politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why the threat of a confidence vote on TMay has far less poten

First!

In any event, May has forestalled such discussion, for now.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43860453

If the Tory MP`s wanted to get rid of May at present the Windrush affair would be an issue which the public might recognise as justified.The fact that there are so few Tory voices calling for her to resign over it shows there is no appetite for her to go.
Not least because the BBC has showed footage from a 2004 Question Time showing Theresa May calling for Labour Home Office Minister to resign over some issue and yet Tories are not applying to her what she was applying to others in 2004

Labour has already shown how it is done....

More seriously, Mrs M telling us what sort of Brexit we are going to have, absent any debate or decision by parliament, is not a good look.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Mrs Thatcher won the vote in 1990. It is not enough merely to win: Theresa May would have to win convincingly. She can't risk it. As OP says, her challengers cannot risk it either, since they cannot be sure the right challenger (themself) would win. The Cabinet is trapped in an unstable equilibrium.

Michael Gove helps secure Theresa May's premiership. Not because he is loyal to her but because he was disloyal to Boris -- a constant reminder to any would-be challenger not to rely on any pledges of support, however freely and sincerely given.

alex. said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Mrs Thatcher won the vote in 1990. It is not enough merely to win: Theresa May would have to win convincingly. She can't risk it. As OP says, her challengers cannot risk it either, since they cannot be sure the right challenger (themself) would win. The Cabinet is trapped in an unstable equilibrium.

This is a false comparison, the rules were different then. Thatcher had to face a leadership contest, not a confidence vote, and she didn’t get enough votes to avoid a further ballot. She had to resign when it was made clear that she wouldn’t get the support in the second round to win. If May wins a confidence vote that’s it.

I don't think Theresa May will feel secure enough to follow John Major's example and call for a vote herself.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Nigelb said:

In any event, May has forestalled such discussion, for now.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43860453

From that BBC report: But a senior Downing Street source told the BBC the government's position would not change. "We will not be staying in the customs union or joining a customs union," the source said.

The part about not joining a customs union is just semantics. If there is an agreement of any sort then whether it is called a customs union or not is angels on the head of a pin stuff. It might be significant here that Labour policy is to leave the customs union then join a new one, so Number 10 will not want to look as if Corbyn is running the show.

The Conservative manifesto said: As we leave the European Union, we will no longer be members of the single market or customs union but we will seek a deep and special partnership including a comprehensive free trade and customs agreement.

So there you go: not a new customs union but a comprehensive free trade and customs agreement. Glad that's been cleared up!

yes but the difference is we will be able to strike our own trade deals , that is what being in the CU prevents. the EU don’t want the UK as a competitor that is what they are afraid of

DecrepitJohnL said:

Nigelb said:

In any event, May has forestalled such discussion, for now.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43860453

From that BBC report: But a senior Downing Street source told the BBC the government's position would not change. "We will not be staying in the customs union or joining a customs union," the source said.

The part about not joining a customs union is just semantics. If there is an agreement of any sort then whether it is called a customs union or not is angels on the head of a pin stuff. It might be significant here that Labour policy is to leave the customs union then join a new one, so Number 10 will not want to look as if Corbyn is running the show.

The Conservative manifesto said: As we leave the European Union, we will no longer be members of the single market or customs union but we will seek a deep and special partnership including a comprehensive free trade and customs agreement.

So there you go: not a new customs union but a comprehensive free trade and customs agreement. Glad that's been cleared up!

It won't be a high fat emulsified offal tube, it will be The British Sausage. That is what red white and blue Brexit means.

https://youtu.be/YpipqJNFDOQ

alex. said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

alex. said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Mrs Thatcher won the vote in 1990. It is not enough merely to win: Theresa May would have to win convincingly. She can't risk it. As OP says, her challengers cannot risk it either, since they cannot be sure the right challenger (themself) would win. The Cabinet is trapped in an unstable equilibrium.

This is a false comparison, the rules were different then. Thatcher had to face a leadership contest, not a confidence vote, and she didn’t get enough votes to avoid a further ballot. She had to resign when it was made clear that she wouldn’t get the support in the second round to win. If May wins a confidence vote that’s it.

I don't think Theresa May will feel secure enough to follow John Major's example and call for a vote herself.

Who’s suggesting she will? I’m just addressing your argument that she would have to win any confidence vote “convincingly”. If she wins (50% +1) she wins. And she’s there for the foreseeable future.

We shall see. I think you are wrong and that a narrow win would mean Theresa May resigns as a matter of honour, and that if she did not there'd be another vote in a week.

Foxy said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

alex. said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

alex. said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Mrs Thatcher won the vote in 1990. It is not enough merely to win: Theresa May would have to win convincingly. She can't risk it. As OP says, her challengers cannot risk it either, since they cannot be sure the right challenger (themself) would win. The Cabinet is trapped in an unstable equilibrium.

This is a false comparison, the rules were different then. Thatcher had to face a leadership contest, not a confidence vote, and she didn’t get enough votes to avoid a further ballot. She had to resign when it was made clear that she wouldn’t get the support in the second round to win. If May wins a confidence vote that’s it.

I don't think Theresa May will feel secure enough to follow John Major's example and call for a vote herself.

Who’s suggesting she will? I’m just addressing your argument that she would have to win any confidence vote “convincingly”. If she wins (50% +1) she wins. And she’s there for the foreseeable future.

We shall see. I think you are wrong and that a narrow win would mean Theresa May resigns as a matter of honour, and that if she did not there'd be another vote in a week.

From the header, no further vote could happen for a year.

Good point, though I doubt it will change much in practical terms.

kjohnw said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Nigelb said:

In any event, May has forestalled such discussion, for now.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43860453

From that BBC report: But a senior Downing Street source told the BBC the government's position would not change. "We will not be staying in the customs union or joining a customs union," the source said.

The part about not joining a customs union is just semantics. If there is an agreement of any sort then whether it is called a customs union or not is angels on the head of a pin stuff. It might be significant here that Labour policy is to leave the customs union then join a new one, so Number 10 will not want to look as if Corbyn is running the show.

The Conservative manifesto said: As we leave the European Union, we will no longer be members of the single market or customs union but we will seek a deep and special partnership including a comprehensive free trade and customs agreement.

So there you go: not a new customs union but a comprehensive free trade and customs agreement. Glad that's been cleared up!

yes but the difference is we will be able to strike our own trade deals , that is what being in the CU prevents. the EU don’t want the UK as a competitor that is what they are afraid of

Which countries do you think the UK is likely to sign an FTA with, that the EU hasn't or isn't interested in?

DecrepitJohnL said:

alex. said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

alex. said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Mrs Thatcher won the vote in 1990. It is not enough merely to win: Theresa May would have to win convincingly. She can't risk it. As OP says, her challengers cannot risk it either, since they cannot be sure the right challenger (themself) would win. The Cabinet is trapped in an unstable equilibrium.

This is a false comparison, the rules were different then. Thatcher had to face a leadership contest, not a confidence vote, and she didn’t get enough votes to avoid a further ballot. She had to resign when it was made clear that she wouldn’t get the support in the second round to win. If May wins a confidence vote that’s it.

I don't think Theresa May will feel secure enough to follow John Major's example and call for a vote herself.

Who’s suggesting she will? I’m just addressing your argument that she would have to win any confidence vote “convincingly”. If she wins (50% +1) she wins. And she’s there for the foreseeable future.

We shall see. I think you are wrong and that a narrow win would mean Theresa May resigns as a matter of honour, and that if she did not there'd be another vote in a week.

Mrs May didn't even have a narrow win in terms of the majority on June 8th yet continued to stay in place. I think any victory on a vote like this would be enough for her to remain. Remember as well that the rules prevent a further such confidence vote within 12 months.

DecrepitJohnL said:

St George's Day!

He's the only Palestinian before whom Corbyn does not genuflect.

Foxy said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

alex. said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

alex. said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Mrs Thatcher won the vote in 1990. It is not enough merely to win: Theresa May would have to win convincingly. She can't risk it. As OP says, her challengers cannot risk it either, since they cannot be sure the right challenger (themself) would win. The Cabinet is trapped in an unstable equilibrium.

This is a false comparison, the rules were different then. Thatcher had to face a leadership contest, not a confidence vote, and she didn’t get enough votes to avoid a further ballot. She had to resign when it was made clear that she wouldn’t get the support in the second round to win. If May wins a confidence vote that’s it.

I don't think Theresa May will feel secure enough to follow John Major's example and call for a vote herself.

Who’s suggesting she will? I’m just addressing your argument that she would have to win any confidence vote “convincingly”. If she wins (50% +1) she wins. And she’s there for the foreseeable future.

We shall see. I think you are wrong and that a narrow win would mean Theresa May resigns as a matter of honour, and that if she did not there'd be another vote in a week.

From the header, no further vote could happen for a year.

The Brexiteers do not want to remove Mrs May as such, rather to vote against a Withdrawal Bill which did not provide freedom to make trade deals. Their hope would be bring about a 'no deal' Brexit. The spotlight would then turn on the opposition. Do they vote opportunistically with the rebels (as with Maastricht) or do they ensure we avoid the cliff edge by supporting the Bill?

DecrepitJohnL said:

St George's Day! I rather like the fact we don't make a fuss. Down with Jeremy Corbyn and his extra bank holiday. I'd forgotten about it, and suspect most people did until reminded by the radio or Google.

In Leicester we had a St George's Festival

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/st-georges-day-celebrations-leicester-1486755.amp?__twitter_impression=true

Morning all: flash Manufacturing PMIs out for France, Germany and the Eurozone this morning.

The last three PMI numbers have all shown sharp slowdowns in growth in the bloc, and ZEW showed a large drop off in investor confidence in Germany*. Will AEP break his streak and correctly call a German recession**?

The German Manufacturing PMI was 58.2 in March, a 15 month low. Now, 58.2 (in the general scheme of things) is a ridiculously high number, so there is a lot of dropping you could get before you even got close to recessionary levels (50). My guess is that the German PMI number will come in at 52-54 for the month, showing the pace of expansion slackening, but still in expansionary territory.

France was 53.7 in March, very sharply down from February (when it was close to 60). My guess is that it will also contract, but not by a significant amount. My money would be on France coming out around the 53-53.5 level.

If I've got these two numbers right, then the Eurozone Flash Manufacturing PMI is almost certain to come out around the 52.5-53.0 level. Again showing slowing momentum, but not an outright recession.

Worth noting that Japan unexpectedly bucked the trend of downward PMI numbers this morning, and posted its first acceleration (albeit only a very small one, and from a depressed number), in five months.

* ZEW measures investor sentiment about economic conditions. It thus has essentially zero predictive power.

** No.

What is Theresa May’s strategy in the event that the House of Commons votes to call for the government to include a customs union as part of its Brexit negotiations? Options include:

a) “OK then, Parliament” - which would drive the ERG still more mental
b) ignore the vote - never a good look and risking dangerous defeats later
c) play for time in some way - but the clock is ticking down to 29 March 2019 and none of the participants look in a mood to be played

a) looks like the path of least resistance at present but this morning’s reaffirmation makes it appreciably harder. So I’m guessing some form of c).

Foxy said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

St George's Day! I rather like the fact we don't make a fuss. Down with Jeremy Corbyn and his extra bank holiday. I'd forgotten about it, and suspect most people did until reminded by the radio or Google.

In Leicester we had a St George's Festival

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/st-georges-day-celebrations-leicester-1486755.amp?__twitter_impression=true

I always make a bit of a fuss on St Georges day, Its the day I met my wife, and a very lucky man I am too..

DecrepitJohnL said:

alex. said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

alex. said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Mrs Thatcher won the vote in 1990. It is not enough merely to win: Theresa May would have to win convincingly. She can't risk it. As OP says, her challengers cannot risk it either, since they cannot be sure the right challenger (themself) would win. The Cabinet is trapped in an unstable equilibrium.

This is a false comparison, the rules were different then. Thatcher had to face a leadership contest, not a confidence vote, and she didn’t get enough votes to avoid a further ballot. She had to resign when it was made clear that she wouldn’t get the support in the second round to win. If May wins a confidence vote that’s it.

I don't think Theresa May will feel secure enough to follow John Major's example and call for a vote herself.

Who’s suggesting she will? I’m just addressing your argument that she would have to win any confidence vote “convincingly”. If she wins (50% +1) she wins. And she’s there for the foreseeable future.

We shall see. I think you are wrong and that a narrow win would mean Theresa May resigns as a matter of honour, and that if she did not there'd be another vote in a week.

She doesn't have a sense of honour. If she had, she'd have resigned over Windrush.

If a confidence vote took place following Cabinet resignations on a specific issue that could be presented as unpopular in the country, if it was lead by a leader-in-waiting who could reassure relative moderates that a vote against May wouldn't land then with Rees-Mogg as PM then I could envisage it being successful. I have no idea how likely these conditions are.

MikeSmithson said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

alex. said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

alex. said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Mrs Thatcher won the vote in 1990. It is not enough merely to win: Theresa May would have to win convincingly. She can't risk it. As OP says, her challengers cannot risk it either, since they cannot be sure the right challenger (themself) would win. The Cabinet is trapped in an unstable equilibrium.

This is a false comparison, the rules were different then. Thatcher had to face a leadership contest, not a confidence vote, and she didn’t get enough votes to avoid a further ballot. She had to resign when it was made clear that she wouldn’t get the support in the second round to win. If May wins a confidence vote that’s it.

I don't think Theresa May will feel secure enough to follow John Major's example and call for a vote herself.

Who’s suggesting she will? I’m just addressing your argument that she would have to win any confidence vote “convincingly”. If she wins (50% +1) she wins. And she’s there for the foreseeable future.

We shall see. I think you are wrong and that a narrow win would mean Theresa May resigns as a matter of honour, and that if she did not there'd be another vote in a week.

Mrs May didn't even have a narrow win in terms of the majority on June 8th yet continued to stay in place. I think any victory on a vote like this would be enough for her to remain. Remember as well that the rules prevent a further such confidence vote within 12 months.

If it comes to a confidence vote, she’s already lost IMHO. Hence the manoeuvres from Downing Street last night.

This is a Parliament where she needs virtually every Tory MP on board, all the time, and there’s an extremely delicate tightrope to be walked.

Dura_Ace said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

St George's Day!

He's the only Palestinian before whom Corbyn does not genuflect.

I was going to post that on Facebook, before remembering that quite a few of my friends have had sense of humour by-passes.

Good morning, everyone.

Hopefully, we won't find out.

rcs1000 said:

kjohnw said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Nigelb said:

In any event, May has forestalled such discussion, for now.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43860453

From that BBC report: But a senior Downing Street source told the BBC the government's position would not change. "We will not be staying in the customs union or joining a customs union," the source said.

The part about not joining a customs union is just semantics. If there is an agreement of any sort then whether it is called a customs union or not is angels on the head of a pin stuff. It might be significant here that Labour policy is to leave the customs union then join a new one, so Number 10 will not want to look as if Corbyn is running the show.

The Conservative manifesto said: As we leave the European Union, we will no longer be members of the single market or customs union but we will seek a deep and special partnership including a comprehensive free trade and customs agreement.

So there you go: not a new customs union but a comprehensive free trade and customs agreement. Glad that's been cleared up!

yes but the difference is we will be able to strike our own trade deals , that is what being in the CU prevents. the EU don’t want the UK as a competitor that is what they are afraid of

Which countries do you think the UK is likely to sign an FTA with, that the EU hasn't or isn't interested in?

Type, scope and depth, particularly on movement and services. Also on agricultural produce and wines from friendly nations.

Also, having the trade deal in the name of the EU with the EU flag, and not the UK, just pisses some people off, I think; it delegitimises whatever is in it. Some may laugh at that and say - “why the hell does that matter?” - but it does, because, again, it goes to heart of people’s identity and their views on democratic consent, which is what this is all about really.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Nigelb said:

In any event, May has forestalled such discussion, for now.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43860453

From that BBC report: But a senior Downing Street source told the BBC the government's position would not change. "We will not be staying in the customs union or joining a customs union," the source said.

The part about not joining a customs union is just semantics. If there is an agreement of any sort then whether it is called a customs union or not is angels on the head of a pin stuff. It might be significant here that Labour policy is to leave the customs union then join a new one, so Number 10 will not want to look as if Corbyn is running the show.

The Conservative manifesto said: As we leave the European Union, we will no longer be members of the single market or customs union but we will seek a deep and special partnership including a comprehensive free trade and customs agreement.

So there you go: not a new customs union but a comprehensive free trade and customs agreement. Glad that's been cleared up!

The Lancaster House speech is clear. Quit the Common External Tarriff and Common Commercial Policy but otherwise open minded.

Those are the two red lines I’d be looking for.

It would be somewhat ironic if May won a confidence vote by a narrow margin and the Brexiteers argued she had no moral mandate to continue and, i don't know, started calling themselves the 48%...

I’m not fussed either way about Bank Holidays personally. As an OAP every day.....

However, I am bothered about the clustering effect. If this proposal were to go through in, say, 2021 we would have bank holidays on March 1st, March 17th, April 3rd & 5th and 23rd, then May 3rd and 30th. That’s 7 in 3 months. then nothing until the end of August and again till the end of November.

rcs1000 said:

kjohnw said:

rcs1000 said:

kjohnw said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Nigelb said:

In any event, May has forestalled such discussion, for now.


So there you go: not a new customs union but a comprehensive free trade and customs agreement. Glad that's been cleared up!

yes but the difference is we will be able to strike our own trade deals , that is what being in the CU prevents. the EU don’t want the UK as a competitor that is what they are afraid of

Which countries do you think the UK is likely to sign an FTA with, that the EU hasn't or isn't interested in?

the issue here is being able to strike our own deals, not having trade policy dictated to us by the EU. Even if we initially replicate existing EU trade deals , in the long term we will be free to diverge and hopefully negotiate better ones. The point is we will have regained control of our own trade policy

My views on the EU, and leaving, are well known on here. But I do find this idea that there are hundreds of countries desperate to sign FTAs with us that are somehow prevented by the protectionism of the EU somewhat absurd.

If the major countries of the world are so free trade (against the protectionist EU), how come the US, China, Brazil, Japan and India have so few free trade deals?

The important reasons to leave the EU are two fold: 1. It increases the democratic accountability of our politicians (and therefore hopefully increases the quality of decisions), and 2. The Continental ethos, in terms of political and legal systems, is fundamentally different to ours, and therefore staying in the EU will constantly chafe.

I believe that better governance will pay off in the long run. I think, largely due to the incompetence of Dr Fox, that we are likely to suffer meaningfully worse terms of trade with the rest of the world for the next five years or so.

It’s all about that. Economically, it’s a battle to trade a bit of growth for the next 5 years, over the ability and freedom to take advantage of global opportunities over 25 years.

If we choose the former, matters won’t rest there; we’ll be having further big debates about leaving the customs union/rejoining the EU throughout the 2020s.

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

kjohnw said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Nigelb said:

In any event, May has forestalled such discussion, for now.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43860453

From that BBC report: But a senior Downing Street source told the BBC the government's position would not change. "We will not be staying in the customs union or joining a customs union," the source said.

So there you go: not a new customs union but a comprehensive free trade and customs agreement. Glad that's been cleared up!

yes but the difference is we will be able to strike our own trade deals , that is what being in the CU prevents. the EU don’t want the UK as a competitor that is what they are afraid of

Which countries do you think the UK is likely to sign an FTA with, that the EU hasn't or isn't interested in?

Type, scope and depth, particularly on movement and services. Also on agricultural produce and wines from friendly nations.

Also, having the trade deal in the name of the EU with the EU flag, and not the UK, just pisses some people off, I think; it delegitimises whatever is in it. Some may laugh at that and say - “why the hell does that matter?” - but it does, because, again, it goes to heart of people’s identity and their views on democratic consent, which is what this is all about really.

Tariffs on services, though, are incredibly rare.

So when we say service focused, we're talking about persuading countries to bring down internal barriers to free markets (such as rules and specifications on service contracts that act as NTBs). That's really hard, because it encroaches on countries sovereignty in a way that physical goods do not.

I think we'll find - in the medium term - it very easy to sign deals with Canada, Australia and NZ, and I look forward to cheaper wine from these countries. I think we'll replicate the existing EU deals in time, although we've been pretty poor at making progress on this so far. I think the other targets - like the US - come with compromises we'll find very hard to swallow.

I agree with almost all of that.

On non-tariff barriers, however, it’s made slightly easier with respect to common law jurisdictions that share similar professional standards and contract law to our own. In the medium-long term I think there are some exciting opportunities in the Commonwealth countries.

Casino_Royale said:

It’s all about that. Economically, it’s a battle to trade a bit of growth for the next 5 years, over the ability and freedom to take advantage of global opportunities over 25 years.

If we choose the former, matters won’t rest there; we’ll be having further big debates about leaving the customs union/rejoining the EU throughout the 2020s.

Nah.

It's like Ireland. How much discussion was there in Ireland about rejoining the United Kingdom post independence?

None. (Even when Ireland was economically stagnating and the UK was surging ahead.)

The UK has chose to leave the EU. It may prosper, or it may elect Jeremy Corbyn, but whatever path is ahead, it is extremely unlikely to involve rejoining the EU.

TGOHF said:

https://twitter.com/thhamilton/status/987999530993049601?s=21

What’s the problem with having a(nother) fantasiist in the HoC?

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

What is Theresa May’s strategy in the event that the House of Commons votes to call for the government to include a customs union as part of its Brexit negotiations? Options include:

a) “OK then, Parliament” - which would drive the ERG still more mental
b) ignore the vote - never a good look and risking dangerous defeats later
c) play for time in some way - but the clock is ticking down to 29 March 2019 and none of the participants look in a mood to be played

a) looks like the path of least resistance at present but this morning’s reaffirmation makes it appreciably harder. So I’m guessing some form of c).

The question is surely in the hypothesis. If Parliament calls for the UK to remain in the CU then May has already lost because that is not her policy. Given the commitments she has made I think this would be a no confidence decision in the government's position. As a result I very much doubt she will lose the vote in the first place. She has already won this vote once and I think she will again when it comes back from the HoL.

More likely is that she wins the vote but then comes back from the negotiations with something that looks awfully like a CU. She will then need to sell that to all of her party as she has succeeded in doing to date. If the "membership" is restricted to the transitional period I think she will be fine.

The solution to all her problems is to announce a "seven year customs partnership".

To the ERG, she can say "it's not membership of the customs union, and it gives us time to get all our ducks in the row, and this was the best I could do and avoid a defeat at the hands of the perfidious Lords, and business has been desparate for a lengthy transition period, and we're still leaving."

And to Soubry et al, she can say "you know how I said seven years, well you and I know that that will get extended indefinitely, and staying in the customs union, I mean err having a customs partnership, well, it would make rejoining easier, and you really don't want a No Deal Brexit do you?"

I think 7 years would be pushing it if this was the full common external tariff. It would tie our hands too much. If she can contrive a customs partnership with the EU which allowed us to do our own deals with third parties, even with a lot of extra paperwork for goods which come from third parties and are then re-exported to the EU, I think people would live with that pretty much indefinitely.

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

It’s all about that. Economically, it’s a battle to trade a bit of growth for the next 5 years, over the ability and freedom to take advantage of global opportunities over 25 years.

If we choose the former, matters won’t rest there; we’ll be having further big debates about leaving the customs union/rejoining the EU throughout the 2020s.

Nah.

It's like Ireland. How much discussion was there in Ireland about rejoining the United Kingdom post independence?

None. (Even when Ireland was economically stagnating and the UK was surging ahead.)

The UK has chose to leave the EU. It may prosper, or it may elect Jeremy Corbyn, but whatever path is ahead, it is extremely unlikely to involve rejoining the EU.

Apples and scampi. You really cannot compare the pre 1922 British-Irish relationship, at least as far as the RoI is concerned, with the British-EU one.

Why scampi..... was going to put oranges, but thought that inappropriate in the circs!

OldKingCole said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

It’s all about that. Economically, it’s a battle to trade a bit of growth for the next 5 years, over the ability and freedom to take advantage of global opportunities over 25 years.

If we choose the former, matters won’t rest there; we’ll be having further big debates about leaving the customs union/rejoining the EU throughout the 2020s.

Nah.

It's like Ireland. How much discussion was there in Ireland about rejoining the United Kingdom post independence?

None. (Even when Ireland was economically stagnating and the UK was surging ahead.)

The UK has chose to leave the EU. It may prosper, or it may elect Jeremy Corbyn, but whatever path is ahead, it is extremely unlikely to involve rejoining the EU.

Apples and scampi. You really cannot compare the pre 1922 British-Irish relationship, at least as far as the RoI is concerned, with the British-EU one.

Why scampi..... was going to put oranges, but thought that inappropriate in the circs!

Why not?

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

It’s all about that. Economically, it’s a battle to trade a bit of growth for the next 5 years, over the ability and freedom to take advantage of global opportunities over 25 years.

If we choose the former, matters won’t rest there; we’ll be having further big debates about leaving the customs union/rejoining the EU throughout the 2020s.

Nah.

It's like Ireland. How much discussion was there in Ireland about rejoining the United Kingdom post independence?

None. (Even when Ireland was economically stagnating and the UK was surging ahead.)

The UK has chose to leave the EU. It may prosper, or it may elect Jeremy Corbyn, but whatever path is ahead, it is extremely unlikely to involve rejoining the EU.

I think it’s more like 16thC England.

There’s a significant minority who view our split with the EU as illegitimate, and will be agitating for us to rejoin for decades.

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

What is Theresa May’s strategy in the event that the House of Commons votes to call for the government to include a customs union as part of its Brexit negotiations? Options include:

a) “OK then, Parliament” - which would drive the ERG still more mental
b) ignore the vote - never a good look and risking dangerous defeats later
c) play for time in some way - but the clock is ticking down to 29 March 2019 and none of the participants look in a mood to be played

a) looks like the path of least resistance at present but this morning’s reaffirmation makes it appreciably harder. So I’m guessing some form of c).

The question is surely in the hypothesis. If Parliament calls for the UK to remain in the CU then May has already lost because that is not her policy. Given the commitments she has made I think this would be a no confidence decision in the government's position. As a result I very much doubt she will lose the vote in the first place. She has already won this vote once and I think she will again when it comes back from the HoL.

More likely is that she wins the vote but then comes back from the negotiations with something that looks awfully like a CU. She will then need to sell that to all of her party as she has succeeded in doing to date. If the "membership" is restricted to the transitional period I think she will be fine.

The solution to all her problems is to announce a "seven year customs partnership".

To the ERG, she can say "it's not membership of the customs union, and it gives us time to get all our ducks in the row, and this was the best I could do and avoid a defeat at the hands of the perfidious Lords, and business has been desparate for a lengthy transition period, and we're still leaving."

And to Soubry et al, she can say "you know how I said seven years, well you and I know that that will get extended indefinitely, and staying in the customs union, I mean err having a customs partnership, well, it would make rejoining easier, and you really don't want a No Deal Brexit do you?"

I think 7 years would be pushing it if this was the full common external tariff. It would tie our hands too much. If she can contrive a customs partnership with the EU which allowed us to do our own deals with third parties, even with a lot of extra paperwork for goods which come from third parties and are then re-exported to the EU, I think people would live with that pretty much indefinitely.

7 years is too much of a stretch. If Labour win GE2022 - barely 4 years away now - it would never end.

But, much more likely that partnership is agreed in certain key sectors, like planes and cars, for a price.

rcs1000 said:

OK.

Question for PBers.

My wife is off for the first two and half weeks of the summer holidays. (This is LA, so this is from about the 6th of June.)

This leaves me with 16 days to entertain an 8 and a 10 year old.

I'm not going to stay home, because I'd go mad, so am going to bundle them onto a plane and do something. Specifically something awesome that they'll love. I don't mind jumping on a plane for 12 hours if I have to, and I have two million airmiles, so can afford to go practically anywhere.

Suggestions?

From experience I would say that they are the ideal ages for Disney, which of course you have in Cal but you could get a plane to Florida if you were desperate to travel. Younger than that and they get very tired with all the walking and standing in line. Older and the cynicism starts to bite. Our best Disney trips (I have been dragged a few times) were with kids of that age.

OldKingCole said:

TGOHF said:

https://twitter.com/thhamilton/status/987999530993049601?s=21

What’s the problem with having a(nother) fantasiist in the HoC?

There's been at least one vacancy since Norman Baker lost his seat.

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

It’s all about that. Economically, it’s a battle to trade a bit of growth for the next 5 years, over the ability and freedom to take advantage of global opportunities over 25 years.

If we choose the former, matters won’t rest there; we’ll be having further big debates about leaving the customs union/rejoining the EU throughout the 2020s.

Nah.

It's like Ireland. How much discussion was there in Ireland about rejoining the United Kingdom post independence?

None. (Even when Ireland was economically stagnating and the UK was surging ahead.)

The UK has chose to leave the EU. It may prosper, or it may elect Jeremy Corbyn, but whatever path is ahead, it is extremely unlikely to involve rejoining the EU.

I think it’s more like 16thC England.

There’s a significant minority who view our split with the EU as illegitimate, and will be agitating for us to rejoin for decades.

I disagree: EU rejoining will be a very minority subject in the decades to come, and our relationship with the EU will wax and wane over time. I suspect that we'll end up rather closer (geography does that) than most Brexiteers would like, but I think the key thing is formal separation.

I hope you’re right, but I think it will echo down for some time yet.

Flash PMIs from France: Manufacturing in line with my estimates, Services way above. Composite 56.9.

rcs1000 said:

OK.

Question for PBers.

My wife is off for the first two and half weeks of the summer holidays. (This is LA, so this is from about the 6th of June.)

This leaves me with 16 days to entertain an 8 and a 10 year old.

I'm not going to stay home, because I'd go mad, so am going to bundle them onto a plane and do something. Specifically something awesome that they'll love. I don't mind jumping on a plane for 12 hours if I have to, and I have two million airmiles, so can afford to go practically anywhere.

Suggestions?

Not a suggestion from experience. With that brief I would take them to Japan. Interesting culture that your children probably know something about in a superficial.way that they could get to know. Also Japan is a friendly country to children.

rcs1000 said:

kjohnw said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Nigelb said:

In any event, May has forestalled such discussion, for now.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43860453

From that BBC report: But a senior Downing Street source told the BBC the government's position would not change. "We will not be staying in the customs union or joining a customs union," the source said.

The part about not joining a customs union is just semantics. If there is an agreement of any sort then whether it is called a customs union or not is angels on the head of a pin stuff. It might be significant here that Labour policy is to leave the customs union then join a new one, so Number 10 will not want to look as if Corbyn is running the show.

The Conservative manifesto said: As we leave the European Union, we will no longer be members of the single market or customs union but we will seek a deep and special partnership including a comprehensive free trade and customs agreement.

So there you go: not a new customs union but a comprehensive free trade and customs agreement. Glad that's been cleared up!

yes but the difference is we will be able to strike our own trade deals , that is what being in the CU prevents. the EU don’t want the UK as a competitor that is what they are afraid of

Which countries do you think the UK is likely to sign an FTA with, that the EU hasn't or isn't interested in?

With which countries has the EU signed an FTA that is optimal for the U.K.?

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

What is Theresa May’s strategy in the event that the House of Commons votes to call for the government to include a customs union as part of its Brexit negotiations? Options include:

a) “OK then, Parliament” - which would drive the ERG still more mental
b) ignore the vote - never a good look and risking dangerous defeats later
c) play for time in some way - but the clock is ticking down to 29 March 2019 and none of the participants look in a mood to be played

a) looks like the path of least resistance at present but this morning’s reaffirmation makes it appreciably harder. So I’m guessing some form of c).

The question is surely in the hypothesis. If Parliament calls for the UK to remain in the CU then May has already lost because that is not her policy. Given the commitments she has made I think this would be a no confidence decision in the government's position. As a result I very much doubt she will lose the vote in the first place. She has already won this vote once and I think she will again when it comes back from the HoL.

More likely is that she wins the vote but then comes back from the negotiations with something that looks awfully like a CU. She will then need to sell that to all of her party as she has succeeded in doing to date. If the "membership" is restricted to the transitional period I think she will be fine.

The solution to all her problems is to announce a "seven year customs partnership".

To the ERG, she can say "it's not membership of the customs union, and it gives us time to get all our ducks in the row, and this was the best I could do and avoid a defeat at the hands of the perfidious Lords, and business has been desparate for a lengthy transition period, and we're still leaving."

And to Soubry et al, she can say "you know how I said seven years, well you and I know that that will get extended indefinitely, and staying in the customs union, I mean err having a customs partnership, well, it would make rejoining easier, and you really don't want a No Deal Brexit do you?"

Except of course it won't be 'the' Customs Union it will be 'a' Customs Union with all the 3rd party issues that Turkey suffers from.

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

OK.

Question for PBers.

My wife is off for the first two and half weeks of the summer holidays. (This is LA, so this is from about the 6th of June.)

This leaves me with 16 days to entertain an 8 and a 10 year old.

I'm not going to stay home, because I'd go mad, so am going to bundle them onto a plane and do something. Specifically something awesome that they'll love. I don't mind jumping on a plane for 12 hours if I have to, and I have two million airmiles, so can afford to go practically anywhere.

Suggestions?

Florida.

Not in June, head for the hills.

JosiasJessop said:

OldKingCole said:

TGOHF said:

https://twitter.com/thhamilton/status/987999530993049601?s=21

What’s the problem with having a(nother) fantasiist in the HoC?

I hope you don't really believe that.

I will defend our MPs. Most of them are good people much like ourselves: they make mistakes, but try to do a good job for their constituents and what they think is right for the country. You will find every single sin amongst them (and possibly all sins in one or two), but you will also find every virtue.

But this woman seems rather unsuitable. I would not want to be a constituent who gets on her bad side (and it sadly seems that is rather easy to do).

Maybe I should gave added LOL!

Liked the comment posted a few minutes ago about he claiming the RO had ‘lost’ 20,000 of her postal votes!

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. 1000, on the minor front, you could try teaching them to bake a pizza. [This is the only somewhat interesting/helpful answer I have for such questions].

With or without ham and pineapple?

When is the vote on a customs union amendment to the trade bill?

rcs1000 said:

OldKingCole said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

It’s all about that. Economically, it’s a battle to trade a bit of growth for the next 5 years, over the ability and freedom to take advantage of global opportunities over 25 years.

If we choose the former, matters won’t rest there; we’ll be having further big debates about leaving the customs union/rejoining the EU throughout the 2020s.

Nah.

It's like Ireland. How much discussion was there in Ireland about rejoining the United Kingdom post independence?

None. (Even when Ireland was economically stagnating and the UK was surging ahead.)

The UK has chose to leave the EU. It may prosper, or it may elect Jeremy Corbyn, but whatever path is ahead, it is extremely unlikely to involve rejoining the EU.

Apples and scampi. You really cannot compare the pre 1922 British-Irish relationship, at least as far as the RoI is concerned, with the British-EU one.

Why scampi..... was going to put oranges, but thought that inappropriate in the circs!

Why not?

Experience suggest that one should not make reference to orange in connection with Ireland, especially N. Ireland. There are people who will misunderstand and take offence.

Foxy said:

rcs1000 said:

OK.

Question for PBers.

My wife is off for the first two and half weeks of the summer holidays. (This is LA, so this is from about the 6th of June.)

This leaves me with 16 days to entertain an 8 and a 10 year old.

I'm not going to stay home, because I'd go mad, so am going to bundle them onto a plane and do something. Specifically something awesome that they'll love. I don't mind jumping on a plane for 12 hours if I have to, and I have two million airmiles, so can afford to go practically anywhere.

Suggestions?

Take them camping in the Sierra Nevada, Yosemite, and the ghost town of Body. It will get them off the electronics, and there are always other kids in campsites. Stay in the National parks sites as much more fun and good evening nature talks, hire a camper can if you don't fancy a tent.

The National Parks are the best bit of America. Further afield less crowded too, like Mesa Verde and around Taos.

Yosemite is awesome.