boris then do? He has done precisely zero to ease the naive expectations that he could deliver a deal by do-or-die date - in fact quite the opposite, he keeps doubling down on it. He'll be trapped by the Benn Act. He'll know that a No Deal crash out in a fortnight's time would be an utter disaster. He'll lose enormous credibility if we don't leave on that arbitrary date. He'll have Rees Mogg and the heavies breathing down his neck. He'll have Farage gleefully chucking rocks from the sidelines. He'll have the opposition parties trying to impale him on his stupid pledge.
All this suggests to me a messy extension which pleases no-one and which leaves Boris still striving, like Theresa May, to herd the cats in support of a deal no-one really likes.
Exactly Richard. That the talks are progressing seems clear. That the entire political leaderships of 28 states are going to hand Boris Johnson a triumph for the ages because he blackmailed them with an empty threat is less clear. The PB echo chamber is ignoring the EU's ulterior motives for sounding uber positive.
If we get to Thursday and the EU position is " We are making real progress on this plan you dumped on us 6 days ago. Lets keep working " what is Boris going to do ?
Hmm. I wonder if the EU have played a blinder here - act all cuddly and reasonable so that they seem blameless when Boris is humiliated by the forces of No Deal, his authority in tatters. Thereafter, they'll be hoping, a phoenix of Revoke or Ref 2 will arise from the ashes of Boris's premiership.
I should think they are indifferent about us staying. The only real benefit to the EU is the cash. They know we will still eventually roll over on everything else. We will not have taken back any control because we will be massively weak compared to what we were. We will be sucking up to the EU and the US for generations to come.
Essentially the issue is whether the deal allows the UK to be a sort of pirate state, undercutting social and environmental protection regulations that inhibit its Continental competitors. Some Conservative MPs think this is a good idea (though they wouldn't agree it makes us pirates, merely "vigorously competitive"), but it's as un-Labour as it's possible to be: this stuff REALLY matters to us. It's the opposite of the May idea of alignment with EU rules, which ran into the vassal-state argument.
FFS. "A sort of pirate state" - i.e. an independent nation with its own trade and industrial policies, like those well known bloodthirsty brigands, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Australia, Korea...
It is the social and environmental policies that might be adopted that worry people - the suggestions that these would be significantly weakened and that the weakest or minorities in our country would, in consequence, suffer. In short, not just that Britain might be more competitive than, say, Germany but that the fruits of that competitiveness will be taken only by the rich in this country at the expense of the poor, the workers etc.
The very type of post-Brexit policies that might be adopted in this scenario would exacerbate the very conditions and concerns which gave rise to Brexit in the first place - the sense that the system worked only for a few not the many. Quite why the ultra Brexiteers don't see that long-term this is disastrous for the Tories, I don't know. But it is.
do you believe that an elected parliament should have the right to introduce the social and environmental policies that it believed appropriate?
Of course it can, subject to whatever international or other agreements it has already entered into. Whether weakening social or environmental protections will help more voters flock to the Tories is another matter. It is not a question they seem to be asking themselves. They are at risk of winning a battle and losing the war. Why would people who are worried about climate change and standards in farming, for instance, vote for a party which weakened such standards? Why would voters who are worried about how to make a living in a gig economy vote for a party which lessened protections for such workers?
MarkeeMark: "It really isn't. The great bulk of the public will blame Labour for keeping Brexit going as a thing - and think them twats for doing so."
Regretably, I don`t think that the public are that smart.
I would suggest the public will make labour pay a very heavy price if they vote down an agreed deal.
No more so than Theresa May's agreed deal being voted down by Labour and many Tory MPs! Moreover, Labour will not be alone in opposing it - SNP, LDs , Plaid - probably Grieve , Gutto Bebb, Greening et al.
Really, I didn't have you down as being quite so naive @Charles, if you don't mind me saying so.
The subject of the negotiations is absolutely critical.
Expertise in trade negotiations when Britain has not done any of this for 40 years is not something that can be acquired overnight or just bought in. Most experienced trade negotiators work for other governments. It will take a hell of a lot of time and money (Mrs Clegg, for instance, who knows a thing or two about trade negotiations will not come cheap) to replace what Britain doesn't have.
And Britain will be desperate to get something to show for it. Other countries will know we're desperate; see what Canada has said. And will see our relative inexperience and relative weakness as opportunities to be exploited for their benefit.
I think Ireland want this sorted out at this weeks summit.
All 27 have to be happy.
I must admit that I’m perplexed by the “scandis” comment. Sweden is ultra pro-deal, so he must be referring to Denmark or Finland (which isn’t actually “scandi”, but rather Nordic). I can’t imagine why either of them would be bothered, as long as Ireland is happy.
Unless, as is very possible, the Nordics were rather hoping Britain might stay in the end. Therefore any deal, as it gets close, is unwanted.
Certainly the Hanseatic and protestant European nations were the most dismayed by the original Brexit vote.
Does 'most dismayed' mean a bit less indifferent than the rest?
What ridiculous and chippy Scottish wank. You really think most of the EU was indifferent to Brexit?
Much of the EU, especially in Brussels, was dismayed by the Brexit vote. The Nordics, along with the Poles, were probably the most horrified. They don't want to be left alone, with Germany and France. in a fast-integrating EU.
They HATE Brexit.
"Swedish foreign minister: I ‘cannot forgive’ UK for Brexit Margot Wallström calls the exit ‘a historical mistake’ that’s ‘created a problem for all of us.’"
MarkeeMark: "It really isn't. The great bulk of the public will blame Labour for keeping Brexit going as a thing - and think them twats for doing so."
Regretably, I don`t think that the public are that smart.
I would suggest the public will make labour pay a very heavy price if they vote down an agreed deal.
No more so than Theresa May's agreed deal being voted down by Labour and many Tory MPs! Moreover, Labour will not be alone in opposing it - SNP, LDs , Plaid - probably Grieve , Gutto Bebb, Greening et al.
Seems to me that Boris is gaming this pretty well. He's coming across as positive, optimistic and proactive. End of Brexit in sight. Should be able to largely reunite Party. Labour's foxes (NHS spending etc) are shot. LibDems stuck with revoke policy which will look pretty stupid if a deal is in sight. Don't think the vast majority of public will be that bothered by a short extension if process is underway.
Could all go wrong, of course. But there appears to be light at the end of the tunnel and voting for anyone else could cause the train to derail.
The end of Brexit is nowhere in sight. Any WA is merely the start of extensive negotiations, not just with the EU but with every of such negotiations will impact every aspect of British life and politics for years to come.
It is delusional to think that Brexit will be over any time soon. It will be quite entertaining, though, watching Brexiteers come to terms with their delusion.
You're wrong to ascribe this to Brexit though.
Government talk and negotiate all the time. It's what they do.
How many trade negotiations has the government been involved in in the last 25 years, say? Or data protection measures? Obviously exclude the ones done through the EU.
The subject of the negotiations isn't particularly relevant: trade negotiations are complex, but expertise can be learned and bought in if needed
For example, the negotiation with France over the treatment of migrants in Calais is one recent ish example
Really, I didn't have you down as being quite so naive @Charles, if you don't mind me saying so.
The subject of the negotiations is absolutely critical.
Expertise in trade negotiations when Britain has not done any of this for 40 years is not something that can be acquired overnight or just bought in. Most experienced trade negotiators work for other governments. It will take a hell of a lot of time and money (Mrs Clegg, for instance, who knows a thing or two about trade negotiations will not come cheap) to replace what Britain doesn't have.
And Britain will be desperate to get something to show for it. Other countries will know we're desperate; see what Canada has said. And will see our relative inexperience and relative weakness as opportunities to be exploited for their benefit.
Refuse unless the EU commit to remove the backstop
By which you mean: attempt to break the law (probably unsuccessfully) in a fit of pique in order to trash the very same deal he has been assuring us is attainable, which the EU are making encouraging noises about, and which he tells us would be miles better than crashing out.
As a political tactic, it has the merit of novelty, I suppose.
Seems to me that Boris is gaming this pretty well. He's coming across as positive, optimistic and proactive. End of Brexit in sight. Should be able to largely reunite Party. Labour's foxes (NHS spending etc) are shot. LibDems stuck with revoke policy which will look pretty stupid if a deal is in sight. Don't think the vast majority of public will be that bothered by a short extension if process is underway.
It is delusional to think that Brexit will be over any time soon. It will be quite entertaining, though, watching Brexiteers come to terms with their delusion.
You're wrong to ascribe this to Brexit though.
Government talk and negotiate all the time. It's what they do.
How many trade negotiations has the government been involved in in the last 25 years, say? Or data protection measures? Obviously exclude the ones done through the EU.
The subject of the negotiations isn't particularly relevant: trade negotiations are complex, but expertise can be learned and bought in if needed
For example, the negotiation with France over the treatment of migrants in Calais is one recent ish example
Really, I didn't have you down as being quite so naive @Charles, if you don't mind me saying so.
The subject of the negotiations is absolutely critical.
Expertise in trade negotiations when Britain has not done any of this for 40 years is not something that can be acquired overnight or just bought in. Most experienced trade negotiators work for other governments. It will take a hell of a lot of time and money (Mrs Clegg, for instance, who knows a thing or two about trade negotiations will not come cheap) to replace what Britain doesn't have.
And Britain will be desperate to get something to show for it. Other countries will know we're desperate; see what Canada has said. And will see our relative inexperience and relative weakness as opportunities to be exploited for their benefit.
Has he ever left his mobile number and email address on display on a public forum that he wished to remain anonymous upon?
Refuse unless the EU commit to remove the backstop
By which you mean: attempt to break the law (probably unsuccessfully) in a fit of pique in order to trash the very same deal he has been assuring us is attainable, which the EU are making encouraging noises about, and which he tells us would be miles better than crashing out.
As a political tactic, it has the merit of novelty, I suppose.
Unless the EU commit to remove the backstop there can be no Deal that will pass the current Commons, that is clear, so No Deal it has to be until either the EU change their mind and remove the backstop or we have a general election and a new Commons
No doubt if we get as far as a vote, Mr Shadsy will oblige you with a spreadbet. If the DUP say yes, you've already got +1 Labour Whip holder voting for (Hoey).
Bigger number is the ex-Labour Whip holders.
I wonder how many of the Kinnock 19 will meet with their local associations and get their blessing to defy the whip. They'll know the mood on the doorsteps.
They'll get deselected in no time if they do - voting for Singapore-on-Thames is something that neither the centrists nor the Corbynites will accept. I think you'll see MPs saying "I'd be willing to vote for a deal, but not this deal" - and meaning it.
Whether the hard right really see it as the whole point I do wonder. They want to get out - does the ability to skimp on climate change measures or employment laws really mean more to them?
I only hope Nick wasn't typing this post with a straight face or does he really think we're that stupid.
Such a stance is of course totally understandable politically but morally disingenuous and illogical to boot.
This is the WA and there is all to play for in the PD. If Labour votes through the WA, agrees to an election, win a thumping majority (which they will, right?), then they can put in as many anti-Singaporean clauses and safeguards as they want.
We've had this argument a million times, but Nick is absolutely right. Unless the Tories can guarantee that they will not use Brexit as a pretext for deregulation (which I doubt they can because that is the whole point of it) then no Labour MP should touch it with a barge poll. Labour's job isn't to help the Tories fulfill their Thatcherite wank fantasies when they don't have the numbers themselves.
But you're going to win the next GE aren't you so the problem you highlight is moot.
SURELY you are not suggesting that Lab aren't going to win the next GE??? Because that is crazy talk!
I don't see any prospect of Labour winning a majority, no. They could be the largest party, and it is more likely they could be the second biggest party but in a better position to form a minority govt than the Tories. We can all read the opinion polls.
So the whole Labour Party strategy is based upon them losing and how best to contribute to British Politics from that position.
That is pretty damning.
I don't know what the Labour strategy is! I am just an ordinary member, too busy raising a family and working even to be an activist. I am simply telling you how I see things.
Of course the instruction made perfect sense but due to a miscommunication they charged the wrong guns.
In a large proportion of Welsh seats there will be a "unite to Remain" candidate with two of LD/GRN/PC standing aside. That could make it harder in CON targets.
Unlikey to make much difference except in a few seats. Maybe help Plaid in Ynys Mon and LDs in Cardiff Central. But I dont see much love lost between Plaid and Lib Dems so dont assume there will be automatic switching of support....
The main branding is likely to be "unite fo remain"
Rather than bland statements of protection for Social and Environmental issues, anyone got examples of the type of regressive legislation that they envisage and are afraid of?
Refuse unless the EU commit to remove the backstop
By which you mean: attempt to break the law (probably unsuccessfully) in a fit of pique in order to trash the very same deal he has been assuring us is attainable, which the EU are making encouraging noises about, and which he tells us would be miles better than crashing out.
As a political tactic, it has the merit of novelty, I suppose.
Unless the EU commit to remove the backstop there can be no Deal that will pass the current Commons, that is clear, so No Deal it has to be
Well, we are told that the DUP and ERG and chafing at the bit to vote for this shiny new Boris deal, so we can all reach the sunlit uplands in just over a fortnight's time. It would be odd indeed for Boris to turn the bus off the road to those sunlit uplands and instead head for the nearest cliff, just to ensure that the journey ended at the time he optimistically promised rather than a few weeks' later.
Hmm, there's a lot of over-optimism, it seems to me. Remember the key point is that neither side wants to be blamed for the talks collapsing, but is it really plausible that there will be an agreed legal text by tonight, which the EU27 leaders will accept, and which differs sufficiently from the previous one to allow the ERGers and DUP to agree to it, and which gets past the EU parliament, and which also gets support from enough Labour MPs, ex-Tories and indies to pass in the UK parliament by Saturday?
Even in the most optimistic scenario, the best that can be hoped for is that the outline of a deal is looking possible, but more time will be needed to get it done.
What does Bory, to herd the cats in support of a deal no-one really likes.
Exactly Richard. That the talks are progressing seems clear. That the entire political leaderships of 28 states are going to hand Boris Johnson a triumph for the ages because he blackmailed them with an empty threat is less clear. The PB echo chamber is ignoring the EU's ulterior motives for sounding uber positive.
If we get to Thursday and the EU position is " We are making real progress on this plan you dumped on us 6 days ago. Lets keep working " what is Boris going to do ?
Hmm. I wonder if the EU have played a blinder here - act all cuddly and reasonable so that they seem blameless when Boris is humiliated by the forces of No Deal, his authority in tatters. Thereafter, they'll be hoping, a phoenix of Revoke or Ref 2 will arise from the ashes of Boris's premiership.
I should think they are indifferent about us staying. The only real benefit to the EU is the cash. They know we will still eventually roll over on everything else. We will not have taken back any control because we will be massively weak compared to what we were. We will be sucking up to the EU and the US for generations to come.
Amazingly, they are not indifferent to us staying or leaving, if you glance at their press. Many of them, especially the smaller countries, are still super keen for us to change our minds.
I'm not sure why. It's not the money. Perhaps it is a psychological fear of such a dramatic rupture.
Boles quite clearly wouldnt vote for any deal no matter what was presented.
WTF should he? If 52% of the population voted to reintroduce the death penalty or worse I hope there would be people who would vote against it under all circumstances. He has the right to continue to believe Brexit is madness, which by most rational measure it is. Any "deal" is just lipstick on a pig, though I would happily support it just to move on. Mr Boles has a slightly different position and good luck to him.
But he and the other ex Tories shouldn't keep on trying to reposition themselves. Why not be honest and say he agrees with the LDs and its remain for him whatever.
FFS. "A sort of pirate state" - i.e. an independent nation with its own trade and industrial policies, like those well known bloodthirsty brigands, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Australia, Korea...
It is the social and environmental policies that might be adopted that worry people - the suggestions that these would be significantly weakened and that the weakest or minorities in our country would, in consequence, suffer. In short, not just that Britain might be more competitive than, say, Germany but that the fruits of that competitiveness will be taken only by the rich in this country at the expense of the poor, the workers etc.
The very type of post-Brexit policies that might be adopted in this scenario would exacerbate the very conditions and concerns which gave rise to Brexit in the first place - the sense that the system worked only for a few not the many. Quite why the ultra Brexiteers don't see that long-term this is disastrous for the Tories, I don't know. But it is.
do you believe that an elected parliament should have the right to introduce the social and environmental policies that it believed appropriate?
Of course it can, subject to whatever international or other agreements it has already entered into. Whether weakening social or environmental protections will help more voters flock to the Tories is another matter. It is not a question they seem to be asking themselves. They are at risk of winning a battle and losing the war. Why would people who are worried about climate change and standards in farming, for instance, vote for a party which weakened such standards? Why would voters who are worried about how to make a living in a gig economy vote for a party which lessened protections for such workers?
You are (I believe) suggesting that we enter into a level playing field agreement - essentially tying ourselves to EU regulatory standards. I just don't understand why we would do that at this stage. If they offer us a fabulous trade deal we might consider that, but why as a gimme at this point?
Onto happier news: I have just discovered an old friend is in fact my 7th cousin. No wonder I liked him so much!
73% vs 51% of the electorate is a big difference. The more popular option would also be a great deal easier for an incoming president with a packed agenda to get through Congress. S/he would be able to fight only so many battles - as Obama found out in his first term.
The enthusiastic Republican turnout in the Louisiana state elections also gave me some pause for thought. All the signs are that next year's presidential election might see a record turnout form both Republicans and Democrats.
This will be an exceptionally consequential election, and the Democrats cannot afford to blow it.
Yup, it seems quite ridiculous to lose that many GE voters on something that's obviously going to be DOA in any plausible Senate. I know you have to win the primary first, but I wonder of Warren hasn't let Sanders pied piper her to a more left-wing position than she needed to take.
I think Ireland want this sorted out at this weeks summit.
All 27 have to be happy.
Yes but Ireland have been built up to the point that if/when they say "we're happy with this" all the other EU states will have to say "OK we're happy too" - otherwise it will look like they are throwing Ireland under the bus.
ROI will probably never be this powerful/significant in the EU again.
No doubt if we get as far as a vote, Mr Shadsy will oblige you with a spreadbet. If the DUP say yes, you've already got +1 Labour Whip holder voting for (Hoey).
Bigger number is the ex-Labour Whip holders.
I wonder how many of the Kinnock 19 will meet with their local associations and get their blessing to defy the whip. They'll know the mood on the doorsteps.
them?
I only hope Nick wasn't typing this post with a straight face or does he really think we're that stupid.
Such a stance is of course totally understandable politically but morally disingenuous and illogical to boot.
This is the WA and there is all to play for in the PD. If Labour votes through the WA, agrees to an election, win a thumping majority (which they will, right?), then they can put in as many anti-Singaporean clauses and safeguards as they want.
lves.
But you're going to win the next GE aren't you so the problem you highlight is moot.
SURELY you are not suggesting that Lab aren't going to win the next GE??? Because that is crazy talk!
I don't see any prospect of Labour winning a majority, no. They could be the largest party, and it is more likely they could be the second biggest party but in a better position to form a minority govt than the Tories. We can all read the opinion polls.
So the whole Labour Party strategy is based upon them losing and how best to contribute to British Politics from that position.
That is pretty damning.
I don't know what the Labour strategy is! I am just an ordinary member, too busy raising a family and working even to be an activist. I am simply telling you how I see things.
It is a ridiculous position for Labour to espouse. Singapore on Thames is only possible if Labour not only lose the next election, but multiple elections after that. There is not a deal with the EU that forces the UK to deregulate. It would also require substantial changes to domestic law that aren't reversed. The British public would not stomach that for term after term. It would effectively be saying that Labour that they have so little faith in ever winning again they need to risk no deal to have the EU restrain the Tories, as they are incapable of doing so.
Refuse unless the EU commit to remove the backstop
By which you mean: attempt to break the law (probably unsuccessfully) in a fit of pique in order to trash the very same deal he has been assuring us is attainable, which the EU are making encouraging noises about, and which he tells us would be miles better than crashing out.
As a political tactic, it has the merit of novelty, I suppose.
Unless the EU commit to remove the backstop there can be no Deal that will pass the current Commons, that is clear, so No Deal it has to be
Well, we are told that the DUP and ERG and chafing at the bit to vote for this shiny new Boris deal, so we can all reach the sunlit uplands in just over a fortnight's time. It would be odd indeed for Boris to turn the bus off the road to those sunlit uplands and instead head for the nearest cliff, just to ensure that the journey ended at the time he optimistically promised rather than a few weeks' later.
Only if the EU have agreed to remove the backstop, if not the DUP and ERG will still vote against a Deal so No Deal it then has to be
Seems to me that Boris is gaming this pretty well. He's coming across as positive, optimistic and proactive. End of Brexit in sight. Should be able to largely reunite Party. Labour's foxes (NHS spending etc) are shot. LibDems stuck with revoke policy which will look pretty stupid if a deal is in sight. Don't think the vast majority of public will be that bothered by a short extension if process is underway.
Could all go wrong, of course. But there appears to be light at the end of the tunnel and voting for anyone else could cause the train to derail.
The end of Brexit is nowhere in sight. Any WA is merely the start of extensive negotiations, not just with the EU but with every of such negotiations will impact every aspect of British life and politics for years to come.
It is delusional to think that Brexit will be over any time soon. It will be quite entertaining, though, watching Brexiteers come to terms with their delusion.
You're wrong to ascribe this to Brexit though.
Government talk and negotiate all the time. It's what they do.
How many trade negotiations has the government been involved in in the last 25 years, say? Or data protection measures? Obviously exclude the ones done through the EU.
The subject of the negotiations isn't particularly relevant: trade negotiations are complex, but expertise can be learned and bought in if needed
For example, the negotiation with France over the treatment of migrants in Calais is one recent ish example
Really, I didn't have you down as being quite so naive @Charles, if you don't mind me saying so.
The subject of the negotiations is absolutely critical.
Expertise in trade negotiations when Britain has not done any of this for 40 years is not something that can be acquired overnight or just bought in. Most experienced trade negotiators work for other governments. It will take a hell of a lot of time and money (Mrs Clegg, for instance, who knows a thing or two about trade negotiations will not come cheap) to replace what Britain doesn't have.
And Britain will be desperate to get something to show for it. Other countries will know we're desperate; see what Canada has said. And will see our relative inexperience and relative weakness as opportunities to be exploited for their benefit.
Seems to me that Boris is gaming this pretty well. He's coming across as positive, optimistic and proactive. End of Brexit in sight. Should be able to largely reunite Party. Labour's foxes (NHS spending etc) are shot. LibDems stuck with revoke policy which will look pretty stupid if a deal is in sight. Don't think the vast majority of public will be that bothered by a short extension if process is underway.
It is delusional to think that Brexit will be over any time soon. It will be quite entertaining, though, watching Brexiteers come to terms with their delusion.
You're wrong to ascribe this to Brexit though.
Government talk and negotiate all the time. It's what they do.
How many trade negotiations has the government been involved in in the last 25 years, say? Or data protection measures? Obviously exclude the ones done through the EU.
The subject of the negotiations isn't particularly relevant: trade negotiations are complex, but expertise can be learned and bought in if needed
For example, the negotiation with France over the treatment of migrants in Calais is one recent ish example
Really, I didn't have you down as being quite so naive @Charles, if you don't mind me saying so.
The subject of the negotiations is absolutely critical.
Expertise in trade negotiations when Britain has not done any of this for 40 years is not something that can be acquired overnight or just bought in. Most experienced trade negotiators work for other governments. It will take a hell of a lot of time and money (Mrs Clegg, for instance, who knows a thing or two about trade negotiations will not come cheap) to replace what Britain doesn't have.
And Britain will be desperate to get something to show for it. Other countries will know we're desperate; see what Canada has said. And will see our relative inexperience and relative weakness as opportunities to be exploited for their benefit.
Has he ever left his mobile number and email address on display on a public forum that he wished to remain anonymous upon?
I hope not! Although it isn't difficult to work out who I am if people really care.
Refuse unless the EU commit to remove the backstop
By which you mean: attempt to break the law (probably unsuccessfully) in a fit of pique in order to trash the very same deal he has been assuring us is attainable, which the EU are making encouraging noises about, and which he tells us would be miles better than crashing out.
As a political tactic, it has the merit of novelty, I suppose.
Unless the EU commit to remove the backstop there can be no Deal that will pass the current Commons, that is clear, so No Deal it has to be
Well, we are told that the DUP and ERG and chafing at the bit to vote for this shiny new Boris deal, so we can all reach the sunlit uplands in just over a fortnight's time. It would be odd indeed for Boris to turn the bus off the road to those sunlit uplands and instead head for the nearest cliff, just to ensure that the journey ended at the time he optimistically promised rather than a few weeks' later.
Probably what happens is a date is agreed for a new EUCO in - say - 4 weeks and that there is no further extension after that.
Johnson and the hard Brexiteers will have to back down. Even if the EU could be convinced, Japan and Canada won't sign FTAs with us that allow us to undercut them too. So that's the majority of top 10 economies. Nor will it harm us signing up to other deals. Japan and Canada are in the CPTPP while having them. Global Britain requires signing up to global minimum standards.
FFS. "A sort of pirate state" - i.e. an independent nation with its own trade and industrial policies, like those well known bloodthirsty brigands, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Australia, Korea...
It is the social and environmental policies that might be adopted that worry people - the suggestions that these would be significantly weakened and that the weakest or minorities in our country would, in consequence, suffer. In short, not just that Britain might be more competitive than, say, Germany but that the fruits of that competitiveness will be taken only by the rich in this country at the expense of the poor, the workers etc.
The very type of post-Brexit policies that might be adopted in this scenario would exacerbate the very conditions and concerns which gave rise to Brexit in the first place - the sense that the system worked only for a few not the many. Quite why the ultra Brexiteers don't see that long-term this is disastrous for the Tories, I don't know. But it is.
do you believe that an elected parliament should have the right to introduce the social and environmental policies that it believed appropriate?
Of course it can, subject to whatever international or other agreements it has already entered into. Whether weakening social or environmental protections will help more voters flock to the Tories is another matter. It is not a question they seem to be asking themselves. They are at risk of winning a battle and losing the war. Why would people who are worried about climate change and standards in farming, for instance, vote for a party which weakened such standards? Why would voters who are worried about how to make a living in a gig economy vote for a party which lessened protections for such workers?
You are (I believe) suggesting that we enter into a level playing field agreement - essentially tying ourselves to EU regulatory standards. I just don't understand why we would do that at this stage. If they offer us a fabulous trade deal we might consider that, but why as a gimme at this point?
Onto happier news: I have just discovered an old friend is in fact my 7th cousin. No wonder I liked him so much!
Isn't everybody a 7th cousin? We are all grand-children of Mitochondrial Eve
Only if the EU have agreed to remove the backstop, if not the DUP and ERG will still vote against a Deal so No Deal it then has to be
Well, there's £295 at odds of 4.7 available on Betfair to back an exit date of 31st October, which would give you over a thousand pounds tax-free profit if you are right. I can't imagine why you haven't snapped this up, given your degree of certainty
do you believe that an elected parliament should have the right to introduce the social and environmental policies that it believed appropriate?
I'm in favour of globally-agreed minimum standards. Do I think that an elected parliament should be able to introduce child labour if it felt it appropriate? Slavery? Abolition of minimum standards for factory safety? No, I don't. I expect you agree, so we are talking about how far international agreements should constrain us, rather than an absolute freedom to do whatever we like.
A secondary point is well-made by Cyclefree - if Britain was free to do horrible things and the Conservative Party were to propose them, we'd hope to defeat them. But we'd rather not envisage them in the first place, which is why Labour members will IMO deselect anyone who chooses to vote for that.
This could prove deadly for Brexit. So far everyone's only heard of Theresa/Boris's deal and vaguely assumed that would be the end of the matter. Now 'FTA' is being bandied about, people will soon realize that these 'deals' were in fact some piffling period at the very embryonic stage of the process. There's more - much, much, much, much more - to plough through in the years to come. Exposed to this stark reality might the inclination be to sod it and call the whole thing off?
This isn't a party political issue, and all recent goverments deserve some credit. You wouldn't know if from reading the papers or watching the news, but the UK is doing a really good job of moving away from fossil fuels for electricity generation.
Sounds like last night's Foster/Dodds/Johnson meeting in Downing St has nixed the customs partnership proposal with knock on effect on the wider talks. Probably when the UK finally presented text today and it didn't live up to the previous mood music.
MarkeeMark: "It really isn't. The great bulk of the public will blame Labour for keeping Brexit going as a thing - and think them twats for doing so."
Regretably, I don`t think that the public are that smart.
I would suggest the public will make labour pay a very heavy price if they vote down an agreed deal.
The Conservative Party did not make Boris pay a very heavy price. They made him prime minister after he voted down an agreed deal.
.
I believe there is zero chance of Boris's deal being passed next week. It requires Boris both getting the 22 MPs he sacked back on board and having a deal that the ERG will vote for it. And the ERG don't have any reason to vote for it as they can just leave and join BXP.
As for any election - now Boris has a deal he has tied himself down and Brexit support only works if everyone's unicorn Brexit still exists and now a deal is tied down those unicorn Brexit voters may be off elsewhere (to Labour if it's too hard and to BXP if it's not hard enough).
Gosh, zero percent is quite a call. Of the 22, there are a few who are gone for good but the bulk want the whip back. Even Rory has said he'll vote for the deal even though he's still leaving.
Of the ERG, both Redwood and Baker made positive noises two weeks ago, let's see where they end up. It's hard to imagine many ERG voting against if they both vote for.
Then there's the Labour block. We don't know how big that will be until the moment arrives but +- 15 seems a sensible guess.
I think it's a fair bet that if the DUP are supporting and Baker is supporting, then any deal gets through. Long way to go first though.
No Labour MP wishing to remain a Labour MP will vote for Boris's deal. +- 1 would be a more accurate estimate.
19 are committed to labour for a deal led by Stephen Kinnock and if you have seen todays Wales opinion poll you can see why
But few of those 19 are from Wales! Moreover they are also likely to have seen the Panelbase giving the Tories a 3% lead with Labour on 30%.
FFS. "A sort of pirate state" - i.e. an independent nation with its own trade and industrial policies, like those well known bloodthirsty brigands, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Australia, Korea...
It is the social and environmental policies that might be adopted that worry people - the suggestions that these would be significantly weakened and that the weakest or minorities in our country would, in consequence, suffer. In short, not just that Britain might be more competitive than, say, Germany but that the fruits of that competitiveness will be taken only by the rich in this country at the expense of the poor, the workers etc.
The very type of post-Brexit policies that might be adopted in this scenario would exacerbate the very conditions and concerns which gave rise to Brexit in the first place - the sense that the system worked only for a few not the many. Quite why the ultra Brexiteers don't see that long-term this is disastrous for the Tories, I don't know. But it is.
do you believe that an elected parliament should have the right to introduce the social and environmental policies that it believed appropriate?
Of course it can, subject to whatever international or other agreements it has already entered into. Whether weakening social or environmental protections will help more voters flock to the Tories is another matter. It is not a question they seem to be asking themselves. They are at risk of winning a battle and losing the war. Why would people who are worried about climate change and standards in farming, for instance, vote for a party which weakened such standards? Why would voters who are worried about how to make a living in a gig economy vote for a party which lessened protections for such workers?
You are (I believe) suggesting that we enter into a level playing field agreement - essentially tying ourselves to EU regulatory standards. I just don't understand why we would do that at this stage. If they offer us a fabulous trade deal we might consider that, but why as a gimme at this point?
Onto happier news: I have just discovered an old friend is in fact my 7th cousin. No wonder I liked him so much!
Isn't everybody a 7th cousin? We are all grand-children of Mitochondrial Eve
But you're going to win the next GE aren't you so the problem you highlight is moot.
SURELY you are not suggesting that Lab aren't going to win the next GE??? Because that is crazy talk!
Not the point. We may win the next election, or the one after, but one day we'll lose, and then if we've cast off from EU social and environmental alignment, the pirate state becomes possible. We need to rule it out as part of the legally-agreed deal.
Hi Nick, can you at least appreciate how peculiar this line of argument sounds to those outside the political bubble? If the British electorate want to vote for a looser employment policy, then surely that is matter for them? And if that looser policy does not work out as intended by voters, then the policy will be recalibrated at a future election.
Isn’t that the whole point of people like you standing for election under differing policy platforms?
do you believe that an elected parliament should have the right to introduce the social and environmental policies that it believed appropriate?
I'm in favour of globally-agreed minimum standards. Do I think that an elected parliament should be able to introduce child labour if it felt it appropriate? Slavery? Abolition of minimum standards for factory safety? No, I don't. I expect you agree, so we are talking about how far international agreements should constrain us, rather than an absolute freedom to do whatever we like.
A secondary point is well-made by Cyclefree - if Britain was free to do horrible things and the Conservative Party were to propose them, we'd hope to defeat them. But we'd rather not envisage them in the first place, which is why Labour members will IMO deselect anyone who chooses to vote for that.
Firstly it depends on your definition of 'horrible'
Secondly odd as it may seem to you, Labour are equally likely and capable of proposing 'horrible' things
Thirdly we are a liberal democracy with a civilised demos. In the last 50 years tell me which 'horrible' things have been enacted on our suffering populace.
Fourthly, I find your argument full of bland biased platitudes on this occasion and therefore lacking in gravitas or meaning.
This could prove deadly for Brexit. So far everyone's only heard of Theresa/Boris's deal and vaguely assumed that would be the end of the matter. Now 'FTA' is being bandied about, people will soon realize that these 'deals' were in fact some piffling period at the very embryonic stage of the process. There's more - much, much, much, much more - to plough through in the years to come. Exposed to this stark reality might the inclination be to sod it and call the whole thing off?
Yes, it gives the lie to the "let's just get Brexit done" meme. Naïve in extremis, like everything else that Brexiteer dipsticks believe in.
Johnson and the hard Brexiteers will have to back down. Even if the EU could be convinced, Japan and Canada won't sign FTAs with us that allow us to undercut them too. So that's the majority of top 10 economies. Nor will it harm us signing up to other deals. Japan and Canada are in the CPTPP while having them. Global Britain requires signing up to global minimum standards.
Global Britain is designed to be a Trojan Horse to lower standards globally. That's why Brexit has been financed by the Mercers and other footloose billionaire capital. The failure to meet level playing field conditions is a feature not a bug.
Also note Merkel's public intervention this morning. She's absolutely right in her implied analysis of Boris' new PD and where it will lead. The Kinnockites will have noticed.
So what has Merkel said this morning as nothing is being reported
And I expect the negotiation continues based on a deal and if approved by the HOC a short technical extension would be agreed
The operative word is if the deal is approved by the HOC
From the Guardian blog: --------------- Speaking at a summit for Germany’s mechanical engineers in Berlin, the chancellor reiterated this morning that her government would push for a solution until the last possible moment, but also said the negotiations had got “very complicated” since it had become clear that Britain wanted to leave the customs union.
For the third time in just over a month, Merkel repeated a line that has raised some eyebrows in the UK: in Britain, Merkel said, “the European Union will have a further competitor right on the European Union’s doorstep”. --------------
Essentially the issue is whether the deal allows the UK to be a sort of pirate state, undercutting social and environmental protection regulations that inhibit its Continental competitors. Some Conservative MPs think this is a good idea (though they wouldn't agree it makes us pirates, merely "vigorously competitive"), but it's as un-Labour as it's possible to be: this stuff REALLY matters to us. It's the opposite of the May idea of alignment with EU rules, which ran into the vassal-state argument.
FFS. "A sort of pirate state" - i.e. an independent nation with its own trade and industrial policies, like those well known bloodthirsty brigands, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Australia, Korea...
Canada and Japan have signed for level playing field provisions. It seems obvious that the Tories and EU should accept those precise same terms.
do you believe that an elected parliament should have the right to introduce the social and environmental policies that it believed appropriate?
I'm in favour of globally-agreed minimum standards. Do I think that an elected parliament should be able to introduce child labour if it felt it appropriate? Slavery? Abolition of minimum standards for factory safety? No, I don't. I expect you agree, so we are talking about how far international agreements should constrain us, rather than an absolute freedom to do whatever we like.
A secondary point is well-made by Cyclefree - if Britain was free to do horrible things and the Conservative Party were to propose them, we'd hope to defeat them. But we'd rather not envisage them in the first place, which is why Labour members will IMO deselect anyone who chooses to vote for that.
Of course Parliament should be able the do those things. It should also desist from doing so. It's the old anti-democratic argument that says we should stay in the EU because it prevents the electorate from voting for certain, not unreasonable, policies which you don't like. Look on the bright side, EU competition and State aid rules will go too.
The new Yougov Welsh poll this morning would see the Tories gain 9 seats from Labour in Wales and with the Tories ahead in Wales too, Boris would be the most successful Tory leader in Wales at a general election since Disraeli
Absolutely historic and never seen before in polling for Wales. I mean, look at this write-up:
"Something extraordinary could be about to happen. Wales is on the brink of an electoral earthquake. The Conservatives appear to be on course to win the majority of Welsh parliamentary seats for the first time in the democratic era, while Labour faces losing a general election in Wales for the first time since 1918. These are the sensational findings from the latest Welsh Political Barometer poll – the first opinion poll to be conducted in Wales since Theresa May called the snap general election."
What are the key assumptions in your tactical model?
If Lab < LD last time, then 45% of Lab vote tactically for LD. If LD < 30% Lab last time, then 35% of LD vote tactically for Lab i.e. LD too far behind. If Lab 1st last time, and LD 2nd, then 10% of Tory vote tactically for LD. 40% of Green vote transfers to Lab, and 40% to LD. 20% remains Green.
Underlying swing is 75% additive (i.e. UNS) and 25% multiplicative - then above assumptions kick in.
45%, 35%, 40% and 40% figures are derived from a YouGov poll on tactical preferences.
Johnson and the hard Brexiteers will have to back down. Even if the EU could be convinced, Japan and Canada won't sign FTAs with us that allow us to undercut them too. So that's the majority of top 10 economies. Nor will it harm us signing up to other deals. Japan and Canada are in the CPTPP while having them. Global Britain requires signing up to global minimum standards.
Global Britain is designed to be a Trojan Horse to lower standards globally. That's why Brexit has been financed by the Mercers and other footloose billionaire capital. The failure to meet level playing field conditions is a feature not a bug.
If that was the case the Tories would be going for No Deal.
Government talk and negotiate all the time. It's what they do.
How many trade negotiations has the government been involved in in the last 25 years, say? Or data protection measures? Obviously exclude the ones done through the EU.
The subject of the negotiations isn't particularly relevant: trade negotiations are complex, but expertise can be learned and bought in if needed
For example, the negotiation with France over the treatment of migrants in Calais is one recent ish example
Really, I didn't have you down as being quite so naive @Charles, if you don't mind me saying so.
The subject of the negotiations is absolutely critical.
Expertise in trade negotiations when Britain has not done any of this for 40 years is not something that can be acquired overnight or just bought in. Most experienced trade negotiators work for other governments. It will take a hell of a lot of time and money (Mrs Clegg, for instance, who knows a thing or two about trade negotiations will not come cheap) to replace what Britain doesn't have.
And Britain will be desperate to get something to show for it. Other countries will know we're desperate; see what Canada has said. And will see our relative inexperience and relative weakness as opportunities to be exploited for their benefit.
You would have to be really uncool to think it was. It is like suggesting that one could be a cool nerd. It is an oxymoronic idea. Actually just remove the oxy bit.
Boles quite clearly wouldnt vote for any deal no matter what was presented.
WTF should he? If 52% of the population voted to reintroduce the death penalty or worse I hope there would be people who would vote against it under all circumstances. He has the right to continue to believe Brexit is madness, which by most rational measure it is. Any "deal" is just lipstick on a pig, though I would happily support it just to move on. Mr Boles has a slightly different position and good luck to him.
But he and the other ex Tories shouldn't keep on trying to reposition themselves. Why not be honest and say he agrees with the LDs and its remain for him whatever.
Seriously? He voted three times (in each of the meaningful votes) to leave the EU with May's deal. But "its remain for him whatever"?
FFS. "A sort of pirate state" - i.e. an independent nation with its own trade and industrial policies, like those well known bloodthirsty brigands, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Australia, Korea...
It is the social and environmental policies that might be adopted that worry people - the suggestions that these would be significantly weakened and that the weakest or minorities in our country would, in consequence, suffer. In short, not just that Britain might be more competitive than, say, Germany but that the fruits of that competitiveness will be taken only by the rich in this country at the expense of the poor, the workers etc.
The very type of post-Brexit policies that might be adopted in this scenario would exacerbate the very conditions and concerns which gave rise to Brexit in the first place - the sense that the system worked only for a few not the many. Quite why the ultra Brexiteers don't see that long-term this is disastrous for the Tories, I don't know. But it is.
do you believe that an elected parliament should have the right to introduce the social and environmental policies that it believed appropriate?
Of course it can, subject to whatever international or other agreements it has already entered into. Whether weakening social or environmental protections will help more voters flock to the Tories is another matter. It is not a question they seem to be asking themselves. They are at risk of winning a battle and losing the war. Why would people who are worried about climate change and standards in farming, for instance, vote for a party which weakened such standards? Why would voters who are worried about how to make a living in a gig economy vote for a party which lessened protections for such workers?
You are (I believe) suggesting that we enter into a level playing field agreement - essentially tying ourselves to EU regulatory standards. I just don't understand why we would do that at this stage. If they offer us a fabulous trade deal we might consider that, but why as a gimme at this point?
Onto happier news: I have just discovered an old friend is in fact my 7th cousin. No wonder I liked him so much!
Isn't everybody a 7th cousin? We are all grand-children of Mitochondrial Eve
This was late 18th century
Not sure in the maths of mitochondrial eve
How many 7th cousins do you estimate that you have? Is it likely that someone in your social circle is a 7th or closer cousin?
This could prove deadly for Brexit. So far everyone's only heard of Theresa/Boris's deal and vaguely assumed that would be the end of the matter. Now 'FTA' is being bandied about, people will soon realize that these 'deals' were in fact some piffling period at the very embryonic stage of the process. There's more - much, much, much, much more - to plough through in the years to come. Exposed to this stark reality might the inclination be to sod it and call the whole thing off?
You hope.
The one thing I have learned from Brexit is that the issue is so emotional, visceral and foundational, no one can post neutrally, and everyone smuggles their own aspirations into their judicious observations (often subconsciously)
That is to say: when anyone makes a Brexit prediction, it's an odds-on bet that they are simply expressing what they would like to occur.
do you believe that an elected parliament should have the right to introduce the social and environmental policies that it believed appropriate?
I'm in favour of globally-agreed minimum standards. Do I think that an elected parliament should be able to introduce child labour if it felt it appropriate? Slavery? Abolition of minimum standards for factory safety? No, I don't. I expect you agree, so we are talking about how far international agreements should constrain us, rather than an absolute freedom to do whatever we like.
A secondary point is well-made by Cyclefree - if Britain was free to do horrible things and the Conservative Party were to propose them, we'd hope to defeat them. But we'd rather not envisage them in the first place, which is why Labour members will IMO deselect anyone who chooses to vote for that.
Against that the EU regulations are not a good fit for us. There are areas - such as animal welfare - where we are stricter than them and others - such as financial regulation - where we need a different approach
We should be able to optimise
More important this is an issue for an FTA not the current agreement
But you're going to win the next GE aren't you so the problem you highlight is moot.
SURELY you are not suggesting that Lab aren't going to win the next GE??? Because that is crazy talk!
Not the point. We may win the next election, or the one after, but one day we'll lose, and then if we've cast off from EU social and environmental alignment, the pirate state becomes possible. We need to rule it out as part of the legally-agreed deal.
Hi Nick, can you at least appreciate how peculiar this line of argument sounds to those outside the political bubble? If the British electorate want to vote for a looser employment policy, then surely that is matter for them? And if that looser policy does not work out as intended by voters, then the policy will be recalibrated at a future election.
Isn’t that the whole point of people like you standing for election under differing policy platforms?
We usually end with majority governments based on minority votes. Admittedly this decade has been a bit of an outlier on that front, with only 2.5 years of the ten fitting that pattern, but until we have a proportional system I have no qualms in saying that the UK often does not have governments it really wants.
This could prove deadly for Brexit. So far everyone's only heard of Theresa/Boris's deal and vaguely assumed that would be the end of the matter. Now 'FTA' is being bandied about, people will soon realize that these 'deals' were in fact some piffling period at the very embryonic stage of the process. There's more - much, much, much, much more - to plough through in the years to come. Exposed to this stark reality might the inclination be to sod it and call the whole thing off?
Not really, that's the exciting part. The people who want to call it off are those that struggle to get out of bed in the morning because life is 'too hard'.
do you believe that an elected parliament should have the right to introduce the social and environmental policies that it believed appropriate?
I'm in favour of globally-agreed minimum standards. Do I think that an elected parliament should be able to introduce child labour if it felt it appropriate? Slavery? Abolition of minimum standards for factory safety? No, I don't. I expect you agree, so we are talking about how far international agreements should constrain us, rather than an absolute freedom to do whatever we like.
A secondary point is well-made by Cyclefree - if Britain was free to do horrible things and the Conservative Party were to propose them, we'd hope to defeat them. But we'd rather not envisage them in the first place, which is why Labour members will IMO deselect anyone who chooses to vote for that.
Of course Parliament should be able the do those things. It should also desist from doing so. It's the old anti-democratic argument that says we should stay in the EU because it prevents the electorate from voting for certain, not unreasonable, policies which you don't like. Look on the bright side, EU competition and State aid rules will go too.
"Of course parliament should be able to vote to establish slavery" is certainly an interesting position. I assume you are a Tory! Don't people have certain inalienable rights that shouldn't be able to be removed by the whim of legislators? It's remarks like this that make me think we need a written constitution asap.
Also note Merkel's public intervention this morning. She's absolutely right in her implied analysis of Boris' new PD and where it will lead. The Kinnockites will have noticed.
So what has Merkel said this morning as nothing is being reported
And I expect the negotiation continues based on a deal and if approved by the HOC a short technical extension would be agreed
The operative word is if the deal is approved by the HOC
From the Guardian blog: --------------- Speaking at a summit for Germany’s mechanical engineers in Berlin, the chancellor reiterated this morning that her government would push for a solution until the last possible moment, but also said the negotiations had got “very complicated” since it had become clear that Britain wanted to leave the customs union.
For the third time in just over a month, Merkel repeated a line that has raised some eyebrows in the UK: in Britain, Merkel said, “the European Union will have a further competitor right on the European Union’s doorstep”. --------------
Essentially the issue is whether the deal allows the UK to be a sort of pirate state, undercutting social and environmental protection regulations that inhibit its Continental competitors. Some Conservative MPs think this is a good idea (though they wouldn't agree it makes us pirates, merely "vigorously competitive"), but it's as un-Labour as it's possible to be: this stuff REALLY matters to us. It's the opposite of the May idea of alignment with EU rules, which ran into the vassal-state argument.
FFS. "A sort of pirate state" - i.e. an independent nation with its own trade and industrial policies, like those well known bloodthirsty brigands, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Australia, Korea...
Canada and Japan have signed for level playing field provisions. It seems obvious that the Tories and EU should accept those precise same terms.
I have no qualms with us signing the precise same terms as Japan etc. Global standards as NPxMP put it.
However it sounds like Barnier wants us on stricter terms. Vassal state not global standards.
FFS. "A sort of pirate state" - i.e. an independent nation with its own trade and industrial policies, like those well known bloodthirsty brigands, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Australia, Korea...
It is the social and environmental policies that might be adopted that worry people - the suggestions that these would be significantly weakened and that the weakest or minorities in our country would, in consequence, suffer. In short, not just that Britain might be more competitive than, say, Germany but that the fruits of that competitiveness will be taken only by the rich in this country at the expense of the poor, the workers etc.
The very type of post-Brexit policies that might be adopted in this scenario would exacerbate the very conditions and concerns which gave rise to Brexit in the first place - the sense that the system worked only for a few not the many. Quite why the ultra Brexiteers don't see that long-term this is disastrous for the Tories, I don't know. But it is.
do you believe that an elected parliament should have the right to introduce the social and environmental policies that it believed appropriate?
Of course it can, subject to whatever international or other agreements it has already entered into. Whether weakening social or environmental protections will help more voters flock to the Tories is another matter. It is not a question they seem to be asking themselves. They are at risk of winning a battle and losing the war. Why would people who are worried about climate change and standards in farming, for instance, vote for a party which weakened such standards? Why would voters who are worried about how to make a living in a gig economy vote for a party which lessened protections for such workers?
You are (I believe) suggesting that we enter into a level playing field agreement - essentially tying ourselves to EU regulatory standards. I just don't understand why we would do that at this stage. If they offer us a fabulous trade deal we might consider that, but why as a gimme at this point?
Onto happier news: I have just discovered an old friend is in fact my 7th cousin. No wonder I liked him so much!
Isn't everybody a 7th cousin? We are all grand-children of Mitochondrial Eve
This was late 18th century
Not sure in the maths of mitochondrial eve
How many 7th cousins do you estimate that you have? Is it likely that someone in your social circle is a 7th or closer cousin?
Really, I didn't have you down as being quite so naive @Charles, if you don't mind me saying so.
The subject of the negotiations is absolutely critical.
Expertise in trade negotiations when Britain has not done any of this for 40 years is not something that can be acquired overnight or just bought in. Most experienced trade negotiators work for other governments. It will take a hell of a lot of time and money (Mrs Clegg, for instance, who knows a thing or two about trade negotiations will not come cheap) to replace what Britain doesn't have.
And Britain will be desperate to get something to show for it. Other countries will know we're desperate; see what Canada has said. And will see our relative inexperience and relative weakness as opportunities to be exploited for their benefit.
Your point is that we should never do anything different because we don't have any experience
We will negotiate deals. If they are not good enough we won't sign them.
(and at what point was the UK demos asked for their consent for the decisions that parliament made to hand away so much power)
No - that is not my point. My point is that our government and administration will be consumed by this for years to come after we have Brexited. It will take longer and be harder than we now imagine because of our inexperience. It will have an opportunity cost, a large one IMO. We will feel compelled to sign deals even if they are not good enough because so many on the Brexit side are invested in showing that something has resulted from it.
And as for your last point, this consent was given at every election when parties explicitly committed to the EU won those elections.
You would have to be really uncool to think it was. It is like suggesting that one could be a cool nerd. It is an oxymoronic idea. Actually just remove the oxy bit
**
If it ever happens it will probably become cool, though, simply because of the pendulum swing. Right now Brexit is flared trousers, but the other day I saw some flared trousers worn by a very hip young thing.
Also note Merkel's public intervention this morning. She's absolutely right in her implied analysis of Boris' new PD and where it will lead. The Kinnockites will have noticed.
So what has Merkel said this morning as nothing is being reported
And I expect the negotiation continues based on a deal and if approved by the HOC a short technical extension would be agreed
The operative word is if the deal is approved by the HOC
From the Guardian blog: --------------- Speaking at a summit for Germany’s mechanical engineers in Berlin, the chancellor reiterated this morning that her government would push for a solution until the last possible moment, but also said the negotiations had got “very complicated” since it had become clear that Britain wanted to leave the customs union.
For the third time in just over a month, Merkel repeated a line that has raised some eyebrows in the UK: in Britain, Merkel said, “the European Union will have a further competitor right on the European Union’s doorstep”. --------------
Essentially the issue is whether the deal allows the UK to be a sort of pirate state, undercutting social and environmental protection regulations that inhibit its Continental competitors. Some Conservative MPs think this is a good idea (though they wouldn't agree it makes us pirates, merely "vigorously competitive"), but it's as un-Labour as it's possible to be: this stuff REALLY matters to us. It's the opposite of the May idea of alignment with EU rules, which ran into the vassal-state argument.
FFS. "A sort of pirate state" - i.e. an independent nation with its own trade and industrial policies, like those well known bloodthirsty brigands, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Australia, Korea...
Canada and Japan have signed for level playing field provisions. It seems obvious that the Tories and EU should accept those precise same terms.
Different level playing field provisions and in the context of an FTA
Comments
We have to remember that the seats most vulnerable to the Lib Dems have always been mainly Conservative seats.
If the Lib Dems were to become strong enough to win a majority I think Labour would still win ~150 seats in core areas and it would be the Tories who would be in real trouble - at least under FPTP.
The only way to kill Labour is with PR of some sort.
Brecon and Radnorshire & Montgomeryshire for LD vs Tory;
Cardiff Central Lib Dem vs Labour
Ynys Mons for Plaid vs mainly Labour and marginally Tory.
Plaid in Ceredigion if the Lib Dems stand aside there as part of a deal for elsewhere.
I think the Greens are irrelevant in Wales generally though their not standing could help Labour at the margins in the Lab-Tory battlegrounds, but it's very very marginal.
For example, the negotiation with France over the treatment of migrants in Calais is one recent ish example
any "new" deal is likely to start off the skeleton of its predecessor
If we get to Thursday and the EU position is " We are making real progress on this plan you dumped on us 6 days ago. Lets keep working " what is Boris going to do ?
The subject of the negotiations is absolutely critical.
Expertise in trade negotiations when Britain has not done any of this for 40 years is not something that can be acquired overnight or just bought in. Most experienced trade negotiators work for other governments. It will take a hell of a lot of time and money (Mrs Clegg, for instance, who knows a thing or two about trade negotiations will not come cheap) to replace what Britain doesn't have.
And Britain will be desperate to get something to show for it. Other countries will know we're desperate; see what Canada has said. And will see our relative inexperience and relative weakness as opportunities to be exploited for their benefit.
*I'm assuming that's what was in mind, rather than more modern piracy.
Putting the last four polls into the EMA gives:
Con 32.9 (+0.2%)
Lab 24.9 (+1.0%)
LD 19.3 (-0.5%)
BXP 12.7 (-0.3%)
Grn 4.6 (-0.4%)
Baxter plus Flavible gives:
Con 338 (-5)
Lab 195 (+8)
LD 45 (-3)
My tactical model
Con 297 (-6)
Lab 232 (+8)
LD 51 (-2)
We will negotiate deals. If they are not good enough we won't sign them.
(and at what point was the UK demos asked for their consent for the decisions that parliament made to hand away so much power)
Much of the EU, especially in Brussels, was dismayed by the Brexit vote. The Nordics, along with the Poles, were probably the most horrified. They don't want to be left alone, with Germany and France. in a fast-integrating EU.
They HATE Brexit.
"Swedish foreign minister: I ‘cannot forgive’ UK for Brexit
Margot Wallström calls the exit ‘a historical mistake’ that’s ‘created a problem for all of us.’"
https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-swedish-foreign-minister-i-cannot-forgive-uk/
Whatever that rant is, it is not "a bit less indifferent"
As a political tactic, it has the merit of novelty, I suppose.
Leicester are 9 (Ladbrokes) to be top team discounting Liverpool and Manchester City. Is that value?
Currently, excluding those two mentioned, the top of the table is:
Arsenal 15 (+2 GD)
Leicester 14 (+7)
Chelsea 14 (+4)
Crystal Palace 14 (0)
I'm not sure why. It's not the money. Perhaps it is a psychological fear of such a dramatic rupture.
Why not be honest and say he agrees with the LDs and its remain for him whatever.
Onto happier news: I have just discovered an old friend is in fact my 7th cousin. No wonder I liked him so much!
https://twitter.com/CrowSaorAlba1/status/1184005284676689925?s=20
Just like the rest of us.
ROI will probably never be this powerful/significant in the EU again.
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1183994150074683392?s=20
Presumably, therefore, any deal Boris is putting to Barnier has already been given the nod by the DUP
A secondary point is well-made by Cyclefree - if Britain was free to do horrible things and the Conservative Party were to propose them, we'd hope to defeat them. But we'd rather not envisage them in the first place, which is why Labour members will IMO deselect anyone who chooses to vote for that.
Rees-Mogg really does have what the Germans call a backpfeifengesicht
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/jacob-rees-mogg-claims-votes-are-now-there-for-boris-johnsons-brexit-plan/ar-AAIMFGx?ocid=spartanntp&fullscreen=true#image=2
Not sure in the maths of mitochondrial eve
Isn’t that the whole point of people like you standing for election under differing policy platforms?
Secondly odd as it may seem to you, Labour are equally likely and capable of proposing 'horrible' things
Thirdly we are a liberal democracy with a civilised demos. In the last 50 years tell me which 'horrible' things have been enacted on our suffering populace.
Fourthly, I find your argument full of bland biased platitudes on this occasion and therefore lacking in gravitas or meaning.
"Something extraordinary could be about to happen. Wales is on the brink of an electoral earthquake. The Conservatives appear to be on course to win the majority of Welsh parliamentary seats for the first time in the democratic era, while Labour faces losing a general election in Wales for the first time since 1918. These are the sensational findings from the latest Welsh Political Barometer poll – the first opinion poll to be conducted in Wales since Theresa May called the snap general election."
No, wait, sorry. That was from 2017.
Never mind.
If LD < 30% Lab last time, then 35% of LD vote tactically for Lab i.e. LD too far behind.
If Lab 1st last time, and LD 2nd, then 10% of Tory vote tactically for LD.
40% of Green vote transfers to Lab, and 40% to LD. 20% remains Green.
Underlying swing is 75% additive (i.e. UNS) and 25% multiplicative - then above assumptions kick in.
45%, 35%, 40% and 40% figures are derived from a YouGov poll on tactical preferences.
For example, the negotiation with France over the treatment of migrants in Calais is one recent ish example
Really, I didn't have you down as being quite so naive @Charles, if you don't mind me saying so.
The subject of the negotiations is absolutely critical.
Expertise in trade negotiations when Britain has not done any of this for 40 years is not something that can be acquired overnight or just bought in. Most experienced trade negotiators work for other governments. It will take a hell of a lot of time and money (Mrs Clegg, for instance, who knows a thing or two about trade negotiations will not come cheap) to replace what Britain doesn't have.
And Britain will be desperate to get something to show for it. Other countries will know we're desperate; see what Canada has said. And will see our relative inexperience and relative weakness as opportunities to be exploited for their benefit.
https://twitter.com/AndrewScheer/status/862734636543332352?s=20
Narrator: It's still not cool, it really isn't.
You would have to be really uncool to think it was. It is like suggesting that one could be a cool nerd. It is an oxymoronic idea. Actually just remove the oxy bit.
The one thing I have learned from Brexit is that the issue is so emotional, visceral and foundational, no one can post neutrally, and everyone smuggles their own aspirations into their judicious observations (often subconsciously)
That is to say: when anyone makes a Brexit prediction, it's an odds-on bet that they are simply expressing what they would like to occur.
We should be able to optimise
More important this is an issue for an FTA not the current agreement
However it sounds like Barnier wants us on stricter terms. Vassal state not global standards.
* that matters.
And as for your last point, this consent was given at every election when parties explicitly committed to the EU won those elections.
**
You would have to be really uncool to think it was. It is like suggesting that one could be a cool nerd. It is an oxymoronic idea. Actually just remove the oxy bit
**
If it ever happens it will probably become cool, though, simply because of the pendulum swing. Right now Brexit is flared trousers, but the other day I saw some flared trousers worn by a very hip young thing.
And see here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-7477037/Phoebe-Waller-Bridge-catches-eye-striped-blouse-scarlet-flared-trousers.html