It sounds as if the deal will be something like this:
End to free movement between the U.K. and EU Exit from the CAP and CFP End of large financial contributions No hard border in Ireland
In exchange, we undertake to Stay in the Customs Union indefinitely Require NI to follow Single Market regulations
I think this deal would be acceptable to 80% or more Leave voters. The problem is Conservative MPs and the DUP.
It is not acceptable. Firstly, it is not possible to have an independent trade policy if you are in the Customs Union. Secondly, you end up with an absurd situation where goods made in GB cannot be send to part of the country (eg NI) if they don't meet EU standards. In reality of course we will be stuck with EU standards as well. Thirdly, it binds future Parliaments (the commitment to stay in the CU unless the EU approve our withdrawal) in a manner which is constitutionally unprecedented.
The DUP will veto this and the Cabinet Leavers will resign (trade policy was a red line). It will satisfy even less Leave voters than Chequers because it is obviously a worse deal than Chequers. It makes you wonder if this woman is even sane. It breaks all her red lines but here she goes making more concessions in return for nothing.
and as for the substance...It just goes to show what a red herring this whole "independent trade policy" actually is. In reality it matters not a jot as we were and would be likely always to get a better deal as part of a 0.5bn strong trade bloc than as plucky old Brits out on their own with a can of pink paint and a map of the world.
No one, not even our sainted Morris Dancer has the slightest clue what difference it would make nor would that difference be observable to the naked eye (save it would be inferior to the status quo ante).
The DUP can suck it up but if they can't even align their policy with GB on womens' rights, why on earth should they be able to on trade policy and widget regulations?
She may want to but it is not in her hands. I believe late spring 2019 will see her challenged and to be fair she has had the worst job any PM has faced since the war and it is taking a toll.
To be fair, she's probably the best the Tories have. And yes anyone with the poisoned Brexit chalice would struggle...
Mr. Topping, if a trade deal benefits Spain, Slovenia, Greece and Poland but harms the UK, it is in the EU's interest to go ahead without* because the balance is positive for the EU. Outside the EU, we can attend to our own interest.
That does mean punching with less weight. It also means choosing our own deals and those being led by the British interest.
Mr. Eagles, leaving aside other considerations, it'd certainly be 'interesting' if the Republic of Ireland had an effective referendum veto over the terms of an agreement.
Edited extra bit: with it*. The joys of homophonic typos.
LOL. The man is probably trying to arrange sleazy deals on the side to enrich himself as well as talking to the many war criminals and undesirables around the World.
Liam Fox = the most odious person in British politics!
Italian stocks plunge 2pc as tensions over budget tensions rise Juncker: We must do everything to avoid new Greece crisis Italian populists outlined plans to ramp up spending last week
Mr. Blue, if we're staying in the customs union we might as well stay in the EU.
Said for a long time, the customs union is, for me, just about the only absolute red line.
Seriously, why? Who actually wants all these supposedly wonderful additional trade deals? The business community certainly doesn’t; they’re perfectly happy with what we have.
You speak for the entire business community now? There are many businesses and potential businesses that would love to be able to take advantage of wonderful trade deals but are unable to.
Of course those who are advantaged most by the existing deals may not want the boat rocking. Doesn't mean it's not worth doing.
What trade deals could we forge that we can't at the moment?
It sounds as if the deal will be something like this:
End to free movement between the U.K. and EU Exit from the CAP and CFP End of large financial contributions No hard border in Ireland
In exchange, we undertake to Stay in the Customs Union indefinitely Require NI to follow Single Market regulations
I think this deal would be acceptable to 80% or more Leave voters. The problem is Conservative MPs and the DUP.
It is not acceptable. Firstly, it is not possible to have an independent trade policy if you are in the Customs Union. Secondly, you end up with an absurd situation where goods made in GB cannot be send to part of the country (eg NI) if they don't meet EU standards. In reality of course we will be stuck with EU standards as well. Thirdly, it binds future Parliaments (the commitment to stay in the CU unless the EU approve our withdrawal) in a manner which is constitutionally unprecedented.
The DUP will veto this and the Cabinet Leavers will resign (trade policy was a red line). It will satisfy even less Leave voters than Chequers because it is obviously a worse deal than Chequers. It makes you wonder if this woman is even sane. It breaks all her red lines but here she goes making more concessions in return for nothing.
I think everyone needs to take a step back and stop reacting to every media or newspaper report.
I understand the strength of anger but it is not one sided, unfortunately.
Each side thinks it has the solution when in truth the ultimate destination will be somewhere in the middle
It is only a few weeks away so I am not going to be swayed or buffeted one way or another until I hear a definitive statement from TM and the EU
It is sad to see Boris fall so far with his childish self interested pranks which has seen a movement form against him 'stop Boris'. He has no else to blame but himself but interesting to see the Brugge group put JRM top of their pops and Boris well off the pace. I find JRM a very interesting politician and if a Brexiteer takes the leadership he would be the best choice for them
Mr. Topping, if a trade deal benefits Spain, Slovenia, Greece and Poland but harms the UK, it is in the EU's interest to go ahead without because the balance is positive for the EU. Outside the EU, we can attend to our own interest.
That does mean punching with less weight. It also means choosing our own deals and those being led by the British interest.
Mr. Eagles, leaving aside other considerations, it'd certainly be 'interesting' if the Republic of Ireland had an effective referendum veto over the terms of an agreement.
They already have a veto on the whole Brexit deal just like the other EU nations.
But they have a referendum veto on the UK attempting to unilaterally change The Good Friday Agreement, just like we do.
Mr. Topping, if a trade deal benefits Spain, Slovenia, Greece and Poland but harms the UK, it is in the EU's interest to go ahead without* because the balance is positive for the EU. Outside the EU, we can attend to our own interest.
That does mean punching with less weight. It also means choosing our own deals and those being led by the British interest.
Mr. Eagles, leaving aside other considerations, it'd certainly be 'interesting' if the Republic of Ireland had an effective referendum veto over the terms of an agreement.
Edited extra bit: with it*. The joys of homophonic typos.
It sounds as if the deal will be something like this:
End to free movement between the U.K. and EU Exit from the CAP and CFP End of large financial contributions No hard border in Ireland
In exchange, we undertake to Stay in the Customs Union indefinitely Require NI to follow Single Market regulations
I think this deal would be acceptable to 80% or more Leave voters. The problem is Conservative MPs and the DUP.
It is not acceptable. Firstly, it is not possible to have an independent trade policy if you are in the Customs Union. Secondly, you end up with an absurd situation where goods made in GB cannot be send to part of the country (eg NI) if they don't meet EU standards. In reality of course we will be stuck with EU standards as well. Thirdly, it binds future Parliaments (the commitment to stay in the CU unless the EU approve our withdrawal) in a manner which is constitutionally unprecedented.
The DUP will veto this and the Cabinet Leavers will resign (trade policy was a red line). It will satisfy even less Leave voters than Chequers because it is obviously a worse deal than Chequers. It makes you wonder if this woman is even sane. It breaks all her red lines but here she goes making more concessions in return for nothing.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!
WRONG!
"fewer" Leave voters.
Jeezus.
You are quite right; I apologise for my grammar which was indeed wrong. I make up for it by being right about Brexit
LOL. The man is probably trying to arrange sleazy deals on the side to enrich himself as well as talking to the many war criminals and undesirables around the World.
Liam Fox = the most odious person in British politics!
That’s Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell.
Want me to list all the undesirables Corbyn has met?
Mr. Topping, if a trade deal benefits Spain, Slovenia, Greece and Poland but harms the UK, it is in the EU's interest to go ahead without because the balance is positive for the EU. Outside the EU, we can attend to our own interest.
That does mean punching with less weight. It also means choosing our own deals and those being led by the British interest.
Mr. Eagles, leaving aside other considerations, it'd certainly be 'interesting' if the Republic of Ireland had an effective referendum veto over the terms of an agreement.
They already have a veto on the whole Brexit deal just like the other EU nations.
But they have a referendum veto on the UK attempting to unilaterally change The Good Friday Agreement, just like we do.
This is a huge red herring. Brexit does not require changing the Good Friday Agreement. I have no idea why she mentioned it.
It sounds as if the deal will be something like this:
End to free movement between the U.K. and EU Exit from the CAP and CFP End of large financial contributions No hard border in Ireland
In exchange, we undertake to Stay in the Customs Union indefinitely Require NI to follow Single Market regulations
I think this deal would be acceptable to 80% or more Leave voters. The problem is Conservative MPs and the DUP.
It is not acceptable. Firstly, it is not possible to have an independent trade policy if you are in the Customs Union. Secondly, you end up with an absurd situation where goods made in GB cannot be send to part of the country (eg NI) if they don't meet EU standards. In reality of course we will be stuck with EU standards as well. Thirdly, it binds future Parliaments (the commitment to stay in the CU unless the EU approve our withdrawal) in a manner which is constitutionally unprecedented.
The DUP will veto this and the Cabinet Leavers will resign (trade policy was a red line). It will satisfy even less Leave voters than Chequers because it is obviously a worse deal than Chequers. It makes you wonder if this woman is even sane. It breaks all her red lines but here she goes making more concessions in return for nothing.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!
WRONG!
"fewer" Leave voters.
Jeezus.
You are quite right; I apologise for my grammar which was indeed wrong. I make up for it by being right about Brexit
That’s what happens when you don’t live in the UK and are used to throwing shrimps on the barbie.
Don't want to pick holes in OGH's thread but 55/37% is not an 'overwhelming majority'. It is the sort of divide that might produce a landslide under our electoral system though - a somewhat different matter.
Mr. Topping, if a trade deal benefits Spain, Slovenia, Greece and Poland but harms the UK, it is in the EU's interest to go ahead without* because the balance is positive for the EU. Outside the EU, we can attend to our own interest.
That does mean punching with less weight. It also means choosing our own deals and those being led by the British interest.
Mr. Eagles, leaving aside other considerations, it'd certainly be 'interesting' if the Republic of Ireland had an effective referendum veto over the terms of an agreement.
Edited extra bit: with it*. The joys of homophonic typos.
Inside the EU we can veto a trade deal until it is in our interests. Outside the EU, we will get the trade deals that others want to give us. We have absolutely no leverage.
Mr. Topping, if a trade deal benefits Spain, Slovenia, Greece and Poland but harms the UK, it is in the EU's interest to go ahead without because the balance is positive for the EU. Outside the EU, we can attend to our own interest.
That does mean punching with less weight. It also means choosing our own deals and those being led by the British interest.
Mr. Eagles, leaving aside other considerations, it'd certainly be 'interesting' if the Republic of Ireland had an effective referendum veto over the terms of an agreement.
They already have a veto on the whole Brexit deal just like the other EU nations.
But they have a referendum veto on the UK attempting to unilaterally change The Good Friday Agreement, just like we do.
This is a huge red herring. Brexit does not require changing the Good Friday Agreement. I have no idea why she mentioned it.
One good idea that is being suggested is, quoting the BBC. 'Middle-class drug users will be targeted as part of a crackdown on the causes of violent crime, Home Secretary Sajid Javid will announce.’ Why Upper-class users should be exempt, I’ve no idea, but the basic idea is sound. If there are no customers.....
Mr. Topping, if a trade deal benefits Spain, Slovenia, Greece and Poland but harms the UK, it is in the EU's interest to go ahead without* because the balance is positive for the EU. Outside the EU, we can attend to our own interest.
That does mean punching with less weight. It also means choosing our own deals and those being led by the British interest.
Mr. Eagles, leaving aside other considerations, it'd certainly be 'interesting' if the Republic of Ireland had an effective referendum veto over the terms of an agreement.
Edited extra bit: with it*. The joys of homophonic typos.
punching with less weight = worse trade deal.
That is clearly not true. The EU is terrible at trade deals because they have 27 countries self interests to protect. The UK has very few things it wants to protect and simply wants to swap free trade in goods for services access, a deal that the EU has no interest in making as it does not suit their economies.
It is quite clear that the smallest countries have been most successful in negotiating trade deals because they can be flexible. But you look at trade as a win/lose bargain whereas in fact it can normally be an easy win/win. Even Trump can do trade deals as it turns out.
Mr. Topping, if a trade deal benefits Spain, Slovenia, Greece and Poland but harms the UK, it is in the EU's interest to go ahead without* because the balance is positive for the EU. Outside the EU, we can attend to our own interest.
That does mean punching with less weight. It also means choosing our own deals and those being led by the British interest.
Mr. Eagles, leaving aside other considerations, it'd certainly be 'interesting' if the Republic of Ireland had an effective referendum veto over the terms of an agreement.
Edited extra bit: with it*. The joys of homophonic typos.
Please would you specifically name the agreements where this has happened? Or is just speculative?
Edit - perhaps you could name where you think interests diverge and what is a purely British interest. It would help if it were precise and not the feeble generalities that is the usual currency of Brexit enthusasists
I love the magical words 'technical solution' ! They mean absolutely sod-all when we can't be sure that a 'technical solution' even exists.
It exists, is in useand I think @Sandpit said it can be bought off the shelf
It’s basically a trusted trader scheme, with self pre-certification plus spot checks and intelligence led investigations
Would it be 100%? No. would it ensure the vast bulk of trade is legitimate? Yes.
Yes, it’s something similar to the USA/Canada Trusted Trader scheme, which operates along long unmanned sections of their shared border.
Regular border crossers fill in a form online with details of truck and cargo, paying taxes and tarrifs as appropriate. Occasional crossers can either register for the scheme or use the existing self-assessment procedures for VAT to square duties. Police and customs in the border region stop vehicles based on intelligence (as they do now) but there are no checks at the border. No physical border infrastructure is required except for the existing ANPR cameras that read numberplates of vehicles crossing the border, again as they do now.
The software for this is available off the shelf (List of approved US Customs software suppliers) although no doubt, being a government project, there would be plenty of unnecessary customisation and development added to it.
The point is that this sort of thing isn’t technically difficult, the isssue is the political will on all sides to make it happen. He U.K. and RoI we’re discussing this two years ago, but new Irish premier Varadkar and Michel Barnier decided to make the Irish border into a negotiating wedge issue.
LOL. The man is probably trying to arrange sleazy deals on the side to enrich himself as well as talking to the many war criminals and undesirables around the World.
Liam Fox = the most odious person in British politics!
That’s Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell.
Want me to list all the undesirables Corbyn has met?
Or even Blair, who really has taken money from Nursultan Nazarbayev.
5 million a year is all it took to buy Blair.
Whatever Corbyn & McDonnell's defects, they pale besides Blair's.
Mr. Topping, if a trade deal benefits Spain, Slovenia, Greece and Poland but harms the UK, it is in the EU's interest to go ahead without* because the balance is positive for the EU. Outside the EU, we can attend to our own interest.
Looking at one, contrived and hypothetical, trade deal is pointless. The question is whether the UK is better served by being party to the EU's 100+ trade deals or whether Liam Fox could do better by striking 100+ individual deals.
Mr. Blue, if we're staying in the customs union we might as well stay in the EU.
Said for a long time, the customs union is, for me, just about the only absolute red line.
Seriously, why? Who actually wants all these supposedly wonderful additional trade deals? The business community certainly doesn’t; they’re perfectly happy with what we have.
You speak for the entire business community now? There are many businesses and potential businesses that would love to be able to take advantage of wonderful trade deals but are unable to.
Of course those who are advantaged most by the existing deals may not want the boat rocking. Doesn't mean it's not worth doing.
What wonderful trade deals are these, then?
We do 70% of our business outside the EU and the UK being a member state of the EU has never been an impediment.
It sounds as if the deal will be something like this:
End to free movement between the U.K. and EU Exit from the CAP and CFP End of large financial contributions No hard border in Ireland
In exchange, we undertake to Stay in the Customs Union indefinitely Require NI to follow Single Market regulations
I think this deal would be acceptable to 80% or more Leave voters. The problem is Conservative MPs and the DUP.
It is not acceptable. Firstly, it is not possible to have an independent trade policy if you are in the Customs Union. Secondly, you end up with an absurd situation where goods made in GB cannot be send to part of the country (eg NI) if they don't meet EU standards. In reality of course we will be stuck with EU standards as well. Thirdly, it binds future Parliaments (the commitment to stay in the CU unless the EU approve our withdrawal) in a manner which is constitutionally unprecedented.
The DUP will veto this and the Cabinet Leavers will resign (trade policy was a red line). It will satisfy even less Leave voters than Chequers because it is obviously a worse deal than Chequers. It makes you wonder if this woman is even sane. It breaks all her red lines but here she goes making more concessions in return for nothing.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!
WRONG!
"fewer" Leave voters.
Jeezus.
You are quite right; I apologise for my grammar which was indeed wrong. I make up for it by being right about Brexit
That’s what happens when you don’t live in the UK and are used to throwing shrimps on the barbie.
I believe 'prawns on the barbie' is the proper Australian phrase with 'shrimps on the barbie' being used in advertisements aimed at potential tourists from the USA.
Don't want to pick holes in OGH's thread but 55/37% is not an 'overwhelming majority'. It is the sort of divide that might produce a landslide under our electoral system though - a somewhat different matter.
I reckon the difference is driven in part by men more likely to be Republicans. They split 84:9 in favour of confirming him, whilst Democrats split 8:88 against.
' Controversial plans to chop down a German forest to build a vast coal mine should proceed because Germany needs the polluting fuel to keep the lights on, according to the chief of the country’s state secretary for energy. '
Because Merkel wanted to appear green and shut down the nuclear power stations, now they’re utterly dependent on Russian gas to keep the lights on and have belatedly realised that’s a bad idea. Who’d have thought?
It sounds as if the deal will be something like this:
End to free movement between the U.K. and EU Exit from the CAP and CFP End of large financial contributions No hard border in Ireland
In exchange, we undertake to Stay in the Customs Union indefinitely Require NI to follow Single Market regulations
I think this deal would be acceptable to 80% or more Leave voters. The problem is Conservative MPs and the DUP.
It is not acceptable. Firstly, it is not possible to have an independent trade policy if you are in the Customs Union. Secondly, you end up with an absurd situation where goods made in GB cannot be send to part of the country (eg NI) if they don't meet EU standards. In reality of course we will be stuck with EU standards as well. Thirdly, it binds future Parliaments (the commitment to stay in the CU unless the EU approve our withdrawal) in a manner which is constitutionally unprecedented.
The DUP will veto this and the Cabinet Leavers will resign (trade policy was a red line). It will satisfy even less Leave voters than Chequers because it is obviously a worse deal than Chequers. It makes you wonder if this woman is even sane. It breaks all her red lines but here she goes making more concessions in return for nothing.
"We"????? Again, what on earth has it got to do with Australia?
Mr. Fire, if we are to govern ourselves then we must govern ourselves, not be handed trade policy by a foreign power.
I repeat, the EU is not a foreign power. It is an association which we chose to join, have chosen to leave, and will no doubt be rejoining in the near future.
Mr. Topping, if a trade deal benefits Spain, Slovenia, Greece and Poland but harms the UK, it is in the EU's interest to go ahead without* because the balance is positive for the EU. Outside the EU, we can attend to our own interest.
That does mean punching with less weight. It also means choosing our own deals and those being led by the British interest.
Mr. Eagles, leaving aside other considerations, it'd certainly be 'interesting' if the Republic of Ireland had an effective referendum veto over the terms of an agreement.
Edited extra bit: with it*. The joys of homophonic typos.
punching with less weight = worse trade deal.
That is clearly not true. The EU is terrible at trade deals because they have 27 countries self interests to protect. The UK has very few things it wants to protect and simply wants to swap free trade in goods for services access, a deal that the EU has no interest in making as it does not suit their economies.
It is quite clear that the smallest countries have been most successful in negotiating trade deals because they can be flexible. But you look at trade as a win/lose bargain whereas in fact it can normally be an easy win/win. Even Trump can do trade deals as it turns out.
Maybe maybe not but as well as the maybe worse trade deal with Tonga that the EU might negotiate, there is always the pre-existing trade deal we have with the EU. The EU that accounts for nearly half our exports. That trade deal is sans pareil, to use a local phrase. How much better a trade deal will that Tongan one have to be to compensate for the EU deal we might be about to give up?
Mr. Blue, if we're staying in the customs union we might as well stay in the EU.
Said for a long time, the customs union is, for me, just about the only absolute red line.
Seriously, why? Who actually wants all these supposedly wonderful additional trade deals? The business community certainly doesn’t; they’re perfectly happy with what we have.
You speak for the entire business community now? There are many businesses and potential businesses that would love to be able to take advantage of wonderful trade deals but are unable to.
Of course those who are advantaged most by the existing deals may not want the boat rocking. Doesn't mean it's not worth doing.
What wonderful trade deals are these, then?
We do 70% of our business outside the EU and the UK being a member state of the EU has never been an impediment.
It may become relevant if we move into an era of greater protectionism but then that might be an argument for saying we're better off inside the EU!
It is sad to see Corine Remande has lost the sight in one eye when hit by Brooks Koepka tee shot at the Ryder Cup
Oh dear. I'm not a fan of moving the tee up on Par 4s for this very reason. The organisers should not have allowed spectators to be around that green with the players hitting driver.
As someone who's been to a fair amount of golf, you get used to knowing where to stand and where not to stand. If I'm stood near the green, I always like to be able to see where the players are to know when a ball has been hit. Where the spectators were stood on that green, they'd have had no idea a ball was on the way.
We get our own trade deals and, in return, I'll fire Liam Fox from a giant space cannon into the heart of the sun. It's win-win.
To be serious I think its possible that the UK could negotiate trade deals which are better than the current ones but it would require a great deal of hard work, knowledge, practical experience and attention to details.
For these reasons I don't believe our political class or the gaggle of Sir Humphreys are capable of doing so or will be in the forseeable future.
And attempting to negotiate trade deals as a way of proving national sociopolitical virility could make things much worse than at present.
It exists, is in useand I think @Sandpit said it can be bought off the shelf
It’s basically a trusted trader scheme, with self pre-certification plus spot checks and intelligence led investigations
Would it be 100%? No. would it ensure the vast bulk of trade is legitimate? Yes.
I am really, really cynical that that is correct. Individual circumstances are different, and so far all we have is: "it exists and everything will be alright."
Anyone who has been involved with complicated projects understand darned well that moving a working system from one area to another, even slightly different area, is fraught with difficulty - and sometimes impossibility as the differences muck things up.
Personally I'd want to see a heck of a load of details before I'd be convinced that it's workable - an outline would be a good start.
At the moment it seems more a matter of faith than reality. A dream. A convenient fantasy.
A pre registration system is not that difficult. Governments can and do screw things up but this ones not that hard.
Mr. Fire, if we are to govern ourselves then we must govern ourselves, not be handed trade policy by a foreign power.
I repeat, the EU is not a foreign power. It is an association which we chose to join, have chosen to leave, and will no doubt be rejoining in the near future.
Rejoin as soon as possible would be my view. Although if we do have another referendum at some point I would hope that there’s a threshold for participation, a threshold majority (not 1) and a much greater control over. and clarity of, expenses.
Honesty on the part of those campaigning against the EU would also be desirable, although that might be too big and ask!
The best electoral combination would still be Boris for the UK at the next general election and Davidson in Scotland ideally holding the balance of power at Holyrood in 2021.
However hopefully May is moving towards doing the necessary on the Irish border and the backstop it seems to get us a transition deal which must be the priority for now, we can only start thinking about FTA talks once we have that transition period confirmed
Staying in the customs union until a trade deal is agreed is inspired thinking and I hope it is true
It would sail through the HOC
Unfortunately it would not, because it is a lie.
Assuming May gets her way, the UK wide backstop is permanent and can only be ended by the EU. But CETA is incompatible with the CU and the EU have already rejected a bespoke deal. So in the end, agreeing to this backstop simply makes the transition permanent. Nobody can explain how we can ever get a deal where the EU are happy to end the Backstop that does not involve the UK remaining in the SM/CU.
This has been Barnier’s plan all along. Pocket the money and then refuse to complete any trade deal which allows the UK out of the SM. And at that point, FOM will be back and all May’s red lines will go.
If she tries to agree this she will be defeated. The only way she can sell this is if the backstop is time limited, in the way she promised her MPs in writing. The EU won’t agree that. But she is desperate to sellout to save her own skin. Luckily the ERG will tear this plan apart.
Membership of the customs union would be a redline for me.
May can then go back to using Chequers as a starting point for FTA negotiations in the transition period
I love the magical words 'technical solution' ! They mean absolutely sod-all when we can't be sure that a 'technical solution' even exists.
It exists, is in useand I think @Sandpit said it can be bought off the shelf
It’s basically a trusted trader scheme, with self pre-certification plus spot checks and intelligence led investigations
Would it be 100%? No. would it ensure the vast bulk of trade is legitimate? Yes.
Do you know that? Or are you relying on the testimony of an anonymous bloke on the internet?
I’m relying on an anonymous bloke off the internet for the “it can be bought off the shelf”
Ie the bit that I noted in my comment was “according to @Sandpit”
Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I could see how the transference could work in Ford’s mind: she’s obviously not stupid enough to date someone who would attack her so it must have been someone else. Probably that drunken buffoon her boyfriend hangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it curious that the person who the Republican investigator identified was her boyfriend. But I know nothing about the quality or otherwise of their investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh (sic) committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
So you completely dismiss Dr. Ford's testimony ?
For some it is very simple: Republicans right, Democrat wrong. The truth needs to be fitted around that, no matter how bent it becomes.
I agree. What proof do you have that a Kavanaugh attacked Dr Ford?
You don't need proof. This is about the court of public opinion. Kavanagh was very unlucky that his accuser turned out to be so believable. If you were casting the witness who exposes the corrupt judge she would get the part without needing a recall. What's more if you got Reginald Rose to write her testimony he couldn't have done a better job.
And that’s where I have a problem with how this has been handled. I do t like the politicisation of judicial appointments but, equally, this one has been particularly egregious
What the blood and sawdust is a "festival of national renewal" ?
Apart from sounding like the sort of thing that would happen in Pyongyang, we can always have a decent "national renewal" by voting out the Conservatives in 2022.
I remember the sense of National Renewal in May 1997...the happy people, the sunshine, "Things can only get Better".
Mr. Topping, if a trade deal benefits Spain, Slovenia, Greece and Poland but harms the UK, it is in the EU's interest to go ahead without* because the balance is positive for the EU. Outside the EU, we can attend to our own interest.
That does mean punching with less weight. It also means choosing our own deals and those being led by the British interest.
Mr. Eagles, leaving aside other considerations, it'd certainly be 'interesting' if the Republic of Ireland had an effective referendum veto over the terms of an agreement.
Edited extra bit: with it*. The joys of homophonic typos.
punching with less weight = worse trade deal.
That is clearly not true. The EU is terrible at trade deals because they have 27 countries self interests to protect. The UK has very few things it wants to protect and simply wants to swap free trade in goods for services access, a deal that the EU has no interest in making as it does not suit their economies.
It is quite clear that the smallest countries have been most successful in negotiating trade deals because they can be flexible. But you look at trade as a win/lose bargain whereas in fact it can normally be an easy win/win. Even Trump can do trade deals as it turns out.
Maybe maybe not but as well as the maybe worse trade deal with Tonga that the EU might negotiate, there is always the pre-existing trade deal we have with the EU. The EU that accounts for nearly half our exports. That trade deal is sans pareil, to use a local phrase. How much better a trade deal will that Tongan one have to be to compensate for the EU deal we might be about to give up?
Small countries get trade deals easily because they have no leverage. They sit there and are told what they can have and then decide whether to accept or not.
What the blood and sawdust is a "festival of national renewal" ?
Apart from sounding like the sort of thing that would happen in Pyongyang, we can always have a decent "national renewal" by voting out the Conservatives in 2022.
I remember the sense of National Renewal in May 1997...the happy people, the sunshine, "Things can only get Better".
Yes...
Or we could hold it in the Rose Garden. The highpoint of British politics of recent years.
It’s fascinating. Most Leavers on here are dead set on the necessity of the U.K. having an independent trade policy. This made much more sense in the 1980s and before the WTO, when the average level of global tariffs was significantly higher than today.
The control of immigration policy in an age of low cost airlines and rising disposable incomes in the developing world is of vastly greater import to our long-term future than setting tariffs. It seems crazy to me to forego the chance to regain that power by blocking a deal that I have outlined in the name of ideological purity.
I think I’m the only Leaver on here who feels that way!
Assuming May gets her way, the UK wide backstop is permanent and can only be ended by the EU. But CETA is incompatible with the CU and the EU have already rejected a bespoke deal. So in the end, agreeing to this backstop simply makes the transition permanent. Nobody can explain how we can ever get a deal where the EU are happy to end the Backstop that does not involve the UK remaining in the SM/CU.
This has been Barnier’s plan all along. Pocket the money and then refuse to complete any trade deal which allows the UK out of the SM. And at that point, FOM will be back and all May’s red lines will go.
If she tries to agree this she will be defeated. The only way she can sell this is if the backstop is time limited, in the way she promised her MPs in writing. The EU won’t agree that. But she is desperate to sellout to save her own skin. Luckily the ERG will tear this plan apart.
Membership of the customs union would be a redline for me.
May can then go back to using Chequers as a starting point for FTA negotiations in the transition period
I love the magical words 'technical solution' ! They mean absolutely sod-all when we can't be sure that a 'technical solution' even exists.
It exists, is in useand I think @Sandpit said it can be bought off the shelf
It’s basically a trusted trader scheme, with self pre-certification plus spot checks and intelligence led investigations
Would it be 100%? No. would it ensure the vast bulk of trade is legitimate? Yes.
Do you know that? Or are you relying on the testimony of an anonymous bloke on the internet?
I’m relying on an anonymous bloke off the internet for the “it can be bought off the shelf”
Ie the bit that I noted in my comment was “according to @Sandpit”
The problem isn’t the technology, it’s the politics.
(Yes I’m just a bloke on the Internet, like the rest of us. But I’m an IT director with experience in rolling out large software projects to businesses)
What the blood and sawdust is a "festival of national renewal" ?
Apart from sounding like the sort of thing that would happen in Pyongyang, we can always have a decent "national renewal" by voting out the Conservatives in 2022.
I remember the sense of National Renewal in May 1997...the happy people, the sunshine, "Things can only get Better".
Yes...
Blair in 1997 - was renewal
Corbyn in 2022 - things can only get worse, much much worse
Mr. Observer, leverage only matters if it's used to good effect. How many vetoes were signed away in Lisbon? How much of the rebate did Blair throw away in return for the whisper of a promise that came to nothing?
A frustration many feel is that the political class, including the Civil Service, is more interested in batting for the EU side than for their own country.
Still possible that my first suspicion, which I had thought had become unlikely, of a deal so deliberately terrible we get a second referendum and Remain wins (because the 'negotiated deal' is a pathetic capitulation, worse than either truly leaving or staying) ends up coming to pass.
It sounds as if the deal will be something like this:
End to free movement between the U.K. and EU Exit from the CAP and CFP End of large financial contributions No hard border in Ireland
In exchange, we undertake to Stay in the Customs Union indefinitely Require NI to follow Single Market regulations
I think this deal would be acceptable to 80% or more Leave voters. The problem is Conservative MPs and the DUP.
It is not acceptable. Firstly, it is not possible to have an independent trade policy if you are in the Customs Union. Secondly, you end up with an absurd situation where goods made in GB cannot be send to part of the country (eg NI) if they don't meet EU standards. In reality of course we will be stuck with EU standards as well. Thirdly, it binds future Parliaments (the commitment to stay in the CU unless the EU approve our withdrawal) in a manner which is constitutionally unprecedented.
The DUP will veto this and the Cabinet Leavers will resign (trade policy was a red line). It will satisfy even less Leave voters than Chequers because it is obviously a worse deal than Chequers. It makes you wonder if this woman is even sane. It breaks all her red lines but here she goes making more concessions in return for nothing.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!
WRONG!
"fewer" Leave voters.
Jeezus.
If Alfred the Great can use less rather than fewer I think we can to.
What the blood and sawdust is a "festival of national renewal" ?
Apart from sounding like the sort of thing that would happen in Pyongyang, we can always have a decent "national renewal" by voting out the Conservatives in 2022.
I remember the sense of National Renewal in May 1997...the happy people, the sunshine, "Things can only get Better".
Yes...
And what a disappointment Blair turned out to be.......
One good idea that is being suggested is, quoting the BBC. 'Middle-class drug users will be targeted as part of a crackdown on the causes of violent crime, Home Secretary Sajid Javid will announce.’ Why Upper-class users should be exempt, I’ve no idea, but the basic idea is sound. If there are no customers.....
Demand side measures are better than supply side. They could start by hanging Freddie Pargiter
Mr. Blue, perhaps, but PB can often have weirdly unrepresentative posters (consider the permanent lack of Scottish Labour types). And being in a minority, even of one, doesn't make you wrong.
It sounds as if the deal will be something like this:
End to free movement between the U.K. and EU Exit from the CAP and CFP End of large financial contributions No hard border in Ireland
In exchange, we undertake to Stay in the Customs Union indefinitely Require NI to follow Single Market regulations
I think this deal would be acceptable to 80% or more Leave voters. The problem is Conservative MPs and the DUP.
It is not acceptable. Firstly, it is not possible to have an independent trade policy if you are in the Customs Union. Secondly, you end up with an absurd situation where goods made in GB cannot be send to part of the country (eg NI) if they don't meet EU standards. In reality of course we will be stuck with EU standards as well. Thirdly, it binds future Parliaments (the commitment to stay in the CU unless the EU approve our withdrawal) in a manner which is constitutionally unprecedented.
The DUP will veto this and the Cabinet Leavers will resign (trade policy was a red line). It will satisfy even less Leave voters than Chequers because it is obviously a worse deal than Chequers. It makes you wonder if this woman is even sane. It breaks all her red lines but here she goes making more concessions in return for nothing.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!
WRONG!
"fewer" Leave voters.
Jeezus.
If Alfred the Great can use less rather than fewer I think we can to.
Mr. Blue, perhaps, but PB can often have weirdly unrepresentative posters (consider the permanent lack of Scottish Labour types). And being in a minority, even of one, doesn't make you wrong.
I am often in a minority of one v my good lady, but it does not make me wrong !!!!
Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I could see how the transference could work in Ford’s mind: she’s obviously not stupid enough to date someone who would attack her so it must have been someone else. Probably that drunken buffoon her boyfriend hangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it curious that the person who the Republican investigator identified was her boyfriend. But I know nothing about the quality or otherwise of their investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh (sic) committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
So you completely dismiss Dr. Ford's testimony ?
For some it is very simple: Republicans right, Democrat wrong. The truth needs to be fitted around that, no matter how bent it becomes.
I agree. What proof do you have that a Kavanaugh attacked Dr Ford?
Dr Ford's testimony and the outright lies and dissembling in Kavanaugh's defence.
That’s not proof. That’s an allegation and then inference from the accused’s reeaction.
As you well know, absolute proof is never achieved in any trial. The question that matters is, given the evidence presented to the committee, is Kavanaugh worthy to serve on the Supreme Court? The answer appears to be no.
Stacks of people I knew at Oxford used to behave pretty much like Kavanaugh (a statement which probablyneeds checking for selection bias). He could probably have weathered this by following the example of George W Bush (and indeed me) by giving up drink at 40 but he seems to be still hard at it.
Mr. Blue, perhaps, but PB can often have weirdly unrepresentative posters (consider the permanent lack of Scottish Labour types). And being in a minority, even of one, doesn't make you wrong.
Mr. Blue, perhaps, but PB can often have weirdly unrepresentative posters (consider the permanent lack of Scottish Labour types). And being in a minority, even of one, doesn't make you wrong.
I am often in a minority of one v my good lady, but it does not make me wrong !!!!
Sounds like you can always count on 50% of the vote
Mr. Blue, perhaps, but PB can often have weirdly unrepresentative posters (consider the permanent lack of Scottish Labour types). And being in a minority, even of one, doesn't make you wrong.
I am often in a minority of one v my good lady, but it does not make me wrong !!!!
Sounds like you can always count on 50% of the vote
Indeed but my good lady seems to have the casting vote
It exists, is in useand I think @Sandpit said it can be bought off the shelf
It’s basically a trusted trader scheme, with self pre-certification plus spot checks and intelligence led investigations
Would it be 100%? No. would it ensure the vast bulk of trade is legitimate? Yes.
I am really, really cynical that that is correct. Individual circumstances are different, and so far all we have is: "it exists and everything will be alright."
Anyone who has been involved with complicated projects understand darned well that moving a working system from one area to another, even slightly different area, is fraught with difficulty - and sometimes impossibility as the differences muck things up.
Personally I'd want to see a heck of a load of details before I'd be convinced that it's workable - an outline would be a good start.
At the moment it seems more a matter of faith than reality. A dream. A convenient fantasy.
A pre registration system is not that difficult. Governments can and do screw things up but this ones not that hard.
LOL. Really?
Okay, if you can say that, you must have details instead of handwavium.
Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I could see how the transference could work in Ford’s mind: she’s obviously not stupid enough to date someone who would attack her so it must have been someone else. Probably that drunken buffoon her boyfriend hangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it curious that the person who the Republican investigator identified was her boyfriend. But I know nothing about the quality or otherwise of their investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh (sic) committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
So you completely dismiss Dr. Ford's testimony ?
For some it is very simple: Republicans right, Democrat wrong. The truth needs to be fitted around that, no matter how bent it becomes.
I agree. What proof do you have that a Kavanaugh attacked Dr Ford?
Dr Ford's testimony and the outright lies and dissembling in Kavanaugh's defence.
That’s not proof. That’s an allegation and then inference from the accused’s reeaction.
As you well know, absolute proof is never achieved in any trial. The question that matters is, given the evidence presented to the committee, is Kavanaugh worthy to serve on the Supreme Court? The answer appears to be no.
Stacks of people I knew at Oxford used to behave pretty much like Kavanaugh (a statement which probablyneeds checking for selection bias). He could probably have weathered this by following the example of George W Bush (and indeed me) by giving up drink at 40 but he seems to be still hard at it.
Bit like students voting Labour, then 20 years later those former Labour voters are Tory supporters.
Mr. Blue, if we're staying in the customs union we might as well stay in the EU.
Said for a long time, the customs union is, for me, just about the only absolute red line.
Seriously, why? Who actually wants all these supposedly wonderful additional trade deals? The business community certainly doesn’t; they’re perfectly happy with what we have.
You speak for the entire business community now? There are many businesses and potential businesses that would love to be able to take advantage of wonderful trade deals but are unable to.
Of course those who are advantaged most by the existing deals may not want the boat rocking. Doesn't mean it's not worth doing.
What trade deals could we forge that we can't at the moment?
We could replicate Australia's trade deals. Australia has a trade deal with almost every developed nation on Earth except the EU which its negotiating. When its finished its EU deal it will have a free trade deal with almost every major economy.
We don't. We lack deals with the USA, China and many more.
Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I could see how the transference could work in Ford’s mind: she’s obviously not stupid enough to date someone who would attack her so it must have been someone else. Probably that drunken buffoon her boyfriend hangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it curious that the person who the Republican investigator identified was her boyfriend. But I know nothing about the quality or otherwise of their investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh (sic) committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
So you completely dismiss Dr. Ford's testimony ?
For some it is very simple: Republicans right, Democrat wrong. The truth needs to be fitted around that, no matter how bent it becomes.
I agree. What proof do you have that a Kavanaugh attacked Dr Ford?
You don't need proof. This is about the court of public opinion. Kavanagh was very unlucky that his accuser turned out to be so believable. If you were casting the witness who exposes the corrupt judge she would get the part without needing a recall. What's more if you got Reginald Rose to write her testimony he couldn't have done a better job.
And that’s where I have a problem with how this has been handled. I do t like the politicisation of judicial appointments but, equally, this one has been particularly egregious
The selection itself was highly partisan. It will tip the balance on SCOTUS definitively to the right for decades to come. Trump did not have to select Kavanaugh in the first place. When he did, it was inevitable the process would become highly politicised.
It sounds as if the deal will be something like this:
End to free movement between the U.K. and EU Exit from the CAP and CFP End of large financial contributions No hard border in Ireland
In exchange, we undertake to Stay in the Customs Union indefinitely Require NI to follow Single Market regulations
I think this deal would be acceptable to 80% or more Leave voters. The problem is Conservative MPs and the DUP.
It is not acceptable. Firstly, it is not possible to have an independent trade policy if you are in the Customs Union. Secondly, you end up with an absurd situation where goods made in GB cannot be send to part of the country (eg NI) if they don't meet EU standards. In reality of course we will be stuck with EU standards as well. Thirdly, it binds future Parliaments (the commitment to stay in the CU unless the EU approve our withdrawal) in a manner which is constitutionally unprecedented.
The DUP will veto this and the Cabinet Leavers will resign (trade policy was a red line). It will satisfy even less Leave voters than Chequers because it is obviously a worse deal than Chequers. It makes you wonder if this woman is even sane. It breaks all her red lines but here she goes making more concessions in return for nothing.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!
WRONG!
"fewer" Leave voters.
Jeezus.
You are quite right; I apologise for my grammar which was indeed wrong. I make up for it by being right about Brexit
That’s what happens when you don’t live in the UK and are used to throwing shrimps on the barbie.
I'm sorry, I missed this earlier. I was out the back banging Skippy. I feel much better now.
Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I could see how the transference could work in Ford’s mind: she’s obviously not stupid enough to date someone who would attack her so it must have been someone else. Probably that drunken buffoon her boyfriend hangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it curious that the person who the Republican investigator identified was her boyfriend. But I know nothing about the quality or otherwise of their investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh (sic) committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
So you completely dismiss Dr. Ford's testimony ?
For some it is very simple: Republicans right, Democrat wrong. The truth needs to be fitted around that, no matter how bent it becomes.
I agree. What proof do you have that a Kavanaugh attacked Dr Ford?
You don't need proof. This is about the court of public opinion. Kavanagh was very unlucky that his accuser turned out to be so believable. If you were casting the witness who exposes the corrupt judge she would get the part without needing a recall. What's more if you got Reginald Rose to write her testimony he couldn't have done a better job.
And that’s where I have a problem with how this has been handled. I do t like the politicisation of judicial appointments but, equally, this one has been particularly egregious
The selection itself was highly partisan. It will tip the balance on SCOTUS definitively to the right for decades to come. Trump did not have to select Kavanaugh in the first place. When he did, it was inevitable the process would become highly politicised.
Would you be making the same complaint if Hillary was POTUS and doing the same thing?
Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I could see how the transference could work in Ford’s mind: she’s obviously not stupid enough to date someone who would attack her so it must have been someone else. Probably that drunken buffoon her boyfriend hangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it curious that the person who the Republican investigator identified was her boyfriend. But I know nothing about the quality or otherwise of their investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh (sic) committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
So you completely dismiss Dr. Ford's testimony ?
For some it is very simple: Republicans right, Democrat wrong. The truth needs to be fitted around that, no matter how bent it becomes.
I agree. What proof do you have that a Kavanaugh attacked Dr Ford?
You don't need proof. This is about the court of public opinion. Kavanagh was very unlucky that his accuser turned out to be so believable. If you were casting the witness who exposes the corrupt judge she would get the part without needing a recall. What's more if you got Reginald Rose to write her testimony he couldn't have done a better job.
And that’s where I have a problem with how this has been handled. I do t like the politicisation of judicial appointments but, equally, this one has been particularly egregious
The selection itself was highly partisan. It will tip the balance on SCOTUS definitively to the right for decades to come. Trump did not have to select Kavanaugh in the first place. When he did, it was inevitable the process would become highly politicised.
Counsel of perfection and VERY SILLY POST to follow.
Surely a wise POTUS would ensure that the SCOTUS was balanced, conservative/liberal and pick people for their judicial ability. Either that or have a balanced Advisory Panel.
Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I could see how the transference could work in Ford’s mind: she’s obviously not stupid enough to date someone who would attack her so it must have been someone else. Probably that drunken buffoon her boyfriend hangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it curious that the person who the Republican investigator identified was her boyfriend. But I know nothing about the quality or otherwise of their investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh (sic) committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
So you completely dismiss Dr. Ford's testimony ?
For some it is very simple: Republicans right, Democrat wrong. The truth needs to be fitted around that, no matter how bent it becomes.
I agree. What proof do you have that a Kavanaugh attacked Dr Ford?
You don't need proof. This is have done a better job.
And that’s where I have a problem with how this has been handled. I do t like the politicisation of judicial appointments but, equally, this one has been particularly egregious
The selection itself was highly partisan. It will tip the balance on SCOTUS definitively to the right for decades to come. Trump did not have to select Kavanaugh in the first place. When he did, it was inevitable the process would become highly politicised.
Would you be making the same complaint if Hillary was POTUS and doing the same thing?
Previous presidents have sought to maintain a level of balance, so that there is usually a 5-4 split either way. Trump has not. Kavanaugh will make it 6-3.
Previous presidents have sought to maintain a level of balance, so that there is usually a 5-4 split either way. Trump has not. Kavanaugh will make it 6-3.
The only requirements for Kavanaugh was that he was a friend of Kennedy and doesn't believe Presidents can be prosecuted for crimes (a handy turn around after he payed a key role in the Ken Starr Clinton investigation).
Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I could see how the transference could work in Ford’s mind: she’s obviously not stupid enough to date someone who would attack her so it must have been someone else. Probably that drunken buffoon her boyfriend hangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it curious that the person who the Republican investigator identified was her boyfriend. But I know nothing about the quality or otherwise of their investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh (sic) committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
So you completely dismiss Dr. Ford's testimony ?
For some it is very simple: Republicans right, Democrat wrong. The truth needs to be fitted around that, no matter how bent it becomes.
I agree. What proof do you have that a Kavanaugh attacked Dr Ford?
You don't need proof. This is have done a better job.
And that’s where I have a problem with how this has been handled. I do t like the politicisation of judicial appointments but, equally, this one has been particularly egregious
The selection itself was highly partisan. It will tip the balance on SCOTUS definitively to the right for decades to come. Trump did not have to select Kavanaugh in the first place. When he did, it was inevitable the process would become highly politicised.
Would you be making the same complaint if Hillary was POTUS and doing the same thing?
Previous presidents have sought to maintain a level of balance, so that there is usually a 5-4 split either way. Trump has not. Kavanaugh will make it 6-3.
That judicial activism is a right b*tch when it doesnt go your way....
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/mutual-friend-ramirez-kavanaugh-anxious-come-forward-evidence-n915566 The texts between Berchem and Karen Yarasavage, both friends of Kavanaugh, suggest that the nominee was personally talking with former classmates about Ramirez’s story in advance of the New Yorker article that made her allegation public. In one message, Yarasavage said Kavanaugh asked her to go on the record in his defense. Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh's team and former classmates in advance of the story.
The texts also demonstrate that Kavanaugh and Ramirez were more socially connected than previously understood and that Ramirez was uncomfortable around Kavanaugh when they saw each other at a wedding 10 years after they graduated. Berchem's efforts also show that some potential witnesses have been unable to get important information to the FBI.
I found that article a little hard to follow. It does seem to suggest that BK was lying when he said he'd never heard these allegations before. Doesn't mean they are true, but another indication as to who is telling the truth and who isn't.
Having seen what Ford looked like at 15, 2 thoughts come to mind. She looks such a young 15 year old it seems very unlikely her parents would have let her go out to parties or get togethers as she's suggesting happened. It's also extremely unlikely a 17 year old sports fanatic would have had any interest in her.
The whole thing looks like an attempted Democrat hit job.
Wow. That's an argument?
"She looks young. Young-looking girls don't go out to parties, nor have horny 17-year-old jocks hit on them. It's therefore a Democrat hit job."
Oh. Okay. Totally non-partisan and objective argument there.
One good idea that is being suggested is, quoting the BBC. 'Middle-class drug users will be targeted as part of a crackdown on the causes of violent crime, Home Secretary Sajid Javid will announce.’ Why Upper-class users should be exempt, I’ve no idea, but the basic idea is sound. If there are no customers.....
Drugs policy is a mess. It either needs to be like Portugal and Amsterdam or like Dubai and Bangkok.
That said, a few high-profile middle-class people in court for cocaine, which has become pretty much acceptable in many social groups, might make people with a lot to lose think twice before indulging.
Awaiting HY to come along with some spurious poll...
The best electoral combination would still be Boris for the UK at the next general election and Davidson in Scotland ideally holding the balance of power at Holyrood in 2021.
However hopefully May is moving towards doing the necessary on the Irish border and the backstop it seems to get us a transition deal which must be the priority for now, we can only start thinking about FTA talks once we have that transition period confirmed
Staying in the customs union until a trade deal is agreed is inspired thinking and I hope it is true
It would sail through the HOC
Unfortunately it would not, because it is a lie.
Assuming May gets her way, the UK wide backstop is permanent and can only be ended by the EU. But CETA is incompatible with the CU and the EU have already rejected a bespoke deal. So in the end, agreeing to this backstop simply makes the transition permanent. Nobody can explain how we can ever get a deal where the EU are happy to end the Backstop that does not involve the UK remaining in the SM/CU.
This has been Barnier’s plan all along. Pocket the money and then refuse to complete any trade deal which allows the UK out of the SM. And at that point, FOM will be back and all May’s red lines will go.
If she tries to agree this she will be defeated. The only way she can sell this is if the backstop is time limited, in the way she promised her MPs in writing. The EU won’t agree that. But she is desperate to sellout to save her own skin. Luckily the ERG will tear this plan apart.
Membership of the customs union would be a redline for me.
It looks like May has basically adopted Corbyn's Brexit plan by another name ie the UK stays in a Customs Union to avoid a hard border in Ireland until a technical solution can be found.
It should therefore get through the Commons albeit with ERG opposition and get us a withdrawal agreement and transition period and May can then go back to using Chequers as a starting point for FTA negotiations in the transition period
I love the magical words 'technical solution' ! They mean absolutely sod-all when we can't be sure that a 'technical solution' even exists.
As a contractor in the IT industry, I seem to hear pound coins jingling in the distance. If they keep wanting to believe a technical solution exists, a bunch of people in my industry are going to have decent contracts for quite some time.
Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I couldhangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it c investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh (sic) committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
So you completely dismiss Dr. Ford's testimony ?
For some it is very simple: Republicans right, Democrat wrong. The truth needs to be fitted around that, no matter how bent it becomes.
I agree. What proof do you have that a Kavanaugh attacked Dr Ford?
You don't need proof. This is have done a better job.
And that’s where I have a problem with how this has been handled. I do t like the politicisation of judicial appointments but, equally, this one has been particularly egregious
Thepoliticised.
Would you be making the same complaint if Hillary was POTUS and doing the same thing?
Previous presidents have sought to maintain a level of balance, so that there is usually a 5-4 split either way. Trump has not. Kavanaugh will make it 6-3.
That judicial activism is a right b*tch when it doesnt go your way....
The consequences of a highly partisan approach to judicial appointments are being played out in the US currently and are further dividing an already deeply divided country. Thankfully, it is not yet an issue here - though when you start labelling judges enemies of the people you are definitely in danger of starting down that rocky road.
It sounds as if the deal will be something like this:
End to free movement between the U.K. and EU Exit from the CAP and CFP End of large financial contributions No hard border in Ireland
In exchange, we undertake to Stay in the Customs Union indefinitely Require NI to follow Single Market regulations
I think this deal would be acceptable to 80% or more Leave voters. The problem is Conservative MPs and the DUP.
It is not acceptable. Firstly, it is not possible to have an independent trade policy if you are in the Customs Union. Secondly, you end up with an absurd situation where goods made in GB cannot be send to part of the country (eg NI) if they don't meet EU standards. In reality of course we will be stuck with EU standards as well. Thirdly, it binds future Parliaments (the commitment to stay in the CU unless the EU approve our withdrawal) in a manner which is constitutionally unprecedented.
The DUP will veto this and the Cabinet Leavers will resign (trade policy was a red line). It will satisfy even less Leave voters than Chequers because it is obviously a worse deal than Chequers. It makes you wonder if this woman is even sane. It breaks all her red lines but here she goes making more concessions in return for nothing.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!
WRONG!
"fewer" Leave voters.
Jeezus.
You are quite right; I apologise for my grammar which was indeed wrong. I make up for it by being right about Brexit
That’s what happens when you don’t live in the UK and are used to throwing shrimps on the barbie.
I'm sorry, I missed this earlier. I was out the back banging Skippy. I feel much better now.
She should just say that it would fail to respect the vote of the last election. Surely that's enough? (And hope no-one asks her if the 2017 GE failed to respect the vote of the 2015 one)
Mr. Blue, if we're staying in the customs union we might as well stay in the EU.
Said for a long time, the customs union is, for me, just about the only absolute red line.
Seriously, why? Who actually wants all these supposedly wonderful additional trade deals? The business community certainly doesn’t; they’re perfectly happy with what we have.
You speak for the entire business community now? There are many businesses and potential businesses that would love to be able to take advantage of wonderful trade deals but are unable to.
Of course those who are advantaged most by the existing deals may not want the boat rocking. Doesn't mean it's not worth doing.
What trade deals could we forge that we can't at the moment?
We could replicate Australia's trade deals. Australia has a trade deal with almost every developed nation on Earth except the EU which its negotiating. When its finished its EU deal it will have a free trade deal with almost every major economy.
We don't. We lack deals with the USA, China and many more.
There is a lot of chatter around 'replicating' trade deals but surely every deal is quite customised for the trade sectors of particular interest to the nations in question. To what extent are Australia's and Canada's trade deals, for instance, geared towards their raw materials exports or products based thereon? The UK is going to have limited use for trade benefits based on its uranium mining, I would guess, whilst Australia isn't a massive car exporter.
Of course, some of the same is true within the EU, though the bloc can represent interests in aggregate and cover more sectors, whilst there is probably more overlap between Northern European economies than when comparing the UK to Australia.
Yes, it’s something similar to the USA/Canada Trusted Trader scheme, which operates along long unmanned sections of their shared border.
Regular border crossers fill in a form online with details of truck and cargo, paying taxes and tarrifs as appropriate. Occasional crossers can either register for the scheme or use the existing self-assessment procedures for VAT to square duties. Police and customs in the border region stop vehicles based on intelligence (as they do now) but there are no checks at the border. No physical border infrastructure is required except for the existing ANPR cameras that read numberplates of vehicles crossing the border, again as they do now.
Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I could see how the transference could work in Ford’s mind: she’s obviously not stupid enough to date someone who would attack her so it must have been someone else. Probably that drunken buffoon her boyfriend hangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it curious that the person who the Republican investigator identified was her boyfriend. But I know nothing about the quality or otherwise of their investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh (sic) committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
So you completely dismiss Dr. Ford's testimony ?
For some it is very simple: Republicans right, Democrat wrong. The truth needs to be fitted around that, no matter how bent it becomes.
I agree. What proof do you have that a Kavanaugh attacked Dr Ford?
You don't need proof. This is have done a better job.
And that’s where I have a problem with how this has been handled. I do t like the politicisation of judicial appointments but, equally, this one has been particularly egregious
The selection itself was highly partisan. It will tip the balance on SCOTUS definitively to the right for decades to come. Trump did not have to select Kavanaugh in the first place. When he did, it was inevitable the process would become highly politicised.
Would you be making the same complaint if Hillary was POTUS and doing the same thing?
Previous presidents have sought to maintain a level of balance, so that there is usually a 5-4 split either way. Trump has not. Kavanaugh will make it 6-3.
What the blood and sawdust is a "festival of national renewal" ?
Apart from sounding like the sort of thing that would happen in Pyongyang, we can always have a decent "national renewal" by voting out the Conservatives in 2022.
I remember the sense of National Renewal in May 1997...the happy people, the sunshine, "Things can only get Better".
Yes...
And what a disappointment Blair turned out to be.......
Though selling arms to Saudi Arabia under any circumstances is indefensible it is worth pointing out that the UK sells more than 6x the amount of arms to them than Germany. One of the few plusses of a Corbyn government is that we can be reasonably sure it will be stopped.
Damn it! I've just realised why I keep failing at job interviews. It's because I'm hardly ever emotional, never cry, nor do I boast of loving beer.
Next time.
Advice and consent isn’t a job interview
It’s a confirmation hearing not an appointment hearing
It’s vetting for suitability for a job, so Robert’s point stands. You keep comparing it to a criminal trial, with reference to the presumption of innocence. If he were to be impeached, we could have an interesting debate about that....
I’m puzzled why Republicans want to die in a ditch for this guy. Granted he is a naked partisan in a way many judges on the Fedaralist Society list aren’t, but otherwise he is deeply unimpressive as a judge, and his appointment now would look utterly horrible.
Natural justice - it’s an ethics not a legal concept
In a sense though, the allegations (bad as they are) are now secondary to the fact that the way he behaved at his confirmation hearing strongly indicated he has neither the temperament or the intellect to be a good judge.
That on its own is a good enough reason to veto him.
That’s a better argument. Although the way he reacted is consistent with someone who has been falsely accused and then finds a bunch of two-bit politicians taking pot shots at him
It's also entirely consistent with his being guilty as sin.
What it is not consistent with is appointment to the Supreme Court.
I think that’s too much of a leap. Better to look at his record in federal court (I haven’t). A situation like this is unlike any that he will encounters as a Justice
Not if he were to be impeached...
His record in the Federal Court is (and I recognise this will be a matter of opinion) questionable. More to the point, documents released in the course of this confirmation, from his time at the Bush White House (among the 40,000 released less than a day before the current hearing), provide strong evidence that he perjured himself during his confirmation hearing for the Federal Court.
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I couldhangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it c investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh (sic) committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
So you completely dismiss Dr. Ford's testimony ?
For some it is very simple: Republicans right, Democrat wrong. The truth needs to be fitted around that, no matter how bent it becomes.
I agree. What proof do you have that a Kavanaugh attacked Dr Ford?
You don't need proof. This is have done a better job.
And that’s where I have a problem with how this has been handled. I do t like the politicisation of judicial appointments but, equally, this one has been particularly egregious
Thepoliticised.
Would you be making the same complaint if Hillary was POTUS and doing the same thing?
Previous presidents have sought to maintain a level of balance, so that there is usually a 5-4 split either way. Trump has not. Kavanaugh will make it 6-3.
That judicial activism is a right b*tch when it doesnt go your way....
The consequences of a highly partisan approach to judicial appointments are being played out in the US currently and are further dividing an already deeply divided country. Thankfully, it is not yet an issue here - though when you start labelling judges enemies of the people you are definitely in danger of starting down that rocky road.
This is about getting abortion legalised in defiance of the constitution. That was never part of the UK culture wars. Except... See how Stella Creasy is trying to enforce abortion on NI depsite it being part of the devolution deal a devolved matter. And she didnt hold back from making it an attack on the government.
One good idea that is being suggested is, quoting the BBC. 'Middle-class drug users will be targeted as part of a crackdown on the causes of violent crime, Home Secretary Sajid Javid will announce.’ Why Upper-class users should be exempt, I’ve no idea, but the basic idea is sound. If there are no customers.....
Drugs policy is a mess. It either needs to be like Portugal and Amsterdam or like Dubai and Bangkok.
That said, a few high-profile middle-class people in court for cocaine, which has become pretty much acceptable in many social groups, might make people with a lot to lose think twice before indulging.
The media /entertainment industry must feel like they are being targeted...First Brexit, now this...
Comments
No one, not even our sainted Morris Dancer has the slightest clue what difference it would make nor would that difference be observable to the naked eye (save it would be inferior to the status quo ante).
The DUP can suck it up but if they can't even align their policy with GB on womens' rights, why on earth should they be able to on trade policy and widget regulations?
https://twitter.com/uklabour/status/1046395238011604992?s=21
#brexitshambles
That does mean punching with less weight. It also means choosing our own deals and those being led by the British interest.
Mr. Eagles, leaving aside other considerations, it'd certainly be 'interesting' if the Republic of Ireland had an effective referendum veto over the terms of an agreement.
Edited extra bit: with it*. The joys of homophonic typos.
Liam Fox = the most odious person in British politics!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/10/02/markets-wobble-italy-eu-clash-budget-juncker-warns-could-new/
Italian stocks plunge 2pc as tensions over budget tensions rise
Juncker: We must do everything to avoid new Greece crisis
Italian populists outlined plans to ramp up spending last week
I understand the strength of anger but it is not one sided, unfortunately.
Each side thinks it has the solution when in truth the ultimate destination will be somewhere in the middle
It is only a few weeks away so I am not going to be swayed or buffeted one way or another until I hear a definitive statement from TM and the EU
It is sad to see Boris fall so far with his childish self interested pranks which has seen a movement form against him 'stop Boris'. He has no else to blame but himself but interesting to see the Brugge group put JRM top of their pops and Boris well off the pace. I find JRM a very interesting politician and if a Brexiteer takes the leadership he would be the best choice for them
But they have a referendum veto on the UK attempting to unilaterally change The Good Friday Agreement, just like we do.
Want me to list all the undesirables Corbyn has met?
Say it ain’t so.
Why Upper-class users should be exempt, I’ve no idea, but the basic idea is sound. If there are no customers.....
It is quite clear that the smallest countries have been most successful in negotiating trade deals because they can be flexible. But you look at trade as a win/lose bargain whereas in fact it can normally be an easy win/win. Even Trump can do trade deals as it turns out.
Edit - perhaps you could name where you think interests diverge and what is a purely British interest. It would help if it were precise and not the feeble generalities that is the usual currency of Brexit enthusasists
Regular border crossers fill in a form online with details of truck and cargo, paying taxes and tarrifs as appropriate. Occasional crossers can either register for the scheme or use the existing self-assessment procedures for VAT to square duties. Police and customs in the border region stop vehicles based on intelligence (as they do now) but there are no checks at the border. No physical border infrastructure is required except for the existing ANPR cameras that read numberplates of vehicles crossing the border, again as they do now.
The software for this is available off the shelf
(List of approved US Customs software suppliers)
although no doubt, being a government project, there would be plenty of unnecessary customisation and development added to it.
The point is that this sort of thing isn’t technically difficult, the isssue is the political will on all sides to make it happen. He U.K. and RoI we’re discussing this two years ago, but new Irish premier Varadkar and Michel Barnier decided to make the Irish border into a negotiating wedge issue.
5 million a year is all it took to buy Blair.
Whatever Corbyn & McDonnell's defects, they pale besides Blair's.
The answer is obvious...
We do 70% of our business outside the EU and the UK being a member state of the EU has never been an impediment.
It is sad to see Corine Remande has lost the sight in one eye when hit by Brooks Koepka tee shot at the Ryder Cup
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrimp_on_the_barbie
As someone who's been to a fair amount of golf, you get used to knowing where to stand and where not to stand. If I'm stood near the green, I always like to be able to see where the players are to know when a ball has been hit. Where the spectators were stood on that green, they'd have had no idea a ball was on the way.
For these reasons I don't believe our political class or the gaggle of Sir Humphreys are capable of doing so or will be in the forseeable future.
And attempting to negotiate trade deals as a way of proving national sociopolitical virility could make things much worse than at present.
Honesty on the part of those campaigning against the EU would also be desirable, although that might be too big and ask!
Ie the bit that I noted in my comment was “according to @Sandpit”
Apart from sounding like the sort of thing that would happen in Pyongyang, we can always have a decent "national renewal" by voting out the Conservatives in 2022.
I remember the sense of National Renewal in May 1997...the happy people, the sunshine, "Things can only get Better".
Yes...
The control of immigration policy in an age of low cost airlines and rising disposable incomes in the developing world is of vastly greater import to our long-term future than setting tariffs. It seems crazy to me to forego the chance to regain that power by blocking a deal that I have outlined in the name of ideological purity.
I think I’m the only Leaver on here who feels that way!
https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2018-Sep/ABI Software Vendors_August 30 2018_0.pdf
To be honest, all of the major business software companies have a solution that could be used off the shelf if there was the political will to get it done quickly.
The problem isn’t the technology, it’s the politics.
(Yes I’m just a bloke on the Internet, like the rest of us. But I’m an IT director with experience in rolling out large software projects to businesses)
Corbyn in 2022 - things can only get worse, much much worse
A frustration many feel is that the political class, including the Civil Service, is more interested in batting for the EU side than for their own country.
Still possible that my first suspicion, which I had thought had become unlikely, of a deal so deliberately terrible we get a second referendum and Remain wins (because the 'negotiated deal' is a pathetic capitulation, worse than either truly leaving or staying) ends up coming to pass.
Anyway, another European heroine turns out to have feet of clay - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/immoral-merkel-doubles-arms-sales-to-saudis-b27sz60s5
Okay, if you can say that, you must have details instead of handwavium.
Let's have them.
We don't. We lack deals with the USA, China and many more.
Has Brexit happened yet?
It really is so one sided, same with Faisal Islam
Surely a wise POTUS would ensure that the SCOTUS was balanced, conservative/liberal and pick people for their judicial ability. Either that or have a balanced Advisory Panel.
Where the f*ck are the grown ups?
And there are fools who think this non-entity will be next Tory leader. What a tool he is! Lay him!!
That's an argument?
"She looks young. Young-looking girls don't go out to parties, nor have horny 17-year-old jocks hit on them. It's therefore a Democrat hit job."
Oh. Okay. Totally non-partisan and objective argument there.
Good to see it's still alive here on PB...
That said, a few high-profile middle-class people in court for cocaine, which has become pretty much acceptable in many social groups, might make people with a lot to lose think twice before indulging.
If they keep wanting to believe a technical solution exists, a bunch of people in my industry are going to have decent contracts for quite some time.
(And hope no-one asks her if the 2017 GE failed to respect the vote of the 2015 one)
Of course, some of the same is true within the EU, though the bloc can represent interests in aggregate and cover more sectors, whilst there is probably more overlap between Northern European economies than when comparing the UK to Australia.
https://twitter.com/WhatScotsThink/status/1047055901096628224?s=20
His record in the Federal Court is (and I recognise this will be a matter of opinion) questionable.
More to the point, documents released in the course of this confirmation, from his time at the Bush White House (among the 40,000 released less than a day before the current hearing), provide strong evidence that he perjured himself during his confirmation hearing for the Federal Court.
But in the last session Kennedy voted with the Republican block almost every single time.