politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump the Time magazine “Person of the Year” – it is hard to d

Pulpstar said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Pulpstar said:

Question: If a Justice thinks Miller/Pannick is technically right in law, but the government with the backing of 17.4 million voters (Or NET 1-2 millionish if you prefer) is "naturally just" are they still obliged to rule in favour of Miller/Pannick ?

The Supreme Court can develop the law. So it is open to it to establish a new legal principle if it thinks appropriate. In a case as controversial as this, it would want to have a clear rationale for doing so.

Thanks, I was wondering why you thought the odds should be 4-6 / 6-4, I think that explains it

If the Supreme Court is so inclined, it can decide the case in favour of the government without explicitly developing the law beyond its previously-understood point. A welter of heavyweight constitutional lawyers initially thought the case would inevitably fail. The consensus that the government will lose in the Supreme Court is very recent indeed (and in my view is just as misguided as the previous consensus).

To my mind this is a finely balanced case. In my view the law should be developed so that the respondents win but I'm keener to see a clear judgment that establishes effective checks and balances over the executive than to see it go one way or the other.

Blue_rog said:

I see the true colours of remain MP's are coming out. Block Article 50 trigger under any circumstances. I really think the whip should be withdrawn from any MP with this stance and deselect them at the earliest opportunity.

If that means the government falls then so be it and let's have a GE

Even from those MPs whose constituencies who voted Remain?

rcs1000 said:

As it's Brexit day, I'd like to remind everyone that there is a difference between:

(a) being in a customs union with the EU, and having our own relationships with other countries, which is what Turkey has
and
(b) being in the EU customs unions, and therefore being a party to all the trade deals signed by the EU

I would also like to point out that we should dis-aggregate the various EU payments. Norway's annual payments to the EU are about EUR850m. Of this, the biggest component (EUR447m) is for membership of various bodies administered by the EU, but run separately: i.e., Erasmus, the European Space Agency, CERN, Gallileo, Horizon, Copernicus, and a bunch of others. We would be able to cherry pick which ones we wished to be members of post Brexit, but I very much doubt we'd like to walk away from Erasmus, for example, just because we'd left the EU.

I think we'd also want to remain part of the medicines agency

Re IDS: I'm not sure what the argument against being in a customs union with the EU is (as a transitional agreement, if nothing else). It would drastically simplify the exit process and would not prejudice arrangements with other countries down the line.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Pulpstar said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Pulpstar said:

Question: If a Justice thinks Miller/Pannick is technically right in law, but the government with the backing of 17.4 million voters (Or NET 1-2 millionish if you prefer) is "naturally just" are they still obliged to rule in favour of Miller/Pannick ?

The Supreme Court can develop the law. So it is open to it to establish a new legal principle if it thinks appropriate. In a case as controversial as this, it would want to have a clear rationale for doing so.

Thanks, I was wondering why you thought the odds should be 4-6 / 6-4, I think that explains it

If the Supreme Court is so inclined, it can decide the case in favour of the government without explicitly developing the law beyond its previously-understood point. A welter of heavyweight constitutional lawyers initially thought the case would inevitably fail. The consensus that the government will lose in the Supreme Court is very recent indeed (and in my view is just as misguided as the previous consensus).

To my mind this is a finely balanced case. In my view the law should be developed so that the respondents win but I'm keener to see a clear judgment that establishes effective checks and balances over the executive than to see it go one way or the other.

At I think 17%, which is not far off 5/1, the government winning looked pretty good value. Just because it is difficult to tell either way.

3/1 is still good value.

EDIT I have once in my legal career been given an estimate from a QC of a 75% chance of success in court. A rock solid case usually gets given a 60-65% chance of success.

SandyRentool said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

How am I in the same party as IDS?

I'm sure the LibDems would welcome you...

They'd never have me.

Plus I'm much happier in the Tory tent peeing inside.

TGOHF said:

rcs1000 said:

TGOHF said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

TGOHF said:

re Labour's new customs union policy - does that mean they don't want new free trade deals with the rest of the world ?

It means that they, probably rightly, consider that the minor disadvantage of not being able to negotiate our own trade deals is outweighed by the humongous advantage of not wrecking our car industry.

Under what circumstances would the EU invoke tariffs on our car industry that wouldn't result in the mutual destruction of a multitude of their industries ?

Be realistic..

Umnmm: unfortunately, I don't think that's true. Because the auto industry has multi-country supply chains, cutting us 'out' would harm us far more than them. Simply, we don't have enough of an auto component industry in the UK.

But then other industries would be "out" for the Uk. All these tales of woe suggest we would stand back like a pinata and take a free beating. We have a massive balance of trade deficit with the EU...

Surely the trade deficit means *we* benefit. They send us money, we spend the money on their products. We get the products, and they get worthless bits of paper.

If we stopped buying German cars, they would stop accumulating worthless credits, and would all get to drive new Mercedes.

rcs1000 said:

Re IDS: I'm not sure what the argument against being in a customs union with the EU is (as a transitional agreement, if nothing else). It would drastically simplify the exit process and would not prejudice arrangements with other countries down the line.

Isn't a Customs Union a bit like the original Common Market?

TheScreamingEagles said:

20 years a member next May, if I can survive the leadership of IDS, I can survive Mrs May's leadership.

Plus George Osborne will need people like me when when he becomes Tory Leader/PM in a few years time.

https://twitter.com/psbook/status/806511879497613312

Andy_Cooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Someone on Twitter just suggested that the M above the Don's napper resembles horns and Time are on the troll. Is it really obvious and are my visual sensibilities somewhat blunt today?

Like the FedEx arrow, once you see it you can't unsee it.

What's the FedEx arrow thing?

Is it like Colonel Sanders' tie actually being little arms and legs?

Look at the white space between the last E and the X
It makes a rightwards pointing arrow (and this is deliberate)

What did you see in that logo?

Will there be a Brexit arrow?

IDS is a complete fool. I wish he'd just keep his fat mouth shut.

MaxPB said:

IDS is a complete fool. I wish he'd just keep his fat mouth shut.

Did I see a misplaced consonant, or did I think you wrote something else?

dr_spyn said:

MaxPB said:

IDS is a complete fool. I wish he'd just keep his fat mouth shut.

Did I see a misplaced consonant, or did I think you wrote something else?

Both the letters 'f' and 't' are appropriate.

Scott_P said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

20 years a member next May, if I can survive the leadership of IDS, I can survive Mrs May's leadership.

Plus George Osborne will need people like me when when he becomes Tory Leader/PM in a few years time.

https://twitter.com/psbook/status/806511879497613312

In that picture, the wrong MP lost his seat.

I'm told the pensions industry is still in mourning over Steve Webb's loss.

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

Yep that was not one of the difficult ones was it?

Slightly more difficult, and relevant to the last thread, is the Supreme Court decision on Brexit. I was gainfully employed this morning and didn't see it but the chat at lunch was that Pannick got a bit of a doing this morning. Is there value in the government winning? Maybe there is.

Which of the judges was doing the doing ?

As I say I didn't see it but I was told it was Lord Kerr and Lord Neuberger leading the charge.

AlastairMeeks said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Pulpstar said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Pulpstar said:

Question: If a Justice thinks Miller/Pannick is technically right in law, but the government with the backing of 17.4 million voters (Or NET 1-2 millionish if you prefer) is "naturally just" are they still obliged to rule in favour of Miller/Pannick ?

The Supreme Court can develop the law. So it is open to it to establish a new legal principle if it thinks appropriate. In a case as controversial as this, it would want to have a clear rationale for doing so.

Thanks, I was wondering why you thought the odds should be 4-6 / 6-4, I think that explains it

If the Supreme Court is so inclined, it can decide the case in favour of the government without explicitly developing the law beyond its previously-understood point. A welter of heavyweight constitutional lawyers initially thought the case would inevitably fail. The consensus that the government will lose in the Supreme Court is very recent indeed (and in my view is just as misguided as the previous consensus).

To my mind this is a finely balanced case. In my view the law should be developed so that the respondents win but I'm keener to see a clear judgment that establishes effective checks and balances over the executive than to see it go one way or the other.

At I think 17%, which is not far off 5/1, the government winning looked pretty good value. Just because it is difficult to tell either way.

3/1 is still good value.

EDIT I have once in my legal career been given an estimate from a QC of a 75% chance of success in court. A rock solid case usually gets given a 60-65% chance of success.

These QCs must do their pieces on the racetrack

AlastairMeeks said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Pulpstar said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Pulpstar said:

Question: If a Justice thinks Miller/Pannick is technically right in law, but the government with the backing of 17.4 million voters (Or NET 1-2 millionish if you prefer) is "naturally just" are they still obliged to rule in favour of Miller/Pannick ?

The Supreme Court can develop the law. So it is open to it to establish a new legal principle if it thinks appropriate. In a case as controversial as this, it would want to have a clear rationale for doing so.

Thanks, I was wondering why you thought the odds should be 4-6 / 6-4, I think that explains it

If the Supreme Court is so inclined, it can decide the case in favour of the government without explicitly developing the law beyond its previously-understood point. A welter of heavyweight constitutional lawyers initially thought the case would inevitably fail. The consensus that the government will lose in the Supreme Court is very recent indeed (and in my view is just as misguided as the previous consensus).

To my mind this is a finely balanced case. In my view the law should be developed so that the respondents win but I'm keener to see a clear judgment that establishes effective checks and balances over the executive than to see it go one way or the other.

At I think 17%, which is not far off 5/1, the government winning looked pretty good value. Just because it is difficult to tell either way.

3/1 is still good value.

EDIT I have once in my legal career been given an estimate from a QC of a 75% chance of success in court. A rock solid case usually gets given a 60-65% chance of success.

That's what we say in this office... not sure it applies as much to the Supreme Court though

OMG

The CCHQ and Lib Dem Press Office twitter accounts are having a spat, it is epic. These are the opening salvos, it goes on.

https://twitter.com/CCHQPress/status/806441538452619264
https://twitter.com/LibDemPress/status/806503617083674624
https://twitter.com/CCHQPress/status/806504970858151940
https://twitter.com/LibDemPress/status/806505615724052481

CarlottaVance said:

rcs1000 said:

CarlottaVance said:

rcs1000 said:

Re IDS: I'm not sure what the argument against being in a customs union with the EU is (as a transitional agreement, if nothing else). It would drastically simplify the exit process and would not prejudice arrangements with other countries down the line.

Isn't a Customs Union a bit like the original Common Market?

No, the Customs Union was the original Common Market.

Essentially, being in a customs union means keeping the same external tariff rates as the EU (which is no great difficulty, as we have that currently), and then having free trade between us and the EU. It would not affect our ability to sign additional free trade deals. (As Turkey, for example, has done.)

What are the downsides (upsetting headbangers isn't one...)?

The downside is that - while we're in it - we need to keep our tariffs synchronised with the EU's. That means that we can't unilaterally cut the tariff on (for example) cars to 1%.

*But*, the weighted average mean tariff for goods coming into the EU is just 1.0%* **, and that's below most large trading blocs and countries***. Sure we might want to cut the tariffs on cars down the line, but there's no rush to do so.

Unfortunately, I think it may be politically unacceptable. It's not taking back control if we don't get to set the tariff on imported steel.

* http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TM.TAX.MRCH.WM.AR.ZS
** the weighted average tariffs flatter the EU, as they are pulled down by lots of tariff free oil and gas
*** Canada is 0,8%, but pretty much everyone else is higher

Sunil_Prasannan said:

rcs1000 said:

CarlottaVance said:

rcs1000 said:

Re IDS: I'm not sure what the argument against being in a customs union with the EU is (as a transitional agreement, if nothing else). It would drastically simplify the exit process and would not prejudice arrangements with other countries down the line.

Isn't a Customs Union a bit like the original Common Market?

No, the Customs Union was the original Common Market.

Essentially, being in a customs union means keeping the same external tariff rates as the EU (which is no great difficulty, as we have that currently), and then having free trade between us and the EU. It would not affect our ability to sign additional free trade deals. (As Turkey, for example, has done.)

Wasn't Prussia's ,,Zollverein'' the original "Common Market"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zollverein

If Hillary had won wouldn't it still be a "Divided States of America"?

Incidentally, she only carried 20 States plus Washington DC.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Blue_rog said:

I see the true colours of remain MP's are coming out. Block Article 50 trigger under any circumstances. I really think the whip should be withdrawn from any MP with this stance and deselect them at the earliest opportunity.

If that means the government falls then so be it and let's have a GE

Even from those MPs whose constituencies who voted Remain?

There were 382 official "counting areas" for EURef.

LEAVE won 263 of those
REMAIN won only 119

And?

Just sayin'!

AlastairMeeks said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Pulpstar said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Pulpstar said:

Question: If a Justice thinks Miller/Pannick is technically right in law, but the government with the backing of 17.4 million voters (Or NET 1-2 millionish if you prefer) is "naturally just" are they still obliged to rule in favour of Miller/Pannick ?

The Supreme Court can develop the law. So it is open to it to establish a new legal principle if it thinks appropriate. In a case as controversial as this, it would want to have a clear rationale for doing so.

Thanks, I was wondering why you thought the odds should be 4-6 / 6-4, I think that explains it

If the Supreme Court is so inclined, it can decide the case in favour of the government without explicitly developing the law beyond its previously-understood point. A welter of heavyweight constitutional lawyers initially thought the case would inevitably fail. The consensus that the government will lose in the Supreme Court is very recent indeed (and in my view is just as misguided as the previous consensus).

To my mind this is a finely balanced case. In my view the law should be developed so that the respondents win but I'm keener to see a clear judgment that establishes effective checks and balances over the executive than to see it go one way or the other.

At I think 17%, which is not far off 5/1, the government winning looked pretty good value. Just because it is difficult to tell either way.

3/1 is still good value.

EDIT I have once in my legal career been given an estimate from a QC of a 75% chance of success in court. A rock solid case usually gets given a 60-65% chance of success.

I was once rash enough to give a client 90%, but only because the other side's case was the legal equivalent of a banzai charge. And, in fairness, we did win.

rcs1000 said:

Recidivist said:

CarlottaVance said:

rcs1000 said:

CarlottaVance said:

rcs1000 said:

Re IDS: I'm not sure what the argument against being in a customs union with the EU is (as a transitional agreement, if nothing else). It would drastically simplify the exit process and would not prejudice arrangements with other countries down the line.

Isn't a Customs Union a bit like the original Common Market?

No, the Customs Union was the original Common Market.

Essentially, being in a customs union means keeping the same external tariff rates as the EU (which is no great difficulty, as we have that currently), and then having free trade between us and the EU. It would not affect our ability to sign additional free trade deals. (As Turkey, for example, has done.)

What are the downsides (upsetting headbangers isn't one...)?

I don't think there are many downsides for us. The problem is we'd be 'free rider' on the rest of the EU, so they would have little incentive to go along with it. So we could cut a deal with Turkey and import their carpets with a low tariff and then re-export them to the rest of the EU. I imagine it would be a non-starter unless the EU's strategy is to be really really nice to us to encourage us back.

I think the EU would love to be in a customs union with us, especially if we were still paying into a bunch of EU programmes.

"Look at those foolish Brits, reduced to the status of Turkey, but with a bigger bill."

I'm sure you'll have no trouble convincing the IDS tendency that they're wrong.

Carolus_Rex said:

AlastairMeeks said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Pulpstar said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Pulpstar said:

Question: If a Justice thinks Miller/Pannick is technically right in law, but the government with the backing of 17.4 million voters (Or NET 1-2 millionish if you prefer) is "naturally just" are they still obliged to rule in favour of Miller/Pannick ?

The Supreme Court can develop the law. So it is open to it to establish a new legal principle if it thinks appropriate. In a case as controversial as this, it would want to have a clear rationale for doing so.

Thanks, I was wondering why you thought the odds should be 4-6 / 6-4, I think that explains it

If the Supreme Court is so inclined, it can decide the case in favour of the government without explicitly developing the law beyond its previously-understood point. A welter of heavyweight constitutional lawyers initially thought the case would inevitably fail. The consensus that the government will lose in the Supreme Court is very recent indeed (and in my view is just as misguided as the previous consensus).

To my mind this is a finely balanced case. In my view the law should be developed so that the respondents win but I'm keener to see a clear judgment that establishes effective checks and balances over the executive than to see it go one way or the other.

At I think 17%, which is not far off 5/1, the government winning looked pretty good value. Just because it is difficult to tell either way.

3/1 is still good value.

EDIT I have once in my legal career been given an estimate from a QC of a 75% chance of success in court. A rock solid case usually gets given a 60-65% chance of success.

I was once rash enough to give a client 90%, but only because the other side's case was the legal equivalent of a banzai charge. And, in fairness, we did win.

Brave!

AlastairMeeks said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Someone on Twitter just suggested that the M above the Don's napper resembles horns and Time are on the troll. Is it really obvious and are my visual sensibilities somewhat blunt today?

Like the FedEx arrow, once you see it you can't unsee it.

Client of mine was one of the founders of FedEx. I could ask him if it was intentional if you like?

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

Recidivist said:

CarlottaVance said:

rcs1000 said:

CarlottaVance said:

rcs1000 said:

Re IDS: I'm not sure what the argument against being in a customs union with the EU is (as a transitional agreement, if nothing else). It would drastically simplify the exit process and would not prejudice arrangements with other countries down the line.

Isn't a Customs Union a bit like the original Common Market?

No, the Customs Union was the original Common Market.

Essentially, being in a customs union means keeping the same external tariff rates as the EU (which is no great difficulty, as we have that currently), and then having free trade between us and the EU. It would not affect our ability to sign additional free trade deals. (As Turkey, for example, has done.)

What are the downsides (upsetting headbangers isn't one...)?

I don't think there are many downsides for us. The problem is we'd be 'free rider' on the rest of the EU, so they would have little incentive to go along with it. So we could cut a deal with Turkey and import their carpets with a low tariff and then re-export them to the rest of the EU. I imagine it would be a non-starter unless the EU's strategy is to be really really nice to us to encourage us back.

I think the EU would love to be in a customs union with us, especially if we were still paying into a bunch of EU programmes.

"Look at those foolish Brits, reduced to the status of Turkey, but with a bigger bill."

I'm sure you'll have no trouble convincing the IDS tendency that they're wrong.

Sadly, IDS is an idiot, who doesn't seem to understand the difference between 'a' and 'the'.

And how many supposed experts don't appear to understand the difference between being in the Single Market and having tariff-free access to the Single Market?

Incidentally, they have some very strange customs in parts of europe. Not sure I want to be part of that union.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Blue_rog said:

I see the true colours of remain MP's are coming out. Block Article 50 trigger under any circumstances. I really think the whip should be withdrawn from any MP with this stance and deselect them at the earliest opportunity.

If that means the government falls then so be it and let's have a GE

Even from those MPs whose constituencies who voted Remain?

There were 382 official "counting areas" for EURef.

LEAVE won 263 of those
REMAIN won only 119

And?

Some of the more fuckwitted Leavers want to see the whip removed from MPs who vote in line with their constituents.

It's more reasonable to suggest that MPs vote in line with how they voted on the Referendum Bill.

On the topic of company logos, one of the companies we deal with has a logo that looks a lot like a set of male genitalia, complete with pubic hair. No kidding.

AlastairMeeks said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Someone on Twitter just suggested that the M above the Don's napper resembles horns and Time are on the troll. Is it really obvious and are my visual sensibilities somewhat blunt today?

Like the FedEx arrow, once you see it you can't unsee it.

Client of mine was one of the founders of FedEx. I could ask him if it was intentional if you like?

I had always understood that it is intentional, but it would be great to have confirmation. As for Donald Trump's Time horns, I'm less sure.

They look more like bunny ears than horns to me.

BBC: "Man guilty of racially-aggravated harassment of Labour MP Luciana Berger, after sending anti-Semitic online rants"

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

As it's Brexit day, I'd like to remind everyone that there is a difference between:

(a) being in a customs union with the EU, and having our own relationships with other countries, which is what Turkey has
and
(b) being in the EU customs unions, and therefore being a party to all the trade deals signed by the EU

I would also like to point out that we should dis-aggregate the various EU payments. Norway's annual payments to the EU are about EUR850m. Of this, the biggest component (EUR447m) is for membership of various bodies administered by the EU, but run separately: i.e., Erasmus, the European Space Agency, CERN, Gallileo, Horizon, Copernicus, and a bunch of others. We would be able to cherry pick which ones we wished to be members of post Brexit, but I very much doubt we'd like to walk away from Erasmus, for example, just because we'd left the EU.

My understanding is that you are wrong about being able to make your own trade deals if you are inside the customs union. This is why Norway and the other EFTA countries stayed outside the customs union even though they joined the EEA.

Turkey is in a customs union with the EU, but is not in the EU customs union. This means that it keeps its tariffs synchronised with the EU, but is free to enter into FTAs with other countries. So, for example, Turkey has an FTA with Israel, which the EU does not.

CarlottaVance said:

rcs1000 said:

CarlottaVance said:

rcs1000 said:

Re IDS: I'm not sure what the argument against being in a customs union with the EU is (as a transitional agreement, if nothing else). It would drastically simplify the exit process and would not prejudice arrangements with other countries down the line.

Isn't a Customs Union a bit like the original Common Market?

No, the Customs Union was the original Common Market.

Essentially, being in a customs union means keeping the same external tariff rates as the EU (which is no great difficulty, as we have that currently), and then having free trade between us and the EU. It would not affect our ability to sign additional free trade deals. (As Turkey, for example, has done.)

What are the downsides (upsetting headbangers isn't one...)?

Practically speaking there is only one potential downside, I believe, which is that we would be unable to set our tariffs with third countries competitively lower than the EU. However, outside of a customs unions with the EU we would probably BE OBLIGED to set our tariffs to zero or very low, while attracting tariffs on our goods that are the same as the ones third countries give to the EU, or higher.

Tariffs on our imports will be set by our WTO Most Favoured Nation schedules. Third countries are only likely to agree those schedules if they are at least as good as the tariff regime they already incur on trade with us, which they possibly get via a preferential trade agreement with the EU. And under MFN rules you have to give your best tariffs to everyone. On the other hand the third country will give us THEIR MFN tariffs which are possibly higher than those they gave via a preferential trade agreement with the EU. They cannot give the UK lower tariffs under MFN without lowering tariffs for everyone else. Finally, if third countries already get our best tariffs without having to reciprocate they don't have a lot of incentive to do an FTA with us. In any case no-one wants to do them anymore.

I wouldn't however dismiss downsides for Brexit headbangers. There is a lot of rhetoric in it and just explaining all this stuff goes to show how mediocre Brexit will be.

Luckyguy1983 said:

WTO people, WTO. This angels dancing on the head of a pin argument about the 'deal' just so we can keep the EU making more money off us than we do off them is RISIBLE. Exactly the sort of nonsense that made people vote for Brexit in the first place. World piggy bank Britain has to stop whilst we still have a pot to piss in.

But even if we go WTO, I presume we're still going to remain members of some EU administered programmes, right?

Or is Erasmus or CERN a step too far?

Sunil_Prasannan said:

If Hillary had won wouldn't it still be a "Divided States of America"?

Incidentally, she only carried 20 States plus Washington DC.

the divided states of america is not a reference to the result, it is in the manner of which this election was fought which revealed the deep divisions of america. no one can say that wasn't a divisive campaign. but atleast an MP wasn't shot dead I suppose.

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

As it's Brexit day, I'd like to remind everyone that there is a difference between:

(a) being in a customs union with the EU, and having our own relationships with other countries, which is what Turkey has
and
(b) being in the EU customs unions, and therefore being a party to all the trade deals signed by the EU

I would also like to point out that we should dis-aggregate the various EU payments. Norway's annual payments to the EU are about EUR850m. Of this, the biggest component (EUR447m) is for membership of various bodies administered by the EU, but run separately: i.e., Erasmus, the European Space Agency, CERN, Gallileo, Horizon, Copernicus, and a bunch of others. We would be able to cherry pick which ones we wished to be members of post Brexit, but I very much doubt we'd like to walk away from Erasmus, for example, just because we'd left the EU.

My understanding is that you are wrong about being able to make your own trade deals if you are inside the customs union. This is why Norway and the other EFTA countries stayed outside the customs union even though they joined the EEA.

Not in the customs union, but in a customs union with the EU. The difference is subtle, but the latter makes a lot more sense.

TheScreamingEagles said:

How am I in the same party as IDS?

FPTP

Mr. Max, but which is Labour proposing?

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Max, but which is Labour proposing?

I'm really not sure. I think staying within the customs union.

nunu said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

If Hillary had won wouldn't it still be a "Divided States of America"?

Incidentally, she only carried 20 States plus Washington DC.

the divided states of america is not a reference to the result, it is in the manner of which this election was fought which revealed the deep divisions of america. no one can say that wasn't a divisive campaign. but atleast an MP wasn't shot dead I suppose.

That's true nunu, but they need to work on their vote-counting!

Pulpstar said:

If there was a world of zero tarrifs, quotas, import & export restrictions which countries would benefit & which would suffer from the current status quo ?

If you believe in free trade the world would benefit. But it's a bit like the arguments for globalisation. There are losers as well as winners. In the UK, farmers would likely be losers. Remaining steel mills as well.

However, it won't be a world of zero tarrifs, quotas, import & export restrictions. If anything it's becoming less of one. When we Brexit we will see more of those barriers from countries we trade with because we leave the EU trading system, including the SIngle Market and the EU FTA portfolio.

MaxPB said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

As it's Brexit day, I'd like to remind everyone that there is a difference between:

(a) being in a customs union with the EU, and having our own relationships with other countries, which is what Turkey has
and
(b) being in the EU customs unions, and therefore being a party to all the trade deals signed by the EU

I would also like to point out that we should dis-aggregate the various EU payments. Norway's annual payments to the EU are about EUR850m. Of this, the biggest component (EUR447m) is for membership of various bodies administered by the EU, but run separately: i.e., Erasmus, the European Space Agency, CERN, Gallileo, Horizon, Copernicus, and a bunch of others. We would be able to cherry pick which ones we wished to be members of post Brexit, but I very much doubt we'd like to walk away from Erasmus, for example, just because we'd left the EU.

My understanding is that you are wrong about being able to make your own trade deals if you are inside the customs union. This is why Norway and the other EFTA countries stayed outside the customs union even though they joined the EEA.

Not in the customs union, but in a customs union with the EU. The difference is subtle, but the latter makes a lot more sense.

If Tyndall has trouble distinguishing between them what hope Redwood, Cash, Mogg, et al?

Right I've decided on my view on the Supreme Court decision - when I was watching yesterday (ill) I thought Sumption was definitely going to find against the government.
From twitter today it appears he's testing the other side very well indeed. So whichever way he rules, whether for the appellant or government dissenting or majority view is the correct decision.

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

As it's Brexit day, I'd like to remind everyone that there is a difference between:

(a) being in a customs union with the EU, and having our own relationships with other countries, which is what Turkey has
and
(b) being in the EU customs unions, and therefore being a party to all the trade deals signed by the EU

I would also like to point out that we should dis-aggregate the various EU payments. Norway's annual payments to the EU are about EUR850m. Of this, the biggest component (EUR447m) is for membership of various bodies administered by the EU, but run separately: i.e., Erasmus, the European Space Agency, CERN, Gallileo, Horizon, Copernicus, and a bunch of others. We would be able to cherry pick which ones we wished to be members of post Brexit, but I very much doubt we'd like to walk away from Erasmus, for example, just because we'd left the EU.

My understanding is that you are wrong about being able to make your own trade deals if you are inside the customs union. This is why Norway and the other EFTA countries stayed outside the customs union even though they joined the EEA.

Turkey is in a customs union with the EU, but is not in the EU customs union. This means that it keeps its tariffs synchronised with the EU, but is free to enter into FTAs with other countries. So, for example, Turkey has an FTA with Israel, which the EU does not.

That is the difference between 'a' customs union and 'the' customs union. As I said the EFTA countries chose to stay outside of the EU customs union.

We are not in any disagreement, I think

This discussion about the nuances of the type of customs union is PB Leaving at its finest. Similar to everyone agreeing pre-vote that an EFTA/EEA solution was the right thing and, moreover, was nailed on.

As @Luckyguy1983 says, it's all poncing around on the head of a pin by the intelligentsia. Joe Leaver will have nothing to do with a or the Customs Union. To him, that's not leaving. He wants out and quick.

I am even beginning to have some sympathy for Davis, which is a sentence I never thought I'd write.

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

As it's Brexit day, I'd like to remind everyone that there is a difference between:

(a) being in a customs union with the EU, and having our own relationships with other countries, which is what Turkey has
and
(b) being in the EU customs unions, and therefore being a party to all the trade deals signed by the EU

I would also like to point out that we should dis-aggregate the various EU payments. Norway's annual payments to the EU are about EUR850m. Of this, the biggest component (EUR447m) is for membership of various bodies administered by the EU, but run separately: i.e., Erasmus, the European Space Agency, CERN, Gallileo, Horizon, Copernicus, and a bunch of others. We would be able to cherry pick which ones we wished to be members of post Brexit, but I very much doubt we'd like to walk away from Erasmus, for example, just because we'd left the EU.

My understanding is that you are wrong about being able to make your own trade deals if you are inside the customs union. This is why Norway and the other EFTA countries stayed outside the customs union even though they joined the EEA.

Turkey is in a customs union with the EU, but is not in the EU customs union. This means that it keeps its tariffs synchronised with the EU, but is free to enter into FTAs with other countries. So, for example, Turkey has an FTA with Israel, which the EU does not.

That is the difference between 'a' customs union and 'the' customs union. As I said the EFTA countries chose to stay outside of the EU customs union.

That's why Turkey has a car industry and Norway doesn't.

FF43 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

As it's Brexit day, I'd like to remind everyone that there is a difference between:

(a) being in a customs union with the EU, and having our own relationships with other countries, which is what Turkey has
and
(b) being in the EU customs unions, and therefore being a party to all the trade deals signed by the EU

I would also like to point out that we should dis-aggregate the various EU payments. Norway's annual payments to the EU are about EUR850m. Of this, the biggest component (EUR447m) is for membership of various bodies administered by the EU, but run separately: i.e., Erasmus, the European Space Agency, CERN, Gallileo, Horizon, Copernicus, and a bunch of others. We would be able to cherry pick which ones we wished to be members of post Brexit, but I very much doubt we'd like to walk away from Erasmus, for example, just because we'd left the EU.

My understanding is that you are wrong about being able to make your own trade deals if you are inside the customs union. This is why Norway and the other EFTA countries stayed outside the customs union even though they joined the EEA.

Turkey is in a customs union with the EU, but is not in the EU customs union. This means that it keeps its tariffs synchronised with the EU, but is free to enter into FTAs with other countries. So, for example, Turkey has an FTA with Israel, which the EU does not.

That is the difference between 'a' customs union and 'the' customs union. As I said the EFTA countries chose to stay outside of the EU customs union.

That's why Turkey has a car industry and Norway doesn't.

Elon Musk would be delighted if we copied Norway's policies on cars.

FF43 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

As it's Brexit day, I'd like to remind everyone that there is a difference between:

(a) being in a customs union with the EU, and having our own relationships with other countries, which is what Turkey has
and
(b) being in the EU customs unions, and therefore being a party to all the trade deals signed by the EU

I would also like to point out that we should dis-aggregate the various EU payments. Norway's annual payments to the EU are about EUR850m. Of this, the biggest component (EUR447m) is for membership of various bodies administered by the EU, but run separately: i.e., Erasmus, the European Space Agency, CERN, Gallileo, Horizon, Copernicus, and a bunch of others. We would be able to cherry pick which ones we wished to be members of post Brexit, but I very much doubt we'd like to walk away from Erasmus, for example, just because we'd left the EU.

My understanding is that you are wrong about being able to make your own trade deals if you are inside the customs union. This is why Norway and the other EFTA countries stayed outside the customs union even though they joined the EEA.

Turkey is in a customs union with the EU, but is not in the EU customs union. This means that it keeps its tariffs synchronised with the EU, but is free to enter into FTAs with other countries. So, for example, Turkey has an FTA with Israel, which the EU does not.

That is the difference between 'a' customs union and 'the' customs union. As I said the EFTA countries chose to stay outside of the EU customs union.

That's why Turkey has a car industry and Norway doesn't.

When was the last time Norway had a coup?

Sunil_Prasannan said:

FF43 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

As it's Brexit day, I'd like to remind everyone that there is a difference between:

(a) being in a customs union with the EU, and having our own relationships with other countries, which is what Turkey has
and
(b) being in the EU customs unions, and therefore being a party to all the trade deals signed by the EU

I would also like to point out that we should dis-aggregate the various EU payments. Norway's annual payments to the EU are about EUR850m. Of this, the biggest component (EUR447m) is for membership of various bodies administered by the EU, but run separately: i.e., Erasmus, the European Space Agency, CERN, Gallileo, Horizon, Copernicus, and a bunch of others. We would be able to cherry pick which ones we wished to be members of post Brexit, but I very much doubt we'd like to walk away from Erasmus, for example, just because we'd left the EU.

My understanding is that you are wrong about being able to make your own trade deals if you are inside the customs union. This is why Norway and the other EFTA countries stayed outside the customs union even though they joined the EEA.

Turkey is in a customs union with the EU, but is not in the EU customs union. This means that it keeps its tariffs synchronised with the EU, but is free to enter into FTAs with other countries. So, for example, Turkey has an FTA with Israel, which the EU does not.

That is the difference between 'a' customs union and 'the' customs union. As I said the EFTA countries chose to stay outside of the EU customs union.

That's why Turkey has a car industry and Norway doesn't.

When was the last time Norway had a coup?

Is that a failed coupé?