politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The early money goes on the LDs in Lewisham East
Comments
-
labour failed there by like 53 votes or something, it wasn't a good result for the tories.... any way the tory result is flattered even in "youthful" wandsworth because the electorate even there would have been much older then in the GE.HYUFD said:
Labour gained none of the Tory 'crown jewel' councils it was supposedly on course to take, including in youthful areas like Wandsworthnunuone said:
3) huh? Labour made big gains in London.....the labour lead was down from GE 2017 to the locals from 20% to 16% probably down to the older voting population even in London.HYUFD said:
1) The Tory vote also vote from the 2017 locals to the GE, it was the LD vote which collapsednunuone said:
Some caution is required for those who think Labour are doomed under Corbyn because:rottenborough said:
Momentum: winning here!!!Sean_F said:
There has been some speculation that Labour could gain Uxbridge and South Ruislip. These were Thursday's results (lead candidate only):-RobD said:
So much for going after IDS’ seat.Sean_F said:
There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-Sean_F said:
O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.
Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.
Con 15,910 49.5%,
Lab 10,940 34.1%
Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
Other 2,304 7.2%..
That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.
BTW- thanks for the analysis!
Con 17,529, 60.5%,
Lab 8,672, 30.0%,
Lib Dem 519, 1.9%,
Others 2,220, 7.6%.
That's a swing of 9% to the Conservatives since the general election.
1) We saw the difference between Labour support in the 2017 locals and GE.
2) Corbyn voters are not necessarily Labour voters even if there is huge overlap. In a similar way that Trump voters are not always supporting GOP candidates down ballot across the rust belt and farm belt.
3)The demographics in local elections are likely to benefit the Tories over Labour given the huge polarization of voters along age.
2) Not New Labour voters no but voters for current Labour candidates yes
3) That still does not explain the Tory holds in London which have a younger voting demographic
So yes the Tories (just) held on but that is likely down to students/younger people not turning out in the same numbers that they would do in a GE.0 -
Stick to your guns Theresa.
Theresa May 'could bypass Brexit war Cabinet to force through customs partnership plan'
Theresa May could bypass her Brexit “war Cabinet” by asking the full Cabinet to back her controversial plan for a customs partnership with Brussels, Eurosceptic ministers fear.
Mrs May has postponed plans to discuss Britain’s future customs arrangements with her 11-strong Brexit sub-committee on Thursday, having been outnumbered 6-5 last week by those who opposed the partnership idea.
As she considers her next move, Brexiteers have warned her she could face a revolt - and even a leadership contest - if she tries to steamroller opponents of the plan.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/05/08/theresa-may-could-bypass-brexit-war-cabinet-force-customs-partnership/0 -
Wandsworth is a council which currently has 2 Labour MPs and just 1 Tory MP, failing to take it was a poor result for Labour without doubt and indeed the swing at the local elections in the borough would have seen the Tories retake Battersea.nunuone said:
labour failed there by like 53 votes or something, it wasn't a good result for the tories.... any way the tory result is flattered even in "youthful" wandsworth because the electorate even there would have been much older then in the GE.HYUFD said:
Labour gained none of the Tory 'crown jewel' councils it was supposedly on course to take, including in youthful areas like Wandsworthnunuone said:
3) hun.HYUFD said:
1) The Tory vote also vote from the 2017 locals to the GE, it was the LD vote which collapsednunuone said:
Some caution is required for those who think Labour are doomed under Corbyn because:rottenborough said:
Momentum: winning here!!!Sean_F said:
There has been sto the Conservatives since the general election.RobD said:
So much for going after IDS’ seat.Sean_F said:
There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-Sean_F said:
O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.
Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.
Con 15,910 49.5%,
Lab 10,940 34.1%
Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
Other 2,304 7.2%..
That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.
BTW- thanks for the analysis!
1) We saw the difference between Labour support in the 2017 locals and GE.
2) Corbyn voters are not necessarily Labour voters even if there is huge overlap. In a similar way that Trump voters are not always supporting GOP candidates down ballot across the rust belt and farm belt.
3)The demographics in local elections are likely to benefit the Tories over Labour given the huge polarization of voters along age.
2) Not Naphic
So yes the Tories (just) held on but that is likely down to students/younger people not turning out in the same numbers that they would do in a GE.
Students/younger people only really make a difference in university areas or the heart of the inner city, areas which almost all have Labour MPs now anyway, not the Tory marginal seats Corbyn needs for a majority next time0 -
It does , when your foreign secretary says the PMs policy is crazy, then you know this is shambolic.kle4 said:
A collapse of May looks much more likely than a month ago, but what Tory replacement would be stupid enough to ask for another GE? Sure, they would say they won't run as bad a campaign as last time, but they have no manifesto ready, and it has no guarantee or even strong likelihood that they will do better than last time .GIN1138 said:
As I've been saying Theresa May's government is about to collapse.rottenborough said:Stand by your bets:
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/993884338142969858
A new Con leader and probably a general election in the next 2-3 months IMO.
There is a lot of brinkmanship going on - given the statements leaked or outright stated, I don't see how May gets out of this one. She can get some options through parliament, but not without pissing off too many of her own party.
Surely she needs to show some authority or go.0 -
The withdrawal agreement does not define when we leave, only the circumstances under which we leave. That is why Article 59 was written that way - so it cannot be an open ended process without the explicit agreement of all states.williamglenn said:
The withdrawal agreement can have any date in it. It doesn’t have to be the default of 2 years after invoking Article 50.Richard_Tyndall said:
Not so. The date of withdrawal was already defined when we instigated Article 50. The only way to change that would be for a formal extension of the negotiating period which requires the explicit consent of all member states.rpjs said:
No, that's for extending the negotiating period. Only a qualified majority plus the consent of the European Parliament is required to adopt the withdrawal agreement.Richard_Tyndall said:
Not without the explicit agreement of all 28 countries including the UK.williamglenn said:0 -
She cannot do the former and won't choose to do the latter. So ultimately Boris and co need to make her go, other wise what else can she do but her plan (even though the EU has dismissed it apparently) passed with labour votes?Yorkcity said:
It does , when your foreign secretary says the PMs policy is crazy, then you know this is shambolic.kle4 said:
A collapse of May looks much more likely than a month ago, but what Tory replacement would be stupid enough to ask for another GE? Sure, they would say they won't run as bad a campaign as last time, but they have no manifesto ready, and it has no guarantee or even strong likelihood that they will do better than last time .GIN1138 said:
As I've been saying Theresa May's government is about to collapse.rottenborough said:Stand by your bets:
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/993884338142969858
A new Con leader and probably a general election in the next 2-3 months IMO.
There is a lot of brinkmanship going on - given the statements leaked or outright stated, I don't see how May gets out of this one. She can get some options through parliament, but not without pissing off too many of her own party.
Surely she needs to show some authority or go.
-1 -
Can someone please explain to me why the Customs partnership is such a bad idea?
I see no objection in principle. The UK sets its tariff schedule. So does the EU. The UK applies by default the EU tariff to all goods landing in the UK (I suspect this is the problem) and if they are finally bound for the EU, that’s it. If they are bound for the UK market then the consumer / producer can claim the difference back from HMRC. I imagine an issue is if the UK wished to apply tariffs at a *higher* rate than the EU. Unlikely, but in this case I’d expect the UK to apply the higher UK rate with the producer/consumer then claiming back the difference from the EU rate if it’s bound for the EU. You would need some sensible rules of origin test. You’d also need the EU to reciprocate for goods heading to the UK.
That allows the maximum of border flexibility for things like cars and planes and also allows the UK to set its own trade policy and do its own trade deals accordingly. It’s different from a Customs Union, which essentially means outsourcing our tariffs and trade policy wholesale to the EU without any say.
Problem?0 -
We've seen that tactic (asking all ministers) used before to outmanoeuvre a Foreign Secretary, when the stakes were higher:TheScreamingEagles said:Stick to your guns Theresa.
Theresa May 'could bypass Brexit war Cabinet to force through customs partnership plan'
Theresa May could bypass her Brexit “war Cabinet” by asking the full Cabinet to back her controversial plan for a customs partnership with Brussels, Eurosceptic ministers fear.
Mrs May has postponed plans to discuss Britain’s future customs arrangements with her 11-strong Brexit sub-committee on Thursday, having been outnumbered 6-5 last week by those who opposed the partnership idea.
As she considers her next move, Brexiteers have warned her she could face a revolt - and even a leadership contest - if she tries to steamroller opponents of the plan.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/05/08/theresa-may-could-bypass-brexit-war-cabinet-force-customs-partnership/
After apparently considering ending the war on 26 May, Churchill outmanoeuvred Halifax by calling a meeting of his 25-member Outer Cabinet two days later, to whom he delivered a passionate speech, saying "If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground", convincing all present that Britain must fight on against Hitler whatever the cost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1940_War_Cabinet_Crisis0 -
Bit like Yvette Cooper?HYUFD said:
It stands for nothing in particular but I have used it for ever and cannot be bothered to change itmalcolmg said:
Has to be a troll or CCHQlogical_song said:
Does HYUFD stand for something?TheScreamingEagles said:
You’re making a persuasive case for AV.Tissue_Price said:
Maybe they should agree before the Lab selection? If Lab go Momentum, LD stand; if Lab go moderate, Greens can have itFoxy said:
A joint LD/Green candidate would be good too.Gardenwalker said:Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.
A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.
As an aside one of Sunday’s threads will be about AV though it will trigger HYUFD.
No offence meant, perhaps I should rephrase that - Is HYUFD an acronym?0 -
Yes it does. The withdrawal agreement specifies the date on which the EU treaties cease to apply. In the absence of a withdrawal agreement it's two years after notification.Richard_Tyndall said:
The withdrawal agreement does not define when we leave, only the circumstances under which we leave. That is why Article 59 was written that way - so it cannot be an open ended process without the explicit agreement of all states.williamglenn said:
The withdrawal agreement can have any date in it. It doesn’t have to be the default of 2 years after invoking Article 50.Richard_Tyndall said:
Not so. The date of withdrawal was already defined when we instigated Article 50. The only way to change that would be for a formal extension of the negotiating period which requires the explicit consent of all member states.rpjs said:
No, that's for extending the negotiating period. Only a qualified majority plus the consent of the European Parliament is required to adopt the withdrawal agreement.Richard_Tyndall said:
Not without the explicit agreement of all 28 countries including the UK.williamglenn said:0 -
But that date cannot be later than 2 years after triggering article 50 without the consent of the other states.williamglenn said:
Yes it does. The withdrawal agreement specifies the date on which the EU treaties cease to apply. In the absence of a withdrawal agreement it's two years after notification.Richard_Tyndall said:
The withdrawal agreement does not define when we leave, only the circumstances under which we leave. That is why Article 59 was written that way - so it cannot be an open ended process without the explicit agreement of all states.williamglenn said:
The withdrawal agreement can have any date in it. It doesn’t have to be the default of 2 years after invoking Article 50.Richard_Tyndall said:
Not so. The date of withdrawal was already defined when we instigated Article 50. The only way to change that would be for a formal extension of the negotiating period which requires the explicit consent of all member states.rpjs said:
No, that's for extending the negotiating period. Only a qualified majority plus the consent of the European Parliament is required to adopt the withdrawal agreement.Richard_Tyndall said:
Not without the explicit agreement of all 28 countries including the UK.williamglenn said:0 -
My guess is that the Lib Dem candidate in Lewisham East will be Chris Maines who stood for Lewisham Mayor last week. An interesting choice would have been Duwayne Brookes who was a friend of Steven Lawrence and was Lib Dem councillor for Downham ward for a number of years. However he stood as an Independent in the mayoral elections so I assume he has left the Lib Dems.0
-
You could make that connection yesydoethur said:
Bit like Yvette Cooper?HYUFD said:
It stands for nothing in particular but I have used it for ever and cannot be bothered to change itmalcolmg said:
Has to be a troll or CCHQlogical_song said:
Does HYUFD stand for something?TheScreamingEagles said:
You’re making a persuasive case for AV.Tissue_Price said:
Maybe they should agree before the Lab selection? If Lab go Momentum, LD stand; if Lab go moderate, Greens can have itFoxy said:
A joint LD/Green candidate would be good too.Gardenwalker said:Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.
A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.
As an aside one of Sunday’s threads will be about AV though it will trigger HYUFD.
No offence meant, perhaps I should rephrase that - Is HYUFD an acronym?0 -
HMG would have likely won all divisions on these amendments with a pre 1999 HoL.RobD said:
Hear, hear. Time to repeal the HoL Act 1999.Pulpstar said:I'm glad Brexit has opened the eyes of those on the right about much needed reform of the upper chamber.
Hereditary peers weren’t particularly europhile. They’d have been most concerned with things like the replacement for the CAP and CFP.0 -
Make a decision as Prime Minister , then persuade who she can , it is the correct one.kle4 said:
She cannot do the former and won't choose to do the latter. So ultimately Boris and co need to make her go, other wise what else can she do but her plan (even though the EU has dismissed it apparently) passed with labour votes?Yorkcity said:
It does , when your foreign secretary says the PMs policy is crazy, then you know this is shambolic.kle4 said:
A collapse of May looks much more likely than a month ago, but what Tory replacement would be stupid enough to ask for another GE? Sure, they would say they won't run as bad a campaign as last time, but they have no manifesto ready, and it has no guarantee or even strong likelihood that they will do better than last time .GIN1138 said:
As I've been saying Theresa May's government is about to collapse.rottenborough said:Stand by your bets:
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/993884338142969858
A new Con leader and probably a general election in the next 2-3 months IMO.
There is a lot of brinkmanship going on - given the statements leaked or outright stated, I don't see how May gets out of this one. She can get some options through parliament, but not without pissing off too many of her own party.
Surely she needs to show some authority or go.
If she loses resign , but for god's sake , make the call and fight for what you want.If she wins and sees off those who disagree, she will be seen in a better light , than fence sitting and chaos.0 -
Hopeless Youth Under Fantastical Delusions ?0
-
He fell out with the local LibDems. I know some of the history but not appropriate to post here. Chris would be an excellent candidate - he's just fought the mayoral election so has some name recognition across the Borough.slade said:My guess is that the Lib Dem candidate in Lewisham East will be Chris Maines who stood for Lewisham Mayor last week. An interesting choice would have been Duwayne Brookes who was a friend of Steven Lawrence and was Lib Dem councillor for Downham ward for a number of years. However he stood as an Independent in the mayoral elections so I assume he has left the Lib Dems.
0 -
There can't be any agreement at all without the consent of the other states so that's a spurious point.Richard_Tyndall said:
But that date cannot be later than 2 years after triggering article 50 without the consent of the other states.williamglenn said:
Yes it does. The withdrawal agreement specifies the date on which the EU treaties cease to apply. In the absence of a withdrawal agreement it's two years after notification.Richard_Tyndall said:
The withdrawal agreement does not define when we leave, only the circumstances under which we leave. That is why Article 59 was written that way - so it cannot be an open ended process without the explicit agreement of all states.williamglenn said:
The withdrawal agreement can have any date in it. It doesn’t have to be the default of 2 years after invoking Article 50.Richard_Tyndall said:
Not so. The date of withdrawal was already defined when we instigated Article 50. The only way to change that would be for a formal extension of the negotiating period which requires the explicit consent of all member states.rpjs said:
No, that's for extending the negotiating period. Only a qualified majority plus the consent of the European Parliament is required to adopt the withdrawal agreement.Richard_Tyndall said:
Not without the explicit agreement of all 28 countries including the UK.williamglenn said:
The current draft says, "This Agreement shall enter into force on 30 March 2019" and has a tantalising caveat: "In case, prior to that date, the depositary of this Agreement has not received the written notification of the completion of the necessary internal procedures by each Party, this Agreement may not enter into force."
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/draft_agreement_coloured.pdf0 -
No it is not spurious at all. The acceptance of the deal is by QMV. The decision to extend past the two year period has to be unanimous.williamglenn said:
There can't be any agreement at all without the consent of the other states so that's a spurious point.Richard_Tyndall said:
But that date cannot be later than 2 years after triggering article 50 without the consent of the other states.williamglenn said:
Yes it does. The withdrawal agreement specifies the date on which the EU treaties cease to apply. In the absence of a withdrawal agreement it's two years after notification.Richard_Tyndall said:
The withdrawal agreement does not define when we leave, only the circumstances under which we leave. That is why Article 59 was written that way - so it cannot be an open ended process without the explicit agreement of all states.williamglenn said:
The withdrawal agreement can have any date in it. It doesn’t have to be the default of 2 years after invoking Article 50.Richard_Tyndall said:
Not so. The date of withdrawal was already defined when we instigated Article 50. The only way to change that would be for a formal extension of the negotiating period which requires the explicit consent of all member states.rpjs said:
No, that's for extending the negotiating period. Only a qualified majority plus the consent of the European Parliament is required to adopt the withdrawal agreement.Richard_Tyndall said:
Not without the explicit agreement of all 28 countries including the UK.williamglenn said:
The current draft says, "This Agreement shall enter into force on 30 March 2019" and has a tantalising caveat: "In case, prior to that date, the depositary of this Agreement has not received the written notification of the completion of the necessary internal procedures by each Party, this Agreement may not enter into force."
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/draft_agreement_coloured.pdf0 -
The stakes are pretty high now. Dominic Grieve said on R4 that he thinks it's the UK's greatest peacetime crisis for 300 years. He's fairly well-qualified to speak on the matter; I'd only guessed that it might be the worst in my lifetime, i.e worse than Suez or Iraq.DecrepitJohnL said:
We've seen that tactic (asking all ministers) used before to outmanoeuvre a Foreign Secretary, when the stakes were higher:TheScreamingEagles said:Stick to your guns Theresa.
Theresa May 'could bypass Brexit war Cabinet to force through customs partnership plan'
Theresa May could bypass her Brexit “war Cabinet” by asking the full Cabinet to back her controversial plan for a customs partnership with Brussels, Eurosceptic ministers fear.
Mrs May has postponed plans to discuss Britain’s future customs arrangements with her 11-strong Brexit sub-committee on Thursday, having been outnumbered 6-5 last week by those who opposed the partnership idea.
As she considers her next move, Brexiteers have warned her she could face a revolt - and even a leadership contest - if she tries to steamroller opponents of the plan.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/05/08/theresa-may-could-bypass-brexit-war-cabinet-force-customs-partnership/
After apparently considering ending the war on 26 May, Churchill outmanoeuvred Halifax by calling a meeting of his 25-member Outer Cabinet two days later, to whom he delivered a passionate speech, saying "If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground", convincing all present that Britain must fight on against Hitler whatever the cost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1940_War_Cabinet_Crisis0 -
Seems a bit red tape-y.Casino_Royale said:Can someone please explain to me why the Customs partnership is such a bad idea?
I see no objection in principle. The UK sets its tariff schedule. So does the EU. The UK applies by default the EU tariff to all goods landing in the UK (I suspect this is the problem) and if they are finally bound for the EU, that’s it. If they are bound for the UK market then the consumer / producer can claim the difference back from HMRC. I imagine an issue is if the UK wished to apply tariffs at a *higher* rate than the EU. Unlikely, but in this case I’d expect the UK to apply the higher UK rate with the producer/consumer then claiming back the difference from the EU rate if it’s bound for the EU. You would need some sensible rules of origin test. You’d also need the EU to reciprocate for goods heading to the UK.
That allows the maximum of border flexibility for things like cars and planes and also allows the UK to set its own trade policy and do its own trade deals accordingly. It’s different from a Customs Union, which essentially means outsourcing our tariffs and trade policy wholesale to the EU without any say.
Problem?0 -
Christ! This bloody Customs Union question is turning into the Schleswig-Holstein question of the 21st century. Few understand it and the rest are being driven mad by it.
I simply will not forgive those Tories who - because of this obsession - end up giving the country a Brexit more harmful than it need be and/or a Corbyn government.
Swallow your pride. Go back to the EU. Ask for a pause because, frankly, we have no fucking idea what we want or how to get there. Then go back and take as long as needed to do the thinking needed to work out some practical proposals which work in the real world, are acceptable to the EU and don't cause damage to those who live in this country. Get some help from those who know what they're talking about (the Swiss, for instance). Tell IDS that we don't want to hear from him again - ever - and to JRM that talking slowly in a deep voice and wearing a double breasted suit says nothing about your intelligence. And sack that trio of arses: Johnson, Fox and Davis. I wouldn't trust them with a glass of water, never mind something this important.0 -
That's wrong. A date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement later than 30 March 2019 can be agreed by QMV. What needs unanimous consent is an extension of the Article 50 negotiation period pending an agreement.Richard_Tyndall said:No it is not spurious at all. The acceptance of the deal is by QMV. The decision to extend past the two year period has to be unanimous.
0 -
Ah the voice of sweet reason.Cyclefree said:Christ! This bloody Customs Union question is turning into the Schleswig-Holstein question of the 21st century. Few understand it and the rest are being driven mad by it.
I simply will not forgive those Tories who - because of this obsession - end up giving the country a Brexit more harmful than it need be and/or a Corbyn government.
Swallow your pride. Go back to the EU. Ask for a pause because, frankly, we have no fucking idea what we want or how to get there. Then go back and take as long as needed to do the thinking needed to work out some practical proposals which work in the real world, are acceptable to the EU and don't cause damage to those who live in this country. Get some help from those who know what they're talking about (the Swiss, for instance). Tell IDS that we don't want to hear from him again - ever - and to JRM that talking slowly in a deep voice and wearing a double breasted suit says nothing about your intelligence. And sack that trio of arses: Johnson, Fox and Davis. I wouldn't trust them with a glass of water, never mind something this important.
Ain’t gonna happen though of course.
And according to Tyndall it’s all the EU’s fault.0 -
Labour will go backwards in the next election - not much scope to go forwards. At the last election people thought Labour were a safe repository for their protest vote as they would get nowhere near power according to the polls, and also they were not keen on May's vision of a big majority and the associated scope of a Tory government. Next time people will have to think about if they actually want McDonnell causing a run on the pound or Abbott running the home office, and even if they drop behind in the polls their supporters will go on about how the polls were wrong last time and scaring their opponents even moreHYUFD said:
1) The Tory vote also vote from the 2017 locals to the GE, it was the LD vote which collapsednunuone said:
Some caution is required for those who think Labour are doomed under Corbyn because:rottenborough said:
Momentum: winning here!!!Sean_F said:
There has been some speculation that Labour could gain Uxbridge and South Ruislip. These were Thursday's results (lead candidate only):-RobD said:
So much for going after IDS’ seat.Sean_F said:
There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-Sean_F said:
O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.
Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.
Con 15,910 49.5%,
Lab 10,940 34.1%
Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
Other 2,304 7.2%..
That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.
BTW- thanks for the analysis!
Con 17,529, 60.5%,
Lab 8,672, 30.0%,
Lib Dem 519, 1.9%,
Others 2,220, 7.6%.
That's a swing of 9% to the Conservatives since the general election.
1) We saw the difference between Labour support in the 2017 locals and GE.
2) Corbyn voters are not necessarily Labour voters even if there is huge overlap. In a similar way that Trump voters are not always supporting GOP candidates down ballot across the rust belt and farm belt.
3)The demographics in local elections are likely to benefit the Tories over Labour given the huge polarization of voters along age.
2) Not New Labour voters no but voters for current Labour candidates yes
3) That still does not explain the Tory holds in London which have a younger voting demographic0 -
Lewisham? Well, I was born there. Of I go for another by election campaign.0
-
It does, but does it really amount to BINO like some of the Brexitters are suggesting? I’m not sure. I agree that in the absence of other solutions, it seems like the most sensible.TOPPING said:
Seems a bit red tape-y.Casino_Royale said:Can someone please explain to me why the Customs partnership is such a bad idea?
I see no objection in principle. The UK sets its tariff schedule. So does the EU. The UK applies by default the EU tariff to all goods landing in the UK (I suspect this is the problem) and if they are finally bound for the EU, that’s it. If they are bound for the UK market then the consumer / producer can claim the difference back from HMRC. I imagine an issue is if the UK wished to apply tariffs at a *higher* rate than the EU. Unlikely, but in this case I’d expect the UK to apply the higher UK rate with the producer/consumer then claiming back the difference from the EU rate if it’s bound for the EU. You would need some sensible rules of origin test. You’d also need the EU to reciprocate for goods heading to the UK.
That allows the maximum of border flexibility for things like cars and planes and also allows the UK to set its own trade policy and do its own trade deals accordingly. It’s different from a Customs Union, which essentially means outsourcing our tariffs and trade policy wholesale to the EU without any say.
Problem?
I guess there’s an argument that it makes sense for the UK to align tariffs with the EU so that there’s less red tape, but that’s a decision for future governments.0 -
He was talking rubbish because he is a fanatical Europhile. There have been many greater peacetime crisis than these in the last 300 years. Just off the top of my head the Great Reform Act of 1832 was born out of massive riots and burning of property across the country (including Nottingham Castle which is why visitors are always so disappointed when they see it)rural_voter said:
The stakes are pretty high now. Dominic Grieve said on R4 that he thinks it's the UK's greatest peacetime crisis for 300 years. He's fairly well-qualified to speak on the matter; I'd only guessed that it might be the worst in my lifetime, i.e worse than Suez or Iraq.DecrepitJohnL said:
We've seen that tactic (asking all ministers) used before to outmanoeuvre a Foreign Secretary, when the stakes were higher:TheScreamingEagles said:Stick to your guns Theresa.
Theresa May 'could bypass Brexit war Cabinet to force through customs partnership plan'
Theresa May could bypass her Brexit “war Cabinet” by asking the full Cabinet to back her controversial plan for a customs partnership with Brussels, Eurosceptic ministers fear.
Mrs May has postponed plans to discuss Britain’s future customs arrangements with her 11-strong Brexit sub-committee on Thursday, having been outnumbered 6-5 last week by those who opposed the partnership idea.
As she considers her next move, Brexiteers have warned her she could face a revolt - and even a leadership contest - if she tries to steamroller opponents of the plan.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/05/08/theresa-may-could-bypass-brexit-war-cabinet-force-customs-partnership/
After apparently considering ending the war on 26 May, Churchill outmanoeuvred Halifax by calling a meeting of his 25-member Outer Cabinet two days later, to whom he delivered a passionate speech, saying "If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground", convincing all present that Britain must fight on against Hitler whatever the cost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1940_War_Cabinet_Crisis0 -
Labour at the last election maximised leftwing voters behind them and got 262 MPs, they still need an extra 64 gains to reach the 326 MPs needed for a majority.Nemtynakht said:
Labour will go backwards in the next election - not much scope to go forwards. At the last election people thought Labour were a safe repository for their protest vote as they would get nowhere near power according to the polls, and also they were not keen on May's vision of a big majority and the associated scope of a Tory government. Next time people will have to think about if they actually want McDonnell causing a run on the pound or Abbott running the home office, and even if they drop behind in the polls their supporters will go on about how the polls were wrong last time and scaring their opponents even moreHYUFD said:
1) The Tory raphicnunuone said:
Some caution is required for those who think Labour are doomed under Corbyn because:rottenborough said:
Momentum: winning here!!!Sean_F said:
There has been so9% to the Conservatives since the general election.RobD said:
So much for going after IDS’ seat.Sean_F said:
There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-Sean_F said:
O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.
Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.
Con 15,910 49.5%,
Lab 10,940 34.1%
Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
Other 2,304 7.2%..
That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.
BTW- thanks for the analysis!
1) We saw the difference between Labour support in the 2017 locals and GE.
2) Corbyn voters are not necessarily Labour voters even if there is huge overlap. In a similar way that Trump voters are not always supporting GOP candidates down ballot across the rust belt and farm belt.
3)The demographics in local elections are likely to benefit the Tories over Labour given the huge polarization of voters along age.
The chances of a Tory landslide have now pretty much evaporated after the last general election but the chance of a small majority is actually still easier for the Tories than Labour to achieve, having got 318 MPs at the last general election, the Tories need just 8 gains to reach 326 MPs and thus an overall majority.0 -
BBC - Trump nukes Iran deal0
-
Sounds sensible, but I don't really see why the EU would consider giving us a pause - certainly they'd prefer some sort of deal to a crashing out with no deal, but they quite reasonably see we are in a mess, and seem perfectly prepared to risk us crashing out vs the gain of us just giving in entirely. Playing hardball has worked for them so far, why would they change tack now?Cyclefree said:Christ! This bloody Customs Union question is turning into the Schleswig-Holstein question of the 21st century. Few understand it and the rest are being driven mad by it.
I simply will not forgive those Tories who - because of this obsession - end up giving the country a Brexit more harmful than it need be and/or a Corbyn government.
Swallow your pride. Go back to the EU. Ask for a pause because, frankly, we have no fucking idea what we want or how to get there. Then go back and take as long as needed to do the thinking needed to work out some practical proposals which work in the real world, are acceptable to the EU and don't cause damage to those who live in this country. Get some help from those who know what they're talking about (the Swiss, for instance). Tell IDS that we don't want to hear from him again - ever - and to JRM that talking slowly in a deep voice and wearing a double breasted suit says nothing about your intelligence. And sack that trio of arses: Johnson, Fox and Davis. I wouldn't trust them with a glass of water, never mind something this important.
0 -
I think we can ignore your advice thankyou. And in case you missed it we are dealing with the real world. It is those who think votes by the Lords will change the minds of the EU or that a plan already rejected by the EU has an credence who are delusional.Cyclefree said:Christ! This bloody Customs Union question is turning into the Schleswig-Holstein question of the 21st century. Few understand it and the rest are being driven mad by it.
I simply will not forgive those Tories who - because of this obsession - end up giving the country a Brexit more harmful than it need be and/or a Corbyn government.
Swallow your pride. Go back to the EU. Ask for a pause because, frankly, we have no fucking idea what we want or how to get there. Then go back and take as long as needed to do the thinking needed to work out some practical proposals which work in the real world, are acceptable to the EU and don't cause damage to those who live in this country. Get some help from those who know what they're talking about (the Swiss, for instance). Tell IDS that we don't want to hear from him again - ever - and to JRM that talking slowly in a deep voice and wearing a double breasted suit says nothing about your intelligence. And sack that trio of arses: Johnson, Fox and Davis. I wouldn't trust them with a glass of water, never mind something this important.0 -
You do not know that the vote is maximised.HYUFD said:
Labour at the last election maximised leftwing voters behind themNemtynakht said:
Labour will go backwards in the next election - not much scope to go forwards. At the last election people thought Labour were a safe repository for their protest vote as they would get nowhere near power according to the polls, and also they were not keen on May's vision of a big majority and the associated scope of a Tory government. Next time people will have to think about if they actually want McDonnell causing a run on the pound or Abbott running the home office, and even if they drop behind in the polls their supporters will go on about how the polls were wrong last time and scaring their opponents even moreHYUFD said:
1) The Tory raphicnunuone said:
Some caution is required for those who think Labour are doomed under Corbyn because:rottenborough said:
Momentum: winning here!!!Sean_F said:
There has been so9% to the Conservatives since the general election.RobD said:
So much for going after IDS’ seat.Sean_F said:
There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-Sean_F said:
O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.
Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.
Con 15,910 49.5%,
Lab 10,940 34.1%
Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
Other 2,304 7.2%..
That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.
BTW- thanks for the analysis!
1) We saw the difference between Labour support in the 2017 locals and GE.
2) Corbyn voters are not necessarily Labour voters even if there is huge overlap. In a similar way that Trump voters are not always supporting GOP candidates down ballot across the rust belt and farm belt.
3)The demographics in local elections are likely to benefit the Tories over Labour given the huge polarization of voters along age.0 -
Many thanks. The consequences of Mrs Merkel's fit of generosity rumbles on.Alanbrooke said:
there was a riot in Ellwangen in Bavaria at a refugee centre. The germans were trying to deport a Togolese immigrant back to Italy. The police hit a fullscale riot when they arrived to collect the man and the refugees added in a series of insults to the germans about their hospitality.DavidL said:
For the ignorant amongst us not fluent in German any chance of a summary?Alanbrooke said:
Germany going through an intense debate on migration following a riot in Bavaria at a refugee camp.
https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article176193618/Migration-Richter-teilen-Dobrindts-Kritik-an-Abschiebungsgegnern.html
The human rights industry has now joined in to say no deportations and the Bavarian government has subsequently deported the guy. There is now a raging debate on how far Germany's obligations go with the usual candidates going at it hammer and tongs.
Either way this is not a settled issue and the argument has been going on for most of this month with no signs of letting up.0 -
Ah. Topping resorting to outright lies again. Things must be back to normal.TOPPING said:
Ah the voice of sweet reason.Cyclefree said:Christ! This bloody Customs Union question is turning into the Schleswig-Holstein question of the 21st century. Few understand it and the rest are being driven mad by it.
I simply will not forgive those Tories who - because of this obsession - end up giving the country a Brexit more harmful than it need be and/or a Corbyn government.
Swallow your pride. Go back to the EU. Ask for a pause because, frankly, we have no fucking idea what we want or how to get there. Then go back and take as long as needed to do the thinking needed to work out some practical proposals which work in the real world, are acceptable to the EU and don't cause damage to those who live in this country. Get some help from those who know what they're talking about (the Swiss, for instance). Tell IDS that we don't want to hear from him again - ever - and to JRM that talking slowly in a deep voice and wearing a double breasted suit says nothing about your intelligence. And sack that trio of arses: Johnson, Fox and Davis. I wouldn't trust them with a glass of water, never mind something this important.
Ain’t gonna happen though of course.
And according to Tyndall it’s all the EU’s fault.0 -
Rule of Politics #163 - be wary of anyone making such a long range historical comparison; there's a good chance, however intelligent they are, that they will miss a very important political event which ruins their analogy.rural_voter said:
The stakes are pretty high now. Dominic Grieve said on R4 that he thinks it's the UK's greatest peacetime crisis for 300 years.DecrepitJohnL said:
We've seen that tactic (asking all ministers) used before to outmanoeuvre a Foreign Secretary, when the stakes were higher:TheScreamingEagles said:Stick to your guns Theresa.
Theresa May 'could bypass Brexit war Cabinet to force through customs partnership plan'
Theresa May could bypass her Brexit “war Cabinet” by asking the full Cabinet to back her controversial plan for a customs partnership with Brussels, Eurosceptic ministers fear.
Mrs May has postponed plans to discuss Britain’s future customs arrangements with her 11-strong Brexit sub-committee on Thursday, having been outnumbered 6-5 last week by those who opposed the partnership idea.
As she considers her next move, Brexiteers have warned her she could face a revolt - and even a leadership contest - if she tries to steamroller opponents of the plan.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/05/08/theresa-may-could-bypass-brexit-war-cabinet-force-customs-partnership/
After apparently considering ending the war on 26 May, Churchill outmanoeuvred Halifax by calling a meeting of his 25-member Outer Cabinet two days later, to whom he delivered a passionate speech, saying "If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground", convincing all present that Britain must fight on against Hitler whatever the cost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1940_War_Cabinet_Crisis
0 -
So there's a hidden leftwing pool of voters in the Conservative Party, just waiting to throw their weight behind Jeremy Corbyn?kle4 said:
You do not know that the vote is maximised.HYUFD said:
Labour at the last election maximised leftwing voters behind themNemtynakht said:
Labour will go backwards in the next election - not much scope to go forwards. At the last election people thought Labour were a safe repository for their protest vote as they would get nowhere near power according to the polls, and also they were not keen on May's vision of a big majority and the associated scope of a Tory government. Next time people will have to think about if they actually want McDonnell causing a run on the pound or Abbott running the home office, and even if they drop behind in the polls their supporters will go on about how the polls were wrong last time and scaring their opponents even moreHYUFD said:
1) The Tory raphicnunuone said:
Some caution is required for those who think Labour are doomed under Corbyn because:rottenborough said:
Momentum: winning here!!!Sean_F said:
There has been so9% to the Conservatives since the general election.RobD said:
So much for going after IDS’ seat.Sean_F said:
There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-Sean_F said:
O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.
Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.
Con 15,910 49.5%,
Lab 10,940 34.1%
Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
Other 2,304 7.2%..
That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.
BTW- thanks for the analysis!
1) We saw the difference between Labour support in the 2017 locals and GE.
2) Corbyn voters are not necessarily Labour voters even if there is huge overlap. In a similar way that Trump voters are not always supporting GOP candidates down ballot across the rust belt and farm belt.
3)The demographics in local elections are likely to benefit the Tories over Labour given the huge polarization of voters along age.
Well, it's a view....0 -
The politicians tbf are caught between implementing the will of the people* thereby doing damage to the economy...and not. I don’t envy them.numbertwelve said:
It does, but does it really amount to BINO like some of the Brexitters are suggesting? I’m not sure. I agree that in the absence of other solutions, it seems like the most sensible.TOPPING said:
Seems a bit red tape-y.Casino_Royale said:Can someone please explain to me why the Customs partnership is such a bad idea?
I see no objection in principle. The UK sets its tariff schedule. So does the EU. The UK applies by default the EU tariff to all goods landing in the UK (I suspect this is the problem) and if they are finally bound for the EU, that’s it. If they are bound for the UK market then the consumer / producer can claim the difference back from HMRC. I imagine an issue is if the UK wished to apply tariffs at a *higher* rate than the EU. Unlikely, but in this case I’d expect the UK to apply the higher UK rate with the producer/consumer then claiming back the difference from the EU rate if it’s bound for the EU. You would need some sensible rules of origin test. You’d also need the EU to reciprocate for goods heading to the UK.
That allows the maximum of border flexibility for things like cars and planes and also allows the UK to set its own trade policy and do its own trade deals accordingly. It’s different from a Customs Union, which essentially means outsourcing our tariffs and trade policy wholesale to the EU without any say.
Problem?
I guess there’s an argument that it makes sense for the UK to align tariffs with the EU so that there’s less red tape, but that’s a decision for future governments.
*the lunatic people who shout loudest, that is.0 -
The person who thought Brexit was simply a matter of squatting in the EEA treaty and telling the EU to swivel calls a respected commentator delusional...Richard_Tyndall said:
I think we can ignore your advice thankyou. And in case you missed it we are dealing with the real world. It is those who think votes by the Lords will change the minds of the EU or that a plan already rejected by the EU has an credence who are delusional.Cyclefree said:Christ! This bloody Customs Union question is turning into the Schleswig-Holstein question of the 21st century. Few understand it and the rest are being driven mad by it.
I simply will not forgive those Tories who - because of this obsession - end up giving the country a Brexit more harmful than it need be and/or a Corbyn government.
Swallow your pride. Go back to the EU. Ask for a pause because, frankly, we have no fucking idea what we want or how to get there. Then go back and take as long as needed to do the thinking needed to work out some practical proposals which work in the real world, are acceptable to the EU and don't cause damage to those who live in this country. Get some help from those who know what they're talking about (the Swiss, for instance). Tell IDS that we don't want to hear from him again - ever - and to JRM that talking slowly in a deep voice and wearing a double breasted suit says nothing about your intelligence. And sack that trio of arses: Johnson, Fox and Davis. I wouldn't trust them with a glass of water, never mind something this important.0 -
Hour by hour it becomes increasingly clear that the behaviour of the Commons and particularly the Lords makes it impossible for Brexit to actually happen.HYUFD said:
Brexiteer and Remainer MPs will also rant and throw their toys out of the pram but at the end of the day none have any enthusiasm for another general election anytime soon and Tory members most certainly do not and short of Ruth Davidson all the polling confirms that no alternative leader would do much better than May and many would do significantly worse than she is doing.
I can't see any way around the impasse except without a new Con leader and a new general election. This has got to be resolved one way or another.0 -
On Topic
ROFL0 -
There is also the fact that the EU will want to play politics until the 11th hour, and they do not necessarily want the negotiations to lead to practical proposals that 'don't cause damage' as they want to disincentivise anyone other countries from leaving.TOPPING said:
Ah the voice of sweet reason.Cyclefree said:Christ! This bloody Customs Union question is turning into the Schleswig-Holstein question of the 21st century. Few understand it and the rest are being driven mad by it.
I simply will not forgive those Tories who - because of this obsession - end up giving the country a Brexit more harmful than it need be and/or a Corbyn government.
Swallow your pride. Go back to the EU. Ask for a pause because, frankly, we have no fucking idea what we want or how to get there. Then go back and take as long as needed to do the thinking needed to work out some practical proposals which work in the real world, are acceptable to the EU and don't cause damage to those who live in this country. Get some help from those who know what they're talking about (the Swiss, for instance). Tell IDS that we don't want to hear from him again - ever - and to JRM that talking slowly in a deep voice and wearing a double breasted suit says nothing about your intelligence. And sack that trio of arses: Johnson, Fox and Davis. I wouldn't trust them with a glass of water, never mind something this important.
Ain’t gonna happen though of course.
And according to Tyndall it’s all the EU’s fault.
Also it was stressed repeatedly before we voted - and it was the reason I voted remain - that it would make worse our financial situation. People still voted to leave in that knowledge and so far the official government predictions on jobs and economic prosperity have been grossly exceeded. However the deal was do we want to leave enough to cause this financial apocalypse? The country voted 'yes'.
I have yet to understand the argument that people would not vote to make themselves poorer. Look at all the celebrities who support Labour and would presumably be worse off.
The problem is that most MPs and civil servants are totally against Brexit and cannot come up with sensible proposals. We should have said day one we will go to WTO terms and negotiate a free trade deal concurrently.
0 -
Did I say that was the alternative? No I did not, and your positioning it as the only alternative is preposterous. Normal people do not pigeonhole themselves with left-right wing bullcrap, and it is perfectly possible there are more votes out there for the left. It is not certain they will get more, they did do very well, but your assertion the left wing vote for Labour has been maximised cannot be proven.MarqueeMark said:
So there's a hidden leftwing pool of voters in the Conservative Party, just waiting to throw their weight behind Jeremy Corbyn?kle4 said:
You do not know that the vote is maximised.HYUFD said:
Labour at the last election maximised leftwing voters behind themNemtynakht said:
Labour will even moreHYUFD said:
1) The Tory raphicnunuone said:
Some caution is required for those who think Labour are doomed under Corbyn because:rottenborough said:
Momentum: winning here!!!Sean_F said:
There has been so9% to the Conservatives since the general election.RobD said:
So much for going after IDS’ seat.Sean_F said:
There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-Sean_F said:
O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.
Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.
Con 15,910 49.5%,
Lab 10,940 34.1%
Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
Other 2,304 7.2%..
That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.
BTW- thanks for the analysis!
1) We saw the difference between Labour support in the 2017 locals and GE.
2) Corbyn voters are not necessarily Labour voters even if there is huge overlap. In a similar way that Trump voters are not always supporting GOP candidates down ballot across the rust belt and farm belt.
3)The demographics in local elections are likely to benefit the Tories over Labour given the huge polarization of voters along age.
Well, it's a view....0 -
Richard_Tyndall said:
I think we can ignore your advice thankyou. And in case you missed it we are dealing with the real world. It is those who think votes by the Lords will change the minds of the EU or that a plan already rejected by the EU has an credence who are delusional.Cyclefree said:Christ! This bloody Customs Union question is turning into the Schleswig-Holstein question of the 21st century. Few understand it and the rest are being driven mad by it.
I simply will not forgive those Tories who - because of this obsession - end up giving the country a Brexit more harmful than it need be and/or a Corbyn government.
Swallow your pride. Go back to the EU. Ask for a pause because, frankly, we have no fucking idea what we want or how to get there. Then go back and take as long as needed to do the thinking needed to work out some practical proposals which work in the real world, are acceptable to the EU and don't cause damage to those who live in this country. Get some help from those who know what they're talking about (the Swiss, for instance). Tell IDS that we don't want to hear from him again - ever - and to JRM that talking slowly in a deep voice and wearing a double breasted suit says nothing about your intelligence. And sack that trio of arses: Johnson, Fox and Davis. I wouldn't trust them with a glass of water, never mind something this important.
I hold no brief for any of these plans. I don't understand any of them. But nor does anyone else, apparently, least of all those proposing them. They're fighting like ferrets over them; there are 10 months to go and it's all got to be agreed by this autumn in practice. And, if not, what then?
A deep breath, a pause and some real hard thinking are no more stupid than anything else I've seen proposed.0 -
Listen it’s not what you wanted, you wanted some Fantasy Island tailor made Brexit that only existed, if you’d thought a moment about it, in your head.Richard_Tyndall said:
Ah. Topping resorting to outright lies again. Things must be back to normal.TOPPING said:
Ah the voice of sweet reason.Cyclefree said:Christ! This bloody Customs Union question is turning into the Schleswig-Holstein question of the 21st century. Few understand it and the rest are being driven mad by it.
I simply will not forgive those Tories who - because of this obsession - end up giving the country a Brexit more harmful than it need be and/or a Corbyn government.
Swallow your pride. Go back to the EU. Ask for a pause because, frankly, we have no fucking idea what we want or how to get there. Then go back and take as long as needed to do the thinking needed to work out some practical proposals which work in the real world, are acceptable to the EU and don't cause damage to those who live in this country. Get some help from those who know what they're talking about (the Swiss, for instance). Tell IDS that we don't want to hear from him again - ever - and to JRM that talking slowly in a deep voice and wearing a double breasted suit says nothing about your intelligence. And sack that trio of arses: Johnson, Fox and Davis. I wouldn't trust them with a glass of water, never mind something this important.
Ain’t gonna happen though of course.
And according to Tyndall it’s all the EU’s fault.
As it stands, it’s a god awful mess and about to do your country huge damage. And you’d get more respect if you manned the fuck up and admitted it.0 -
I’d certainly be interested in seeing the details.TOPPING said:
Seems a bit red tape-y.Casino_Royale said:Can someone please explain to me why the Customs partnership is such a bad idea?
I see no objection in principle. The UK sets its tariff schedule. So does the EU. The UK applies by default the EU tariff to all goods landing in the UK (I suspect this is the problem) and if they are finally bound for the EU, that’s it. If they are bound for the UK market then the consumer / producer can claim the difference back from HMRC. I imagine an issue is if the UK wished to apply tariffs at a *higher* rate than the EU. Unlikely, but in this case I’d expect the UK to apply the higher UK rate with the producer/consumer then claiming back the difference from the EU rate if it’s bound for the EU. You would need some sensible rules of origin test. You’d also need the EU to reciprocate for goods heading to the UK.
That allows the maximum of border flexibility for things like cars and planes and also allows the UK to set its own trade policy and do its own trade deals accordingly. It’s different from a Customs Union, which essentially means outsourcing our tariffs and trade policy wholesale to the EU without any say.
Problem?
It probably tends to favour larger transnational companies (who are more likely to have pan-European supply chains) over UK SMEs, who are more likely to have the UK domestic market as their final destination and thus also have to deal with the reclaim admin burden. But there are ways of granting exemptions and ways of managing that, perhaps on an annual basis, just like a self-assessed tax return.0 -
I would have thought that the most obvious problems is that the EU seem to have rejected it and it doesn't give us a very attractive hand in dealing with any third party country. We would be offering them lower tariffs but with a slightly complicated pay the EU rate and then seek a refund method. I have bought stuff with credit vouchers allowing you to claim money back before. The reason companies do this is because most people can't be arsed doing so and don't claim the money.Casino_Royale said:Can someone please explain to me why the Customs partnership is such a bad idea?
I see no objection in principle. The UK sets its tariff schedule. So does the EU. The UK applies by default the EU tariff to all goods landing in the UK (I suspect this is the problem) and if they are finally bound for the EU, that’s it. If they are bound for the UK market then the consumer / producer can claim the difference back from HMRC. I imagine an issue is if the UK wished to apply tariffs at a *higher* rate than the EU. Unlikely, but in this case I’d expect the UK to apply the higher UK rate with the producer/consumer then claiming back the difference from the EU rate if it’s bound for the EU. You would need some sensible rules of origin test. You’d also need the EU to reciprocate for goods heading to the UK.
That allows the maximum of border flexibility for things like cars and planes and also allows the UK to set its own trade policy and do its own trade deals accordingly. It’s different from a Customs Union, which essentially means outsourcing our tariffs and trade policy wholesale to the EU without any say.
Problem?
I am very open to a compromise, personally I would even be relaxed about still effectively being in the CU for the transitional period to give us more time to get our act together, but this looks like the sort of solution that an incompetent and unimaginative bureaucrat might come up with. Which makes it pretty remarkable that the EU doesn't like it really.0 -
Crashing out could cause them some damage as well. Whereas a pause wouldn't.kle4 said:
Sounds sensible, but I don't really see why the EU would consider giving us a pause - certainly they'd prefer some sort of deal to a crashing out with no deal, but they quite reasonably see we are in a mess, and seem perfectly prepared to risk us crashing out vs the gain of us just giving in entirely. Playing hardball has worked for them so far, why would they change tack now?Cyclefree said:Christ! This bloody Customs Union question is turning into the Schleswig-Holstein question of the 21st century. Few understand it and the rest are being driven mad by it.
I simply will not forgive those Tories who - because of this obsession - end up giving the country a Brexit more harmful than it need be and/or a Corbyn government.
Swallow your pride. Go back to the EU. Ask for a pause because, frankly, we have no fucking idea what we want or how to get there. Then go back and take as long as needed to do the thinking needed to work out some practical proposals which work in the real world, are acceptable to the EU and don't cause damage to those who live in this country. Get some help from those who know what they're talking about (the Swiss, for instance). Tell IDS that we don't want to hear from him again - ever - and to JRM that talking slowly in a deep voice and wearing a double breasted suit says nothing about your intelligence. And sack that trio of arses: Johnson, Fox and Davis. I wouldn't trust them with a glass of water, never mind something this important.
A bit like when Lehmans was allowed to go bust. Perhaps the authorities thought that it would be contained and would be a good lesson to others. As we know, panic ensued and the authorities got rather more than they bargained for.
Britain crashing out next year - and God knows what could be happening in the world by then - could be one of those black swan events that causes all sorts of unexpected misery for more than just us. Why not press the Big Red Pause button to allow all parties - and particularly us - to do what ought to have been done before Article 50 was triggered?
But what do I know?
Trouble is: those in charge don't seem to know anything either.0 -
Truly incredible news re Iran - Trump announced his decision in a speech, not just in a tweet.0
-
The LD vote was 7% in 2017, the lowest Liberal vote since 1959. The Green vote was just 1.6% in 2017, 2% down on 2015. UKIP got just 1.8% in 2017, over 10% down on 2015 with Old Labour Brexiteers returning to Labour.kle4 said:
You do not know that the vote is maximised.HYUFD said:
Labour at the last election maximised leftwing voters behind themNemtynakht said:
Labour will go backwards in the next election - not much scope to go forwards. At the last election people thought Labour were a safe repository for their protest vote as they would get nowhere near power according to the polls, and also they were not keen on May's vision of a big majority and the associated scope of a Tory government. Next time people will have to think about if they actually want McDonnell causing a run on the pound or Abbott running the home office, and even if they drop behind in the polls their supporters will go on about how the polls were wrong last time and scaring their opponents even moreHYUFD said:
1) The Tory raphicnunuone said:
Some caution is required for those who think Labour are doomed under Corbyn because:rottenborough said:
Momentum: winning here!!!Sean_F said:
There has been so9% to the Conservatives since the general election.RobD said:
So much for going after IDS’ seat.Sean_F said:
There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-Sean_F said:
O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.
Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.
Con 15,910 49.5%,
Lab 10,940 34.1%
Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
Other 2,304 7.2%..
That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.
BTW- thanks for the analysis!
1) We saw the difference betwng age.
While Labour may be able to squeeze a bit more of the SNP and Plaid vote in Scotland and Wales that does not actually help them gain many if any Tory seats. So yes, Corbyn has effectively squeezed the leftwing vote as far as he can, he needs to win over 2017 Tory voters now if he is to have a hope of an overall majority at the next general election.0 -
Those campaigning for its removal seemed to think it was gone for good.DecrepitJohnL said:
Common sense or fake news? The new report does not mention a change of mind or confirm that its removal was ever intended to be more than temporary.RobD said:Common sense prevails:
https://order-order.com/2018/05/08/victory-oxford-university-will-put-may-portrait-back/0 -
IDS is quite popular locally - he did take over from Lord Tebbitt.DavidL said:
Well yes but in the GE was the Tory candidate not IDS? That can hardly have helped.Sean_F said:
There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-Sean_F said:
O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.
Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.
Con 15,910 49.5%,
Lab 10,940 34.1%
Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
Other 2,304 7.2%..
That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.
PS I doubt the voters of Woodford Green in Redbridge would like being confused with Wood Green in Haringey!0 -
I think the Lords vote (which are coincidental with this) are what’s spooking ERG and its affiliates.numbertwelve said:
It does, but does it really amount to BINO like some of the Brexitters are suggesting? I’m not sure. I agree that in the absence of other solutions, it seems like the most sensible.TOPPING said:
Seems a bit red tape-y.Casino_Royale said:Can someone please explain to me why the Customs partnership is such a bad idea?
I see no objection in principle. The UK sets its tariff schedule. So does the EU. The UK applies by default the EU tariff to all goods landing in the UK (I suspect this is the problem) and if they are finally bound for the EU, that’s it. If they are bound for the UK market then the consumer / producer can claim the difference back from HMRC. I imagine an issue is if the UK wished to apply tariffs at a *higher* rate than the EU. Unlikely, but in this case I’d expect the UK to apply the higher UK rate with the producer/consumer then claiming back the difference from the EU rate if it’s bound for the EU. You would need some sensible rules of origin test. You’d also need the EU to reciprocate for goods heading to the UK.
That allows the maximum of border flexibility for things like cars and planes and also allows the UK to set its own trade policy and do its own trade deals accordingly. It’s different from a Customs Union, which essentially means outsourcing our tariffs and trade policy wholesale to the EU without any say.
Problem?
I guess there’s an argument that it makes sense for the UK to align tariffs with the EU so that there’s less red tape, but that’s a decision for future governments.
But none of us really know what’s going on behind the scenes. From a news/media business point of view, maximum drama sells. “It’s nearly a done deal”, does not.
0 -
The problem was that Cameron a remainer framed the question and campaign. Thus the support and finances of state supported the status quo which needed no explanation. The £9 million mailshot just put doubts in people's minds about the status quo.williamglenn said:
The person who thought Brexit was simply a matter of squatting in the EEA treaty and telling the EU to swivel calls a respected commentator delusional...Richard_Tyndall said:
I think we can ignore your advice thankyou. And in case you missed it we are dealing with the real world. It is those who think votes by the Lords will change the minds of the EU or that a plan already rejected by the EU has an credence who are delusional.Cyclefree said:Christ! This bloody Customs Union question is turning into the Schleswig-Holstein question of the 21st century. Few understand it and the rest are being driven mad by it.
I simply will not forgive those Tories who - because of this obsession - end up giving the country a Brexit more harmful than it need be and/or a Corbyn government.
Swallow your pride. Go back to the EU. Ask for a pause because, frankly, we have no fucking idea what we want or how to get there. Then go back and take as long as needed to do the thinking needed to work out some practical proposals which work in the real world, are acceptable to the EU and don't cause damage to those who live in this country. Get some help from those who know what they're talking about (the Swiss, for instance). Tell IDS that we don't want to hear from him again - ever - and to JRM that talking slowly in a deep voice and wearing a double breasted suit says nothing about your intelligence. And sack that trio of arses: Johnson, Fox and Davis. I wouldn't trust them with a glass of water, never mind something this important.
No official thought was given to the change, and in any future referendum we have to ensure that the government of the day supports the change it is proposing, otherwise it is too easy to move from a workable system to one which it not possible to enact
0 -
Yes, but the problem is that Brexit, for us and the EU, is about politics, and politics are not entirely rational. If it were, there wouldn't be any years of sniping, and leaking, and briefing, and last minute fudged deals in the first place. (Someone will no doubt say if all was rational we'd never have voted to leave in the first place, but let's focus on the aftermath for now)Cyclefree said:
Crashing out could cause them some damage as well. Whereas a pause wouldn't.kle4 said:
Sounds sensible, but I don't really see why the EU would consider giving us a pause - certainly they'd prefer some sort of deal to a crashing out with no deal, but they quite reasonably see we are in a mess, and seem perfectly prepared to risk us crashing out vs the gain of us just giving in entirely. Playing hardball has worked for them so far, why would they change tack now?Cyclefree said:Christ! This bloody Customs Union question is turning into the Schleswig-Holstein question of the 21st century. Few understand it and the rest are being driven mad by it.
I simply will not forgive those Tories who - because of this obsession - end up giving the country a Brexit more harmful than it need be and/or a Corbyn government.
Swallow your pride. Go back to the EU. Ask for a pause because, frankly, we have no fucking idea what we want or how to get there. Then go back and take as long as needed to do the thinking needed to work out some practical proposals which work in the real world, are acceptable to the EU and don't cause damage to those who live in this country. Get some help from those who know what they're talking about (the Swiss, for instance). Tell IDS that we don't want to hear from him again - ever - and to JRM that talking slowly in a deep voice and wearing a double breasted suit says nothing about your intelligence. And sack that trio of arses: Johnson, Fox and Davis. I wouldn't trust them with a glass of water, never mind something this important.
My fear is that the least likely to compromise are running the show on both sides of this, and that means the risk of some damage to them will be accepted due to the chance they will get everything they want out of it.
0 -
So I guess Boris's appearance on Fox & Friends didn't work then? 0
-
Probably cancelled out by Farage's appearance.GIN1138 said:So I guess Boris's appearance on Fox & Friends didn't work then?
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/9939035262617886720 -
A pause would mean it would probably never happen.Cyclefree said:
Crashing out could cause them some damage as well. Whereas a pause wouldn't.kle4 said:
Sounds sensible, but I don't really see why the EU would consider giving us a pause - certainly they'd prefer some sort of deal to a crashing out with no deal, but they quite reasonably see we are in a mess, and seem perfectly prepared to risk us crashing out vs the gain of us just giving in entirely. Playing hardball has worked for them so far, why would they change tack now?Cyclefree said:Christ! This bloody Customs Union question is turning into the Schleswig-Holstein question of the 21st century. Few understand it and the rest are being driven mad by it.
I simply will not forgive those Tories who - because of this obsession - end up giving the country a Brexit more harmful than it need be and/or a Corbyn government.
Swallow your pride. Go back to the EU. Ask for a pause because, frankly, we have no fucking idea what we want or how to get there. Then go back and take as long as needed to do the thinking needed to work out some practical proposals which work in the real world, are acceptable to the EU and don't cause damage to those who live in this country. Get some help from those who know what they're talking about (the Swiss, for instance). Tell IDS that we don't want to hear from him again - ever - and to JRM that talking slowly in a deep voice and wearing a double breasted suit says nothing about your intelligence. And sack that trio of arses: Johnson, Fox and Davis. I wouldn't trust them with a glass of water, never mind something this important.
A bit like when Lehmans was allowed to go bust. Perhaps the authorities thought that it would be contained and would be a good lesson to others. As we know, panic ensued and the authorities got rather more than they bargained for.
Britain crashing out next year - and God knows what could be happening in the world by then - could be one of those black swan events that causes all sorts of unexpected misery for more than just us. Why not press the Big Red Pause button to allow all parties - and particularly us - to do what ought to have been done before Article 50 was triggered?
But what do I know?
Trouble is: those in charge don't seem to know anything either.
I’ll settle for longer transition periods but I do want a formal end to our EU membership and the direction of travel to c.2030 agreed and set.
Of course, that needs to be something most of us can buy into.0 -
Both May and Corbyn are committed to implementing Brexit and respecting the result of the EU referendum, as are most Labour and Tory MPs, though the shape Brexit takes may still be up for grabs.GIN1138 said:
Hour by hour it becomes increasingly clear that the behaviour of the Commons and particularly the Lords makes it impossible for Brexit to actually happen.HYUFD said:
Brexiteer and Remainer MPs will also rant and throw their toys out of the pram but at the end of the day none have any enthusiasm for another general election anytime soon and Tory members most certainly do not and short of Ruth Davidson all the polling confirms that no alternative leader would do much better than May and many would do significantly worse than she is doing.
I can't see any way around the impasse except without a new Con leader and a new general election. This has got to be resolved one way or another.
On present polling though and with their boost from the local elections the LDs will fancy their chances of boosting their MPs and holding the balance of power and as the most anti-Brexit party making Brexit as soft as possible, ie staying in the single market and customs union, even if that leaves free movement essentially unchanged, so be careful what you wish for!
0 -
I’m not sure the EU have rejected it wholesale. I suspect it’s far more nuanced than that and revolves on technical details.DavidL said:
I would have thought that the most obvious problems is that the EU seem to have rejected it and it doesn't give us a very attractive hand in dealing with any third party country. We would be offering them lower tariffs but with a slightly complicated pay the EU rate and then seek a refund method. I have bought stuff with credit vouchers allowing you to claim money back before. The reason companies do this is because most people can't be arsed doing so and don't claim the money.Casino_Royale said:Can someone please explain to me why the Customs partnership is such a bad idea?
I see no objection in principle. The UK sets its tariff schedule. So does the EU. The UK applies by default the EU tariff to all goods landing in the UK (I suspect this is the problem) and if they are finally bound for the EU, that’s it. If they are bound for the UK market then the consumer / producer can claim the difference back from HMRC. I imagine an issue is if the UK wished to apply tariffs at a *higher* rate than the EU. Unlikely, but in this case I’d expect the UK to apply the higher UK rate with the producer/consumer then claiming back the difference from the EU rate if it’s bound for the EU. You would need some sensible rules of origin test. You’d also need the EU to reciprocate for goods heading to the UK.
That allows the maximum of border flexibility for things like cars and planes and also allows the UK to set its own trade policy and do its own trade deals accordingly. It’s different from a Customs Union, which essentially means outsourcing our tariffs and trade policy wholesale to the EU without any say.
Problem?
I am very open to a compromise, personally I would even be relaxed about still effectively being in the CU for the transitional period to give us more time to get our act together, but this looks like the sort of solution that an incompetent and unimaginative bureaucrat might come up with. Which makes it pretty remarkable that the EU doesn't like it really.
I am open minded to it. On the face of it it isn’t something I’d rule out straight away. Companies and individuals claim back tax credits, entitlements and refunds all the time.0 -
'European Member of Parliament' in front of the Houses of Parliament.williamglenn said:
Probably cancelled out by Farage's appearance.GIN1138 said:So I guess Boris's appearance on Fox & Friends didn't work then?
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/993903526261788672
Incorrect subliminal message.0 -
May was probably right that she needed a decent sized majority in order to get it through the Commons in some form or another. One is not on offer though, and I don't see how a new election would change that - after all, Labour cannot seem to make up their minds either, so it's not like a change in government would make things any easier.GIN1138 said:
Hour by hour it becomes increasingly clear that the behaviour of the Commons and particularly the Lords makes it impossible for Brexit to actually happen.HYUFD said:
Brexiteer and Remainer MPs will also rant and throw their toys out of the pram but at the end of the day none have any enthusiasm for another general election anytime soon and Tory members most certainly do not and short of Ruth Davidson all the polling confirms that no alternative leader would do much better than May and many would do significantly worse than she is doing.
I can't see any way around the impasse except without a new Con leader and a new general election. This has got to be resolved one way or another.
0 -
I agree with your sentiment but would more time even really help?Cyclefree said:Richard_Tyndall said:
I think we can ignore your advice thankyou. And in case you missed it we are dealing with the real world. It is those who think votes by the Lords will change the minds of the EU or that a plan already rejected by the EU has an credence who are delusional.Cyclefree said:Christ! This bloody Customs Union question is turning into the Schleswig-Holstein question of the 21st century. Few understand it and the rest are being driven mad by it.
I simply will not forgive those Tories who - because of this obsession - end up giving the country a Brexit more harmful than it need be and/or a Corbyn government.
Swallow your pride. Go back to the EU. Ask for a pause because, frankly, we have no fucking idea what we want or how to get there. Then go back and take as long as needed to do the thinking needed to work out some practical proposals which work in the real world, are acceptable to the EU and don't cause damage to those who live in this country. Get some help from those who know what they're talking about (the Swiss, for instance). Tell IDS that we don't want to hear from him again - ever - and to JRM that talking slowly in a deep voice and wearing a double breasted suit says nothing about your intelligence. And sack that trio of arses: Johnson, Fox and Davis. I wouldn't trust them with a glass of water, never mind something this important.
I hold no brief for any of these plans. I don't understand any of them. But nor does anyone else, apparently, least of all those proposing them. They're fighting like ferrets over them; there are 10 months to go and it's all got to be agreed by this autumn in practice. And, if not, what then?
A deep breath, a pause and some real hard thinking are no more stupid than anything else I've seen proposed.
As I see it, the options have been explored and exhausted. You either go for a) a hard border (politically unacceptable), b) no border and remaining in the customs union (possible but the Brexitters hate the idea) or c) you come up with some way of maintaining as soft a border as humanly possible while withdrawing from the CU.
On option c) you really only have one possibility. You create some kind of arrangement that moves the border away from the physical and more towards the regulatory after the border crossing. I can’t see any other options on the table other than the two proposed by the government, and the EU doesn’t like either. I’m not sure that time will help on that one. The government either has to gamble and dig its heels in and hope the EU comes round or go for a) or b). It seems they don’t want a) or b), so gamble it is. Having more time doesn’t really solve anything, the proposals on the table will still be the same a year, two years in the future.0 -
Ah yet more lies. You are really outdoing yourself this evening. What I wanted - and still want - was the Norway option. It certainly wasn't a fantasy nor tailor made. Now I have accepted it is not going to happen because of the way in which May has interpreted the vote but it was certainly perfectly feasible.TOPPING said:
Listen it’s not what you wanted, you wanted some Fantasy Island tailor made Brexit that only existed, if you’d thought a moment about it, in your head.Richard_Tyndall said:
Ah. Topping resorting to outright lies again. Things must be back to normal.TOPPING said:
Ah the voice of sweet reason.Cyclefree said:Christ! This bloody Customs Union question is turning into the Schleswig-Holstein question of the 21st century. Few understand it and the rest are being driven mad by it.
I simply will not forgive those Tories who - because of this obsession - end up giving the country a Brexit more harmful than it need be and/or a Corbyn government.
Swallow your pride. Go back to the EU. Ask for a pause because, frankly, we have no fucking idea what we want or how to get there. Then go back and take as long as needed to do the thinking needed to work out some practical proposals which work in the real world, are acceptable to the EU and don't cause damage to those who live in this country. Get some help from those who know what they're talking about (the Swiss, for instance). Tell IDS that we don't want to hear from him again - ever - and to JRM that talking slowly in a deep voice and wearing a double breasted suit says nothing about your intelligence. And sack that trio of arses: Johnson, Fox and Davis. I wouldn't trust them with a glass of water, never mind something this important.
Ain’t gonna happen though of course.
And according to Tyndall it’s all the EU’s fault.
As it stands, it’s a god awful mess and about to do your country huge damage. And you’d get more respect if you manned the fuck up and admitted it.
So, just like your claim I was blaming the EU for everything (In fact I have put much of the blame at the feet of May) this is yet another of your outright lies. It really is very childish of you.
0 -
OK. So it's apparently greater than the following:rural_voter said:The stakes are pretty high now. Dominic Grieve said on R4 that he thinks it's the UK's greatest peacetime crisis for 300 years. He's fairly well-qualified to speak on the matter; I'd only guessed that it might be the worst in my lifetime, i.e worse than Suez or Iraq.
1) The Jacobite Rising of 1744-46
2) The Reform Act of 1832
3) The Chartist petition of 1848
4) The Irish potato famine of 1845-46
5) The Home Rule Crisis 1911-14
6) The Irish Rising, war of independence and civil war of 1916 and 1918-22
7) The Shoreditch Mutiny of 1919
8) The General Strike of 1926
9) The Invergorden Mutiny
10) The Famine of 1948
11) The Ulster Crisis of 1969-74
I think we need to keep a little perspective here, Mr Grieve. Nobody has died as a result of Brexit and unless Juncker crowns his inglorious career of Facism and drunken incompetence by declaring war on us to take revenge for us making him look like the two-bit drug addled failure he is, nobody is going to. One of the more depressing things about Brexit is it leads people I hitherto respected to behave like headless chickens.
What is also faintly disturbing is that some Remainers don't seem to have thought through what they're saying. During he campaign it was, we're a sovereign country and can do as we like within the EU, which is really not terribly important. Now they're saying the sky will fall if we come out because the EU is so powerful, so vital to us and we're inextricably intertwined with it.0 -
A concise summary of the position, I think, it makes a lot of sense to me.numbertwelve said:
I agree with your sentiment but would more time even really help?Cyclefree said:Richard_Tyndall said:
I think we can e delusional.Cyclefree said:Christ! This bloody Customs Union question is turning into the Schleswig-Holstein question of the 21st century. Few understand it and the rest are being driven mad by it.
I simply will not forgive those Tories who - because of this obsession - end up giving the country a Brexit more harmful than it need be and/or a Corbyn government.
Swallow your pride. Go back to the EU. Ask for a pause because, frankly, we have no fucking idea what we want or how to get there. Then go back and take as long as needed to do the thinking needed to work out some practical proposals which work in the real world, are acceptable to the EU and don't cause damage to those who live in this country. Get some help from those who know what they're talking about (the Swiss, for instance). Tell IDS that we don't want to hear from him again - ever - and to JRM that talking slowly in a deep voice and wearing a double breasted suit says nothing about your intelligence. And sack that trio of arses: Johnson, Fox and Davis. I wouldn't trust them with a glass of water, never mind something this important.
I hold no brief for any of these plans. I don't understand any of them. But nor does anyone else, apparently, least of all those proposing them. They're fighting like ferrets over them; there are 10 months to go and it's all got to be agreed by this autumn in practice. And, if not, what then?
A deep breath, a pause and some real hard thinking are no more stupid than anything else I've seen proposed.
As I see it, the options have been explored and exhausted. You either go for a) a hard border (politically unacceptable), b) no border and remaining in the customs union (possible but the Brexitters hate the idea) or c) you come up with some way of maintaining as soft a border as humanly possible while withdrawing from the CU.
On option c) you really only have one possibility. You create some kind of arrangement that moves the border away from the physical and more towards the regulatory after the border crossing. I can’t see any other options on the table other than the two proposed by the government, and the EU doesn’t like either. I’m not sure that time will help on that one. The government either has to gamble and dig its heels in and hope the EU comes round or go for a) or b). It seems they don’t want a) or b), so gamble it is. Having more time doesn’t really solve anything, the proposals on the table will still be the same a year, two years in the future.0 -
We're still on Brexit again, is no one tempted by the huge excitement of the by-election?0
-
Yes, it could become a proxy referendum on Brexit.kle4 said:We're still on Brexit again, is no one tempted by the huge excitement of the by-election?
0 -
We had a famine in 1948?ydoethur said:
OK. So it's apparently greater than the following:rural_voter said:The stakes are pretty high now. Dominic Grieve said on R4 that he thinks it's the UK's greatest peacetime crisis for 300 years. He's fairly well-qualified to speak on the matter; I'd only guessed that it might be the worst in my lifetime, i.e worse than Suez or Iraq.
1) The Jacobite Rising of 1744-46
2) The Reform Act of 1832
3) The Chartist petition of 1848
4) The Irish potato famine of 1845-46
5) The Home Rule Crisis 1911-14
6) The Irish Rising, war of independence and civil war of 1916 and 1918-22
7) The Shoreditch Mutiny of 1919
8) The General Strike of 1926
9) The Invergorden Mutiny
10) The Famine of 1948
11) The Ulster Crisis of 1969-74
I think we need to keep a little perspective here, Mr Grieve. Nobody has died as a result of Brexit and unless Juncker crowns his inglorious career of Facism and drunken incompetence by declaring war on us to take revenge for us making him look like the two-bit drug addled failure he is, nobody is going to. One of the more depressing things about Brexit is it leads people I hitherto respected to behave like headless chickens.
What is also faintly disturbing is that some Remainers don't seem to have thought through what they're saying. During he campaign it was, we're a sovereign country and can do as we like within the EU, which is really not terribly important. Now they're saying the sky will fall if we come out because the EU is so powerful, so vital to us and we're inextricably intertwined with it.0 -
And yet again your comprehension fails you.williamglenn said:
The person who thought Brexit was simply a matter of squatting in the EEA treaty and telling the EU to swivel calls a respected commentator delusional...Richard_Tyndall said:
I think we can ignore your advice thankyou. And in case you missed it we are dealing with the real world. It is those who think votes by the Lords will change the minds of the EU or that a plan already rejected by the EU has an credence who are delusional.Cyclefree said:Christ! This bloody Customs Union question is turning into the Schleswig-Holstein question of the 21st century. Few understand it and the rest are being driven mad by it.
I simply will not forgive those Tories who - because of this obsession - end up giving the country a Brexit more harmful than it need be and/or a Corbyn government.
Swallow your pride. Go back to the EU. Ask for a pause because, frankly, we have no fucking idea what we want or how to get there. Then go back and take as long as needed to do the thinking needed to work out some practical proposals which work in the real world, are acceptable to the EU and don't cause damage to those who live in this country. Get some help from those who know what they're talking about (the Swiss, for instance). Tell IDS that we don't want to hear from him again - ever - and to JRM that talking slowly in a deep voice and wearing a double breasted suit says nothing about your intelligence. And sack that trio of arses: Johnson, Fox and Davis. I wouldn't trust them with a glass of water, never mind something this important.
"It is those who think votes by the Lords will change the minds of the EU or that a plan already rejected by the EU has an credence who are delusional."
Since Cyclefree suggested neither of those things and has said she is not in a position to judge then clearly I was not referring to her. You on the other hand repeatedly show yourself to be delusional with your claims we will all one day embrace the EU.0 -
If we have a FTA with the EU with sensible rules of origin the Customs Union issue really becomes a complete irrelevance. A Customs Union is really an adjunct to the SM that we are leaving designed to give it internal and external coherence, something that is not our problem after Brexit. Of course if we don't get a FTA then matters are more complicated but I still don't see why we need a Customs Union, in fact we would not have one in those circumstances.
The Customs Partnership seems a very complicated way of having rules of origin tests for third party goods coming into either the UK or the EU and then being transferred on either as the original goods or as part of some manufactured product. It really should not require that level of complexity.
The UK needs to push for a FTA. This is largely a distraction by those who wish us to remain more closely aligned with the Single Market. Boris is not often right but he is about this.0 -
What a dolt. With the Brexit-o-loons around, achieving the Norway option was never going to be possible.Richard_Tyndall said:
Ah yet more lies. You are really outdoing yourself this evening. What I wanted - and still want - was the Norway option. It certainly wasn't a fantasy nor tailor made. Now I have accepted it is not going to happen because of the way in which May has interpreted the vote but it was certainly perfectly feasible.TOPPING said:
Listen it’s not what you wanted, you wanted some Fantasy Island tailor made Brexit that only existed, if you’d thought a moment about it, in your head.Richard_Tyndall said:
Ah. Topping resorting to outright lies again. Things must be back to normal.TOPPING said:
Ah the voice of sweet reason.Cyclefree said:Christ! This bloody Customs Union question is turning into the Schleswig-Holstein question of the 21st century. Few understand it and the rest are being driven mad by it.
I simply will not forgive those Tories who - because of this obsession - end up giving the country a Brexit more harmful than it need be and/or a Corbyn government.
Swallow your pride. Go back to the EU. Ask for a pause because, frankly, we have no fucking idea what we want or how to get there. Then go back and take as long as needed to do the thinking needed to work out some practical proposals which work in the real world, are acceptable to the EU and don't cause damage to those who live in this country. Get some help from those who know what they're talking about (the Swiss, for instance). Tell IDS that we don't want to hear from him again - ever - and to JRM that talking slowly in a deep voice and wearing a double breasted suit says nothing about your intelligence. And sack that trio of arses: Johnson, Fox and Davis. I wouldn't trust them with a glass of water, never mind something this important.
Ain’t gonna happen though of course.
And according to Tyndall it’s all the EU’s fault.
As it stands, it’s a god awful mess and about to do your country huge damage. And you’d get more respect if you manned the fuck up and admitted it.
So, just like your claim I was blaming the EU for everything (In fact I have put much of the blame at the feet of May) this is yet another of your outright lies. It really is very childish of you.
Not by May, not by Cameron, not by anyone.
That this was transparently obvious to everyone apart from you is I suppose not surprising. But even so, such political naivety on your part on a political website is a thing to behold.0 -
Indeedwilliamglenn said:
Yes, it could become a proxy referendum on Brexit.kle4 said:We're still on Brexit again, is no one tempted by the huge excitement of the by-election?
- do the public want:
Tory - no bloody clue what they want, but trending harder
Labour - no bloody clue what they want, but trending softer, in parts at least. for now
LD - f*ck it, just remain already
Green - pay attention to us, we're still relevant
UKIP - ditto0 -
12) Failure of Burnley FC to win Champions League 2018.ydoethur said:
OK. So it's apparently greater than the following:rural_voter said:The stakes are pretty high now. Dominic Grieve said on R4 that he thinks it's the UK's greatest peacetime crisis for 300 years. He's fairly well-qualified to speak on the matter; I'd only guessed that it might be the worst in my lifetime, i.e worse than Suez or Iraq.
1) The Jacobite Rising of 1744-46
2) The Reform Act of 1832
3) The Chartist petition of 1848
4) The Irish potato famine of 1845-46
5) The Home Rule Crisis 1911-14
6) The Irish Rising, war of independence and civil war of 1916 and 1918-22
7) The Shoreditch Mutiny of 1919
8) The General Strike of 1926
9) The Invergorden Mutiny
10) The Famine of 1948
11) The Ulster Crisis of 1969-74
I think we need to keep a little perspective here, Mr Grieve. Nobody has died as a result of Brexit and unless Juncker crowns his inglorious career of Facism and drunken incompetence by declaring war on us to take revenge for us making him look like the two-bit drug addled failure he is, nobody is going to. One of the more depressing things about Brexit is it leads people I hitherto respected to behave like headless chickens.
What is also faintly disturbing is that some Remainers don't seem to have thought through what they're saying. During he campaign it was, we're a sovereign country and can do as we like within the EU, which is really not terribly important. Now they're saying the sky will fall if we come out because the EU is so powerful, so vital to us and we're inextricably intertwined with it.0 -
Ooh, I go out for the afternoon and come back to discover we have a by-election. Not entirely unexpected though, there were reports that she was going to resign before the long weekend. Shame it’s not a more marginal seat though.
Betfair market is up, but not really going yet. I’ve got a couple of quid laying Lab at 1.08, on the basis that maybe we end up with two Labour candidates or some other internal party dispute.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28154066/market?marketId=1.1436668250 -
Europe did - including actual deaths. Most of them were in the Soviet Union (their third Famine in thirty years of Communism) but Germany was hit hard as well.kle4 said:
We had a famine in 1948?ydoethur said:
OK. So it's apparently greater than the following:rural_voter said:The stakes are pretty high now. Dominic Grieve said on R4 that he thinks it's the UK's greatest peacetime crisis for 300 years. He's fairly well-qualified to speak on the matter; I'd only guessed that it might be the worst in my lifetime, i.e worse than Suez or Iraq.
1) The Jacobite Rising of 1744-46
2) The Reform Act of 1832
3) The Chartist petition of 1848
4) The Irish potato famine of 1845-46
5) The Home Rule Crisis 1911-14
6) The Irish Rising, war of independence and civil war of 1916 and 1918-22
7) The Shoreditch Mutiny of 1919
8) The General Strike of 1926
9) The Invergorden Mutiny
10) The Famine of 1948
11) The Ulster Crisis of 1969-74
I think we need to keep a little perspective here, Mr Grieve. Nobody has died as a result of Brexit and unless Juncker crowns his inglorious career of Facism and drunken incompetence by declaring war on us to take revenge for us making him look like the two-bit drug addled failure he is, nobody is going to. One of the more depressing things about Brexit is it leads people I hitherto respected to behave like headless chickens.
What is also faintly disturbing is that some Remainers don't seem to have thought through what they're saying. During he campaign it was, we're a sovereign country and can do as we like within the EU, which is really not terribly important. Now they're saying the sky will fall if we come out because the EU is so powerful, so vital to us and we're inextricably intertwined with it.
We avoided out and out starvation by toughening rationing even further. We had bread rationing brought in for the first time, for instance. The effect was a well-disguised and seldom mentioned health problem in children who were going through puberty at the time, over half of whom developed various forms of TB.0 -
When we were told twenty years ago that 'things would only get better' did anyone expect that we would now have shanty towns and slavery in this country:
' Exploitation and abuse of workers is widespread across the UK economy, according to a new report, which finds that 17 sectors are high-risk for mistreatment ranging from wages theft to slavery.
Construction, recycling, nail bars and car washes were among the top sectors where the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA) said there was slavery. Agriculture, food packing, fishing, shellfish gathering, warehouse and distribution, garment manufacturing, taxi driving , retail, domestic work, and social care were also highlighted in the report.
Most intelligence about victims of labour exploitation in the last 12 months has related to Romanian men in their 20s and 30s, while Romanian and British nationals are the most prevalent offender nationalities across all forms of modern slavery. Albanian organised crime is a significant factor in abuse in car washes.
In the agriculture sector, the GLAA found evidence of 15-hour days, sometimes seven days a week, with double shifts without proper breaks, illegally low pay, serious safety incidents going unreported, and very poor living conditions. Romanian and Bulgarian workers were currently most at risk in this sector. Criminal groups were reported to be trafficking foreign workers into the food processing sector, with licensed companies warning they were being undercut by unlicensed ones.
One-third of UK garment manufacturing is based in Leicester but up to 75% of workers in the city’s textile factories are said to be paid less than the legal minimum wage. The report says in some places more than half the workforce is made up of undocumented workers mainly doing night shifts. Victims of exploitation in this sector are predominantly Pakistani and Romanian. '
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/08/slaves-working-in-uk-construction-and-car-washes-report-finds0 -
Mrs May shouldn't have asked the question if she didn't know what the answer would be.Cyclefree said:Richard_Tyndall said:
I think we can ignore your advice thankyou. And in case you missed it we are dealing with the real world. It is those who think votes by the Lords will change the minds of the EU or that a plan already rejected by the EU has an credence who are delusional.Cyclefree said:Christ! This bloody Customs Union question is turning into the Schleswig-Holstein question of the 21st century. Few understand it and the rest are being driven mad by it.
I simply will not forgive those Tories who - because of this obsession - end up giving the country a Brexit more harmful than it need be and/or a Corbyn government.
Swallow your pride. Go back to the EU. Ask for a pause because, frankly, we have no fucking idea what we want or how to get there. Then go back and take as long as needed to do the thinking needed to work out some practical proposals which work in the real world, are acceptable to the EU and don't cause damage to those who live in this country. Get some help from those who know what they're talking about (the Swiss, for instance). Tell IDS that we don't want to hear from him again - ever - and to JRM that talking slowly in a deep voice and wearing a double breasted suit says nothing about your intelligence. And sack that trio of arses: Johnson, Fox and Davis. I wouldn't trust them with a glass of water, never mind something this important.
I hold no brief for any of these plans. I don't understand any of them. But nor does anyone else, apparently, least of all those proposing them. They're fighting like ferrets over them; there are 10 months to go and it's all got to be agreed by this autumn in practice. And, if not, what then?
A deep breath, a pause and some real hard thinking are no more stupid than anything else I've seen proposed.
There is a very simple compromise now. Give in and drop the barmy Customs partnership idea that prevents divergence. Drive forward with that.
Negotiation is not the purview of the commons. Or the Lords. It is an executive function.0 -
Yes, Richard you certainly did support the Norway option. You are also pro-immigration [ though I am not sure if that was limited to skilled workers only. ] Very unusual for a Leaver though it does not have to be.Richard_Tyndall said:
Ah yet more lies. You are really outdoing yourself this evening. What I wanted - and still want - was the Norway option. It certainly wasn't a fantasy nor tailor made. Now I have accepted it is not going to happen because of the way in which May has interpreted the vote but it was certainly perfectly feasible.TOPPING said:
Listen it’s not what you wanted, you wanted some Fantasy Island tailor made Brexit that only existed, if you’d thought a moment about it, in your head.Richard_Tyndall said:
Ah. Topping resorting to outright lies again. Things must be back to normal.TOPPING said:
Ah the voice of sweet reason.Cyclefree said:Christ! This bloody Customs Union question is turning into the Schleswig-Holstein question of the 21st century. Few understand it and the rest are being driven mad by it.
I simply will not forgive those Tories who - because of this obsession - end up giving the country a Brexit more harmful than it need be and/or a Corbyn government.
Swallow your pride. Go back to the EU. Ask for a pause because, frankly, we have no fucking idea what we want or how to get there. Then go back and take as long as needed to do the thinking needed to work out some practical proposals which work in the real world, are acceptable to the EU and don't cause damage to those who live in this country. Get some help from those who know what they're talking about (the Swiss, for instance). Tell IDS that we don't want to hear from him again - ever - and to JRM that talking slowly in a deep voice and wearing a double breasted suit says nothing about your intelligence. And sack that trio of arses: Johnson, Fox and Davis. I wouldn't trust them with a glass of water, never mind something this important.
Ain’t gonna happen though of course.
And according to Tyndall it’s all the EU’s fault.
As it stands, it’s a god awful mess and about to do your country huge damage. And you’d get more respect if you manned the fuck up and admitted it.
So, just like your claim I was blaming the EU for everything (In fact I have put much of the blame at the feet of May) this is yet another of your outright lies. It really is very childish of you.
Funnily enough, Hannan and Farage were also in favour of the EEA then - surprisingly not now.0 -
13) The decision of the ECB to sell all cricket rights to Sky?JackW said:
12) Failure of Burnley FC to win Champions League 2018.ydoethur said:
OK. So it's apparently greater than the following:rural_voter said:The stakes are pretty high now. Dominic Grieve said on R4 that he thinks it's the UK's greatest peacetime crisis for 300 years. He's fairly well-qualified to speak on the matter; I'd only guessed that it might be the worst in my lifetime, i.e worse than Suez or Iraq.
1) The Jacobite Rising of 1744-46
2) The Reform Act of 1832
3) The Chartist petition of 1848
4) The Irish potato famine of 1845-46
5) The Home Rule Crisis 1911-14
6) The Irish Rising, war of independence and civil war of 1916 and 1918-22
7) The Shoreditch Mutiny of 1919
8) The General Strike of 1926
9) The Invergorden Mutiny
10) The Famine of 1948
11) The Ulster Crisis of 1969-74
I think we need to keep a little perspective here, Mr Grieve. Nobody has died as a result of Brexit and unless Juncker crowns his inglorious career of Facism and drunken incompetence by declaring war on us to take revenge for us making him look like the two-bit drug addled failure he is, nobody is going to. One of the more depressing things about Brexit is it leads people I hitherto respected to behave like headless chickens.
What is also faintly disturbing is that some Remainers don't seem to have thought through what they're saying. During he campaign it was, we're a sovereign country and can do as we like within the EU, which is really not terribly important. Now they're saying the sky will fall if we come out because the EU is so powerful, so vital to us and we're inextricably intertwined with it.0 -
Isn't that the Nick Palmer / Robert Smithson prediction ?Alanbrooke said:
the cynic in me says they agreed all the contentious stuff 2 years ago and are now playing PS4 and drinking beer. The media hype is simply to make people think theyre doing somethingAlastairMeeks said:
The deal looks pretty obvious to me. What I don't understand is why anyone is hyping this particular stage up. Cui bono from the suggestion of internecine warfare?Alanbrooke said:
preciselyTOPPING said:
Do not underestimate back channels there is likely to be some kind of Customs fudge which everyone will wail about and which will prove remarkably similar to what we have today.Nemtynakht said:
I think May is in serious trouble. Why is she proposing something that the EU think is unworkable? If the Tories got rid of her she would be gone almost immediately and a contest to replace her would run into the summer. The Tories would not call an election again without a manifesto that had been thought about, and the new leader would have cover as calling an election would provide more instability before Brexit?kle4 said:
A collapse of May looks much more likely than a month ago, but what Tory replacement would be stupid enough to ask for another GE? Sure, they would say they won't run as bad a campaign as last time, but they have no manifesto ready, and it has no guarantee or even strong likelihood that they will do better than last time .GIN1138 said:
As I've been saying Theresa May's government is about to collapse.rottenborough said:Stand by your bets:
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/993884338142969858
A new Con leader and probably a general election in the next 2-3 months IMO.
There is a lot of brinkmanship going on - given the statements leaked or outright stated, I don't see how May gets out of this one. She can get some options through parliament, but not without pissing off too many of her own party.
which is why most of the stuff in the uk media is just nonsense0 -
A sovereigh Parliament can reject that.Mortimer said:
Mrs May shouldn't have asked the question if she didn't know what the answer would be.Cyclefree said:Richard_Tyndall said:
I think we can ignore your advice thankyou. And in case you missed it we are dealing with the real world. It is those who think votes by the Lords will change the minds of the EU or that a plan already rejected by the EU has an credence who are delusional.Cyclefree said:Christ! This bloody Customs Union question is turning into the Schleswig-Holstein question of the 21st century. Few understand it and the rest are being driven mad by it.
I simply will not forgive those Tories who - because of this obsession - end up giving the country a Brexit more harmful than it need be and/or a Corbyn government.
Swallow your pride. Go back to the EU. Ask for a pause because, frankly, we have no fucking idea what we want or how to get there. Then go back and take as long as needed to do the thinking needed to work out some practical proposals which work in the real world, are acceptable to the EU and don't cause damage to those who live in this country. Get some help from those who know what they're talking about (the Swiss, for instance). Tell IDS that we don't want to hear from him again - ever - and to JRM that talking slowly in a deep voice and wearing a double breasted suit says nothing about your intelligence. And sack that trio of arses: Johnson, Fox and Davis. I wouldn't trust them with a glass of water, never mind something this important.
I hold no brief for any of these plans. I don't understand any of them. But nor does anyone else, apparently, least of all those proposing them. They're fighting like ferrets over them; there are 10 months to go and it's all got to be agreed by this autumn in practice. And, if not, what then?
A deep breath, a pause and some real hard thinking are no more stupid than anything else I've seen proposed.
There is a very simple compromise now. Give in and drop the barmy Customs partnership idea that prevents divergence. Drive forward with that.
Negotiation is not the purview of the commons. Or the Lords. It is an executive function.0 -
No. Mortimer is right and you are wrong. Parliament is not Sovereign. The Sovereign is (the clue is in the name). Certain powers are delegated to the Executive, some to Parliament. The Executive also has to have the approval of Parliament to operate. What you mean I think is that Parliaments are not bound by laws as they can make new ones.surby said:
A sovereigh Parliament can reject that.Mortimer said:Mrs May shouldn't have asked the question if she didn't know what the answer would be.
There is a very simple compromise now. Give in and drop the barmy Customs partnership idea that prevents divergence. Drive forward with that.
Negotiation is not the purview of the commons. Or the Lords. It is an executive function.
However, in theory at least the only way for Parliament to influence such a negotiation is to sack the government and install a new one, which they can do at literally any moment should they choose. Of course we all know it's not quite that simple, but that's the legal position.0 -
Of course Parliament can reject it. But in all reality, it won't. It would provoke a crash out Brexit.surby said:
A sovereigh Parliament can reject that.Mortimer said:
Mrs May shouldn't have asked the question if she didn't know what the answer would be.Cyclefree said:Richard_Tyndall said:
I think we can ignore your advice thankyou. And in case you missed it we are dealing with the real world. It is those who think votes by the Lords will change the minds of the EU or that a plan already rejected by the EU has an credence who are delusional.Cyclefree said:Christ! This bloody Customs Union question is turning into the Schleswig-Holstein question of the 21st century. Few understand it and the rest are being driven mad by it.
I simply will not forgive those Tories who - because of this obsession - end up giving the country a Brexit more harmful than it need be and/or a Corbyn government.
Swallow your pride. Go back to the EU. Ask for a pause because, frankly, we have no fucking idea what we want or how to get there. Then go back and take as long as needed to do the thinking needed to work out some practical proposals which work in the real world, are acceptable to the EU and don't cause damage to those who live in this country. Get some help from those who know what they're talking about (the Swiss, for instance). Tell IDS that we don't want to hear from him again - ever - and to JRM that talking slowly in a deep voice and wearing a double breasted suit says nothing about your intelligence. And sack that trio of arses: Johnson, Fox and Davis. I wouldn't trust them with a glass of water, never mind something this important.
I hold no brief for any of these plans. I don't understand any of them. But nor does anyone else, apparently, least of all those proposing them. They're fighting like ferrets over them; there are 10 months to go and it's all got to be agreed by this autumn in practice. And, if not, what then?
A deep breath, a pause and some real hard thinking are no more stupid than anything else I've seen proposed.
There is a very simple compromise now. Give in and drop the barmy Customs partnership idea that prevents divergence. Drive forward with that.
Negotiation is not the purview of the commons. Or the Lords. It is an executive function.
Hence the executive has far more latitude than it thinks with regard to Parliament.
It has far, however, in my opinion, less latitude than it thinks with the Brexit sub-ctte.
0 -
I thought we wouldn't have to pay anything and they were gagging to offer us FTA. Now it has come down to we have "push" for a FTA.DavidL said:If we have a FTA with the EU with sensible rules of origin the Customs Union issue really becomes a complete irrelevance. A Customs Union is really an adjunct to the SM that we are leaving designed to give it internal and external coherence, something that is not our problem after Brexit. Of course if we don't get a FTA then matters are more complicated but I still don't see why we need a Customs Union, in fact we would not have one in those circumstances.
The Customs Partnership seems a very complicated way of having rules of origin tests for third party goods coming into either the UK or the EU and then being transferred on either as the original goods or as part of some manufactured product. It really should not require that level of complexity.
The UK needs to push for a FTA. This is largely a distraction by those who wish us to remain more closely aligned with the Single Market. Boris is not often right but he is about this.
Let's think it through for a moment. What is a Single Market ? Effectively, a FTA for each member country with the other 27, right ?
So why should they agree to UK having the right of a FTA with none of responsibilities ?
It's like you stop being a member of a club, but still have the right to use the gym and shower afterwards.0 -
O/T Draw at Soton vs Swansea is what WBA fans dream of this evening - fingers crossed that the Greatest Escape can still happen!0
-
Something that literally exists - some tennis clubs for example have a gym/pool/social membership for those who don't want to play tennis....surby said:
I thought we wouldn't have to pay anything and they were gagging to offer us FTA. Now it has come down to we have "push" for a FTA.DavidL said:If we have a FTA with the EU with sensible rules of origin the Customs Union issue really becomes a complete irrelevance. A Customs Union is really an adjunct to the SM that we are leaving designed to give it internal and external coherence, something that is not our problem after Brexit. Of course if we don't get a FTA then matters are more complicated but I still don't see why we need a Customs Union, in fact we would not have one in those circumstances.
The Customs Partnership seems a very complicated way of having rules of origin tests for third party goods coming into either the UK or the EU and then being transferred on either as the original goods or as part of some manufactured product. It really should not require that level of complexity.
The UK needs to push for a FTA. This is largely a distraction by those who wish us to remain more closely aligned with the Single Market. Boris is not often right but he is about this.
Let's think it through for a moment. What is a Single Market ? Effectively, a FTA for each member country with the other 27, right ?
So why should they agree to UK having the right of a FTA with none of responsibilities ?
It's like you stop being a member of a club, but still have the right to use the gym and shower afterwards.0 -
Moore has been an absolute legend. By rights the board should be begging him to take the job on full time....surby said:
How much did Pardew pocket for how many wins ? How many wins has Darren Moore had ?Mortimer said:O/T Draw at Soton vs Swansea is what WBA fans dream of this evening - fingers crossed that the Greatest Escape can still happen!
0 -
I'd have thought he would want to wait - he has probably done enough to deserve the job come what may, but if results go their way and they do pull of the greatest escape, I'd assume he would be in a position to negotiate a far better deal for himself.Mortimer said:
Moore has been an absolute legend. By rights the board should be begging him to take the job on full time....surby said:
How much did Pardew pocket for how many wins ? How many wins has Darren Moore had ?Mortimer said:O/T Draw at Soton vs Swansea is what WBA fans dream of this evening - fingers crossed that the Greatest Escape can still happen!
0 -
To quote Meryl Streep playing Baroness Thatcher in the Iron Lady - 'We will either stand on principle or we will not stand at all'.surby said:
A sovereigh Parliament can reject that.Mortimer said:
Mrs May shouldn't have asked the question if she didn't know what the answer would be.Cyclefree said:Richard_Tyndall said:
I think we can ignore your advice thankyou. And in case you missed it we are dealing with the real world. It is those who think votes by the Lords will change the minds of the EU or that a plan already rejected by the EU has an credence who are delusional.Cyclefree said:Christ! This bloody Customs Union question is turning into the Schleswig-Holstein question of the 21st century. Few understand it and the rest are being driven mad by it.
I simply will not forgive those Tories who - because of this obsession - end up giving the country a Brexit more harmful than it need be and/or a Corbyn government.
Swallow your pride. Go back to the EU. Ask for a pause because, frankly, we have no fucking idea what we want or how to get there. Then go back and take as long as needed to do the thinking needed to work out some practical proposals which work in the real world, are acceptable to the EU and don't cause damage to those who live in this country. Get some help from those who know what they're talking about (the Swiss, for instance). Tell IDS that we don't want to hear from him again - ever - and to JRM that talking slowly in a deep voice and wearing a double breasted suit says nothing about your intelligence. And sack that trio of arses: Johnson, Fox and Davis. I wouldn't trust them with a glass of water, never mind something this important.
I hold no brief for any of these plans. I don't understand any of them. But nor does anyone else, apparently, least of all those proposing them. They're fighting like ferrets over them; there are 10 months to go and it's all got to be agreed by this autumn in practice. And, if not, what then?
A deep breath, a pause and some real hard thinking are no more stupid than anything else I've seen proposed.
There is a very simple compromise now. Give in and drop the barmy Customs partnership idea that prevents divergence. Drive forward with that.
Negotiation is not the purview of the commons. Or the Lords. It is an executive function.
Mrs May - Pick a customs union option, fight for it and if necessary go down fighting selling it to parliament. Cos all this prevaricating and messing about is doing no one anyone any favours. Better to go out with a bang than a whimper!0 -
All of whom are in the pay of the EU.williamglenn said:
Edit: except Adonis. Not that he needs paying to be a rabid europhile.0 -
The EUs single market isn’t a FTA though, it’s more of an FTA++ (to coin a phrase). It comes with a number of rights and responsibilities beyond what a normal FTA imposes. The full EU offering is a FTA on all goods and services together with unity on customs regulation and policy and freedoms of movement, goods and services. It is an incredibly advanced project.surby said:
I thought we wouldn't have to pay anything and they were gagging to offer us FTA. Now it has come down to we have "push" for a FTA.DavidL said:If we have a FTA with the EU with sensible rules of origin the Customs Union issue really becomes a complete irrelevance. A Customs Union is really an adjunct to the SM that we are leaving designed to give it internal and external coherence, something that is not our problem after Brexit. Of course if we don't get a FTA then matters are more complicated but I still don't see why we need a Customs Union, in fact we would not have one in those circumstances.
The Customs Partnership seems a very complicated way of having rules of origin tests for third party goods coming into either the UK or the EU and then being transferred on either as the original goods or as part of some manufactured product. It really should not require that level of complexity.
The UK needs to push for a FTA. This is largely a distraction by those who wish us to remain more closely aligned with the Single Market. Boris is not often right but he is about this.
Let's think it through for a moment. What is a Single Market ? Effectively, a FTA for each member country with the other 27, right ?
So why should they agree to UK having the right of a FTA with none of responsibilities ?
It's like you stop being a member of a club, but still have the right to use the gym and shower afterwards.0 -
Really? Gosh. What a surprise that Pro-European Lords, several of whom have actually worked for the EU, want to stay in the single market.williamglenn said:0 -
-
Oh for sure.kle4 said:
I'd have thought he would want to wait - he has probably done enough to deserve the job come what may, but if results go their way and they do pull of the greatest escape, I'd assume he would be in a position to negotiate a far better deal for himself.Mortimer said:
Moore has been an absolute legend. By rights the board should be begging him to take the job on full time....surby said:
How much did Pardew pocket for how many wins ? How many wins has Darren Moore had ?Mortimer said:O/T Draw at Soton vs Swansea is what WBA fans dream of this evening - fingers crossed that the Greatest Escape can still happen!
But to be honest, if they go down it will likely be because of the other 3 results which need to go our way; he might get a better offer from elsewhere given his run!0 -
I see you edited your comment before I could point out its flaw!Sandpit said:
Also when was Hezza paid by the EU?
I think you'll also find the others were formerly paid by the EU and are now in receipt of pensions underwritten by the British government.0 -
A free trade agreement is not the same as a single market or a customs union.surby said:
I thought we wouldn't have to pay anything and they were gagging to offer us FTA. Now it has come down to we have "push" for a FTA.DavidL said:If we have a FTA with the EU with sensible rules of origin the Customs Union issue really becomes a complete irrelevance. A Customs Union is really an adjunct to the SM that we are leaving designed to give it internal and external coherence, something that is not our problem after Brexit. Of course if we don't get a FTA then matters are more complicated but I still don't see why we need a Customs Union, in fact we would not have one in those circumstances.
The Customs Partnership seems a very complicated way of having rules of origin tests for third party goods coming into either the UK or the EU and then being transferred on either as the original goods or as part of some manufactured product. It really should not require that level of complexity.
The UK needs to push for a FTA. This is largely a distraction by those who wish us to remain more closely aligned with the Single Market. Boris is not often right but he is about this.
Let's think it through for a moment. What is a Single Market ? Effectively, a FTA for each member country with the other 27, right ?
So why should they agree to UK having the right of a FTA with none of responsibilities ?
It's like you stop being a member of a club, but still have the right to use the gym and shower afterwards.
Canada, Mexico, South Africa and Israel amongst many have free trade agreements with the EU. They aren't in the single market or customs union.0 -
How many people does have Corbyn have left who are able and willing to serve?TheScreamingEagles said:
Or at least, willing to serve (given he's kept his ex-girlfriend on).0
