politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » TMay’s big speech – the reaction

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

No, that wouldn't fly. May couldn't accept a second referendum on anything other than a Deal / No Deal basis (and would probably lose that), without being No Confidenced by her MPs.

She can and she will.

https://twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/1047263605413072896

Do you fancy a bet on that?

Sure.

£50 at evens says that parliament will not pass legislation for a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option before 29 March 2019.

Change it to “that Theresa May will not back a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option” and you’re on.

Surely my wording is both more favourable to you and more precisely defined (what does "will not back a referendum" mean)?

On my wording, you gain the possibility of May's government falling and a Labour government introducing the referendum - which is by far the most likely way it could come about.

The main issue I have with your version is how to define “passing legislation” as the process could potentially drag on into an A50 extension. Also if the government is backing it, there’s a slim chance a way could be found to do it without new legislation. Maybe change it to passing a motion?

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

No, that wouldn't fly. May couldn't accept a second referendum on anything other than a Deal / No Deal basis (and would probably lose that), without being No Confidenced by her MPs.

She can and she will.

https://twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/1047263605413072896

Do you fancy a bet on that?

Sure.

£50 at evens says that parliament will not pass legislation for a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option before 29 March 2019.

Change it to “that Theresa May will not back a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option” and you’re on.

Surely my wording is both more favourable to you and more precisely defined (what does "will not back a referendum" mean)?

On my wording, you gain the possibility of May's government falling and a Labour government introducing the referendum - which is by far the most likely way it could come about.

The main issue I have with your version is how to define “passing legislation” as the process could potentially drag on into an A50 extension. Also if the government is backing it, there’s a slim chance a way could be found to do it without new legislation. Maybe change it to passing a motion?

felix said:

JohnO said:

felix said:

matt said:

As an aside Bridgen and Dudderidge must be feeling pretty silly now.

That requires a brain and there is little evidence of such a thing certainly in the case of the former. I believe he is Esther McVey's squeeze so one can only speculate at his hidden talents.

No, that’s Philip Davies.

Ah I stand corrected although the substantive point still applies maybe.

grabcocque said:

TOPPING said:

None but how many other third countries want the type of relationship with the EU that we do?

It should be pointed out that Guy Verhofstadt has no say whatsoever over any article 50 extension, nor does he speak 100% for the European Parliament. But what he says holds a lot of sway, and clearly indicates which way thinking is leaning in the largest power blocs in the EP.

Whew boy.

Even if, EVEN IF, somehow, against all odds and sanity, May manages to get the council to agree to a sordid fudge built on Chequers, there is a 0% chance of the European Parliament approving it. NADA.

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

No, that wouldn't fly. May couldn't accept a second referendum on anything other than a Deal / No Deal basis (and would probably lose that), without being No Confidenced by her MPs.

She can and she will.

https://twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/1047263605413072896

Do you fancy a bet on that?

Sure.

£50 at evens says that parliament will not pass legislation for a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option before 29 March 2019.

Change it to “that Theresa May will not back a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option” and you’re on.

Surely my wording is both more favourable to you and more precisely defined (what does "will not back a referendum" mean)?

On my wording, you gain the possibility of May's government falling and a Labour government introducing the referendum - which is by far the most likely way it could come about.

The main issue I have with your version is how to define “passing legislation” as the process could potentially drag on into an A50 extension. Also if the government is backing it, there’s a slim chance a way could be found to do it without new legislation. Maybe change it to passing a motion?

That's too vague as well. Most motions have no binding value.

Your point was that May could and would accept a second referendum. To that end, I'll offer the same terms - £50 at evens - that:

1. The government, led by Theresa May, will not introduce legislation before 29 March 2019, to enable an EU referendum in which Remain is an option, and
2. The government, led by Theresa May, will not hold a referendum in which Remain is an option before 29 March 2019, whether authorised by legislation or not.

For the purpose of definition, a 'referendum' is a public vote, equivalent to that held on 23 June 2016; it is not an on-line survey.

I win if neither condition is satisfied by 29 March 2019. You win if either condition is.

archer101au said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

archer101au said:

grabcocque said:

There is nowhere left for May to hide, there hasn't been since Salzburg. Which is why, I think, her attention has shifted from bludgeoning the equine carcass of Chequers to mediocre Boris roasts.

Doing a deal is now practically impossible, slagging off Boris however is shooting fish in a barrel. Of course May is going for the latter.

Agreed. I think we should just reflect on the level of surrealism of what we have just seen. A week after being told that Chequers is unacceptable to the EU and less than a month before a crucial summit, the British PM makes a speech supporting a plan that she knows can never be adopted and her cabinet all line up in support even though they all know it is nonsense. And to distract attention they all snipe at Boris, who has done nothing other than resign over a matter of principle and put an alternative (and far more realistic policy) before the people.


This speech, such as it was, will be forgotten in a day. And we will be back to the reality that someone who is totally incompetent and untrustworthy is negotiating on behalf of the country.

I think today has seen TM enhance her position and to be honest I cannot accept a deal that puts a border in Ireland and inhibits just in time manufacturing.

TM spoke for my politics today against the extremes of the hard right and left

I fundamentally disagree that she is untrustworthy. That is Boris's exclusive title

She has promised (in writing) that the backstop, if agreed, would be time limited and that the UK will have the unilateral right to exit the backstop.
She has promised that the UK will exit the customs union and single market at the end of the transition.
She has promised that the UK will be genuinely free to do trade deals independently from the UK effective from the end of the transition.
She has promised (in writing) that she will not create new regulatory barriers between GB and NI.

If the reports on her ‘grand bargain’ are true, she will breach every one of these promises. And what will she do to get around it? Simple - call it something else, insist black is white, pretend it is not what it really is.

Untrustworthy is about the most polite name I can use. But we will see.

williamglenn said:

IanB2 said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

No, that wouldn't fly. May couldn't accept a second referendum on anything other than a Deal / No Deal basis (and would probably lose that), without being No Confidenced by her MPs.

She can and she will.

https://twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/1047263605413072896

Do you fancy a bet on that?

Sure.

£50 at evens says that parliament will not pass legislation for a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option before 29 March 2019.

Change it to “that Theresa May will not back a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option” and you’re on.

Surely my wording is both more favourable to you and more precisely defined (what does "will not back a referendum" mean)?

On my wording, you gain the possibility of May's government falling and a Labour government introducing the referendum - which is by far the most likely way it could come about.

The main issue I have with your version is how to define “passing legislation” as the process could potentially drag on into an A50 extension. Also if the government is backing it, there’s a slim chance a way could be found to do it without new legislation. Maybe change it to passing a motion?

Since you are essentially betting on the referendum, forget all the "passing" nonsense and just put a backstop on the date of the vote taking place, say end 2019?

I like that formulation.

grabcocque said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

grabcocque said:

TOPPING said:

None but how many other third countries want the type of relationship with the EU that we do?

It should be pointed out that Guy Verhofstadt has no say whatsoever over any article 50 extension, nor does he speak 100% for the European Parliament. But what he says holds a lot of sway, and clearly indicates which way thinking is leaning in the largest power blocs in the EP.

Whew boy.

Even if, EVEN IF, somehow, against all odds and sanity, May manages to get the council to agree to a sordid fudge built on Chequers, there is a 0% chance of the European Parliament approving it. NADA.

If the 27 Countries agree a deal and the commission votes it down it will bring a huge constututional crisis in Europe

The Parliament is directly elected, and would feel no compunction whatsoever to defer to a Council that had been so transparently and corruptly nobbled by May trying to blackmail them with prophecies of doom. The Parliament would LOVE the opportunity to give the Tories and the Council a kicking over this.

Although amazing as its sounds, the leaders of the commission and council and parliament actually talk to each other and agree common positions. There is zero chance of the council agreeing to a draft text if Parliament isn't likely to support it, which means that Verhofstadt does have an effective veto.

In effect, the Parliament's position and the Council's and the Commission's positions are one and the same: the line Barnier agreed with the EU27 two years ago.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

grabcocque said:

TOPPING said:

None but how many other third countries want the type of relationship with the EU that we do?

It should be pointed out that Guy Verhofstadt has no say whatsoever over any article 50 extension, nor does he speak 100% for the European Parliament. But what he says holds a lot of sway, and clearly indicates which way thinking is leaning in the largest power blocs in the EP.

Whew boy.

Even if, EVEN IF, somehow, against all odds and sanity, May manages to get the council to agree to a sordid fudge built on Chequers, there is a 0% chance of the European Parliament approving it. NADA.

If the 27 Countries agree a deal and the commission votes it down it will bring a huge constututional crisis in Europe

rcs1000 said:

How long were the boos?

Recidivist said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

grabcocque said:

TOPPING said:

None but how many other third countries want the type of relationship with the EU that we do?

It should be pointed out that Guy Verhofstadt has no say whatsoever over any article 50 extension, nor does he speak 100% for the European Parliament. But what he says holds a lot of sway, and clearly indicates which way thinking is leaning in the largest power blocs in the EP.

Whew boy.

Even if, EVEN IF, somehow, against all odds and sanity, May manages to get the council to agree to a sordid fudge built on Chequers, there is a 0% chance of the European Parliament approving it. NADA.

If the 27 Countries agree a deal and the commission votes it down it will bring a huge constututional crisis in Europe

I assume you mean the parliament. If it does wouldn't that simply be democracy in action?

CarlottaVance said:

Er....which other third countries have immigration rules set by the EU?

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1047387997635837952

Sandpit said:

david_herdson said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

david_herdson said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

david_herdson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OchEye said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OchEye said:

They get more from the exchequer than the english.

Labour have been in power too long

This morning our council, Aberconwy, said they are seeking an 11.8% council tax rise on the week they introduced 4 weekly bin collections

A question for those more in the know about local government / pensions than me. What's stopping councils from switching pension schemes from defined benefit to defined contribution?

The unions would go ape?

Well, apart from that. I doubt there'd be much sympathy from the majority of the public, who saw that change many years ago. And given the finances of many councils, I'd have thought it a fair option to put on the table.

But leaving the politics aside, are there any legislative / regulatory barriers to prevent a council switching, or - at a lesser level - national agreements that would have to be withdrawn from, where the withdrawal would have other consequences?

The Local Government pension is funded (as in there is a fund which is invested and whose income pays the pension). It was in deficit last time I had to worry about it, but it is there. The teachers’ pension is not funded, but paid for out of current spending by central government. Many teachers don’t understand the second point as we pay a significant chunk of our nominal pay for it, but it’s a bit like National Insurance. In state schools teaching staff are on one scheme and non-teaching staff a different one.

Yes, I knew that difference but the contributions for any final-salary / defined benefits scheme will be huge compared with the average. There is a big potential saving to be made by switching. Obviously, that is a hit to employees' terms and conditions but when a council like Northampton is going bust, you'd think it'd be an option (and unlike the teachers' pension, where future payments will be related to past commitments for decades, in a funded scheme, the savings would take effect immediately).

Is the issue not actually that in moving from an unfunded scheme to a funded scheme, there will be four or five decades of having to pay in to both at the same time?

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

Er....which other third countries have immigration rules set by the EU?

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1047387997635837952

Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

Er....which other third countries have immigration rules set by the EU?

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1047387997635837952

Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?

grabcocque said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

And so when Barnier, Junckers and TM announce a deal you are saying the commission will vote it down

You keep saying the Commission, which makes me wonder if you're talking about the same thing.

Michel Barnier works for the European Commission, he was appointed by Juncker to lead the negotiations.

Barnier is negotiating on behalf of the Commission, on a pre-agreed negotiating line with the EU27. The EU27 and Barnier and Juncker have been in frequent contact about how the negotiations are progressing.

When (if?) negotiations are completed, the Commission (via Barnier) and the British government will present a joint text of what has been agreed for approval by both the Council (where it needs unanimous assent) and the Parliament (where it needs a simple majority).

In the event that Parliament or Council were unable to approve the agreement it would simply be referred back to the Commission to resume negotiations.

Then agreement needs to be ratified by all 28 EU parliaments in accordance with their normal constitutional procedures.

TGOHF said:

So May still PM and still no mass Labour MP resignations leading to a new centrist party ?

glw said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

Er....which other third countries have immigration rules set by the EU?

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1047387997635837952

Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?

Yes, he seems to be arguing that the UK must continue to favourably discriminate in favour of EU citizens. What a bigot!

archer101au said:

Sandpit said:

archer101au said:

grabcocque said:

There is nowhere left for May to hide, there hasn't been since Salzburg. Which is why, I think, her attention has shifted from bludgeoning the equine carcass of Chequers to mediocre Boris roasts.

Doing a deal is now practically impossible, slagging off Boris however is shooting fish in a barrel. Of course May is going for the latter.

Agreed. I think we should just reflect on the level of surrealism of what we have just seen. A week after being told that Chequers is unacceptable to the EU and less than a month before a crucial summit, the British PM makes a speech supporting a plan that she knows can never be adopted and her cabinet all line up in support even though they all know it is nonsense. And to distract attention they all snipe at Boris, who has done nothing other than resign over a matter of principle and put an alternative (and far more realistic policy) before the people.

And the thing is, it is all lies. May knows that the moment she escapes the conference she intends to run off to Brussels and sell out on all her red lines and promises, not a word of which she mentioned to the UK public in her speech. And we are meant to see this as some sort of virtue? If she believes in keeping the UK locked in a customs union and having a regulatory border in the Irish Sea, why did she not just say so?

This speech, such as it was, will be forgotten in a day. And we will be back to the reality that someone who is totally incompetent and untrustworthy is negotiating on behalf of the country.

Surely you agree with the PM, that a deal dividing the U.K., or a deal that is remaining in the EU in all but name, are unacceptable?

But that is just what she is planning. A regulatory barrier in the Irish Sea. And the UK locked in the customs union (and also following all EU rules - eg in the SM) as well.

TGOHF said:

notme said:

TGOHF said:

david_herdson said:

not_on_fire said:

david_herdson said:

welshowl said:

@david_herdson

A (reputable) pensions advisor opined to me a few years back that in future there will be three groups of people when it comes to pensions:-

1) Those who have worked for a good time in the public sector.
2) Successful business owners.
3) Everyone else ( Who are all stuffed).

Overblown a tad maybe, but as I was explaining to my wife recently at her age the benefits she is clocking up annually in the public sector amounted to well over the equivalent of 40% of her salary to buy the exact same benefits in the private sector.

These are big numbers.

Indeed. Which is precisely why you'd think that a council under pressure would look at it.

In the long run, adding public sector workers to the list of people who are screwed isn’t going to save any money.

Bringing the public sector into line with the rest of society isn't "screwing them". It's an unsustainable benefit, in my opinion.

The problem is that the costs aren't absorbed now - the can is kicked down the road.

If councils had to pay in the costs of these pensions in real time then it would soon stop - or they would cease to employ anyone directly.

Err... Councils do... They have triennial reviews. The local government pension scheme is funded and solvent, but it costs a fortune to do so.

If it closed tomorrow to new money it would be solvent ?

archer101au said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Can you tell me honestly how your Brexit keeps the Irish border open and guarantees just in time manufacturing. The Swindon car plants receives 350 HGV deliveries a day

Sure. The UK simply agrees to accept car parts that are in compliance with EU regulations via regulatory equivalence. We choose not to impose any tariffs. We agree with the major manufacturers that they can be fast tracked through customs via a trusted trader scheme and audits can be done at the premises. If the parts comply and there are no tariffs, there are no reasons for holdups.

For the NI border, the UK agrees that we will accept all imports of goods that meet EU regulations under regulatory equivalence. We use a trusted trader scheme for deliveries over a certain value and we do audits at premises away from the border. We exempt small transfers since I understand the vast majority of exports by value are done by less than 200 companies. We do checks in the Irish Sea to stop people using the special NI rules as a backdoor to the UK.

We cannot force the EU to reciprocate, but if we can do it, they could as well - their issue is political not practical . If they don’t, we subsidise UK exporters for the costs of having to hold more stocks in Europe which will be a small cost against the EU membership fees we save. ROI will never adopt a border so eventually a series of protocols will be agreed that allows the open border to be regulated by both sides in the same way.

RobD said:

FF43 said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

Er....which other third countries have immigration rules set by the EU?

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1047387997635837952

Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?

He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.

Yes, whereas the UK's new immigration policy won't discriminate against any nationality, unlike now.

Andy_Cooke said:

archer101au said:

Sandpit said:

archer101au said:

grabcocque said:

There is nowhere left for May to hide, there hasn't been since Salzburg. Which is why, I think, her attention has shifted from bludgeoning the equine carcass of Chequers to mediocre Boris roasts.

Doing a deal is now practically impossible, slagging off Boris however is shooting fish in a barrel. Of course May is going for the latter.

Agreed. I think we should just reflect on the level of surrealism of what we have just seen. A week after being told that Chequers is unacceptable to the EU and less than a month before a crucial summit, the British PM makes a speech supporting a plan that she knows can never be adopted and her cabinet all line up in support even though they all know it is nonsense. And to distract attention they all snipe at Boris, who has done nothing other than resign over a matter of principle and put an alternative (and far more realistic policy) before the people.

And the thing is, it is all lies. May knows that the moment she escapes the conference she intends to run off to Brussels and sell out on all her red lines and promises, not a word of which she mentioned to the UK public in her speech. And we are meant to see this as some sort of virtue? If she believes in keeping the UK locked in a customs union and having a regulatory border in the Irish Sea, why did she not just say so?

This speech, such as it was, will be forgotten in a day. And we will be back to the reality that someone who is totally incompetent and untrustworthy is negotiating on behalf of the country.

Surely you agree with the PM, that a deal dividing the U.K., or a deal that is remaining in the EU in all but name, are unacceptable?

But that is just what she is planning. A regulatory barrier in the Irish Sea. And the UK locked in the customs union (and also following all EU rules - eg in the SM) as well.

The SM and CU does not mean "following all EU rules". Not even close.

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

FF43 said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

Er....which other third countries have immigration rules set by the EU?

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1047387997635837952

Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?

He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.

Yes, whereas the UK's new immigration policy won't discriminate against any nationality, unlike now.

There is nothing that forces the UK to discriminate now.

FF43 said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

Er....which other third countries have immigration rules set by the EU?

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1047387997635837952

Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?

He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

No, that wouldn't fly. May couldn't accept a second referendum on anything other than a Deal / No Deal basis (and would probably lose that), without being No Confidenced by her MPs.

She can and she will.

https://twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/1047263605413072896

Do you fancy a bet on that?

Sure.

£50 at evens says that parliament will not pass legislation for a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option before 29 March 2019.

Change it to “that Theresa May will not back a referendum in which remaining in the EU is an option” and you’re on.

Surely my wording is both more favourable to you and more precisely defined (what does "will not back a referendum" mean)?

On my wording, you gain the possibility of May's government falling and a Labour government introducing the referendum - which is by far the most likely way it could come about.

The main issue I have with your version is how to define “passing legislation” as the process could potentially drag on into an A50 extension. Also if the government is backing it, there’s a slim chance a way could be found to do it without new legislation. Maybe change it to passing a motion?

That's too vague as well. Most motions have no binding value.

Your point was that May could and would accept a second referendum. To that end, I'll offer the same terms - £50 at evens - that:

1. The government, led by Theresa May, will not introduce legislation before 29 March 2019, to enable an EU referendum in which Remain is an option, and
2. The government, led by Theresa May, will not hold a referendum in which Remain is an option before 29 March 2019, whether authorised by legislation or not.

For the purpose of definition, a 'referendum' is a public vote, equivalent to that held on 23 June 2016; it is not an on-line survey.

I win if neither condition is satisfied by 29 March 2019. You win if either condition is.

Ok that's good enough.

glw said:

FF43 said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

Er....which other third countries have immigration rules set by the EU?

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1047387997635837952

Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?

He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.

AFAIK the only thing Javid has said that is "discriminatory" is that there might be an English language requirement in future citizenship rules, but there's been nothing to suggest a Bulgarian or German would be treated differently because of their nationality. Quite the opposite, the government has said it wants one set of rules for all nationalities.

FF43 said:

glw said:

FF43 said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

Er....which other third countries have immigration rules set by the EU?

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1047387997635837952

Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?

He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.

AFAIK the only thing Javid has said that is "discriminatory" is that there might be an English language requirement in future citizenship rules, but there's been nothing to suggest a Bulgarian or German would be treated differently because of their nationality. Quite the opposite, the government has said it wants one set of rules for all nationalities.

The UK will be required by the treaty to apply a defined set of immigration rules consistently for all EU citizens. The EU will reciprocate for UK citizens. The EU won't agree a treaty on any other terms. The question is what those rules are.

RobD said:

FF43 said:

glw said:

FF43 said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

Er....which other third countries have immigration rules set by the EU?

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1047387997635837952

Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?

He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.

AFAIK the only thing Javid has said that is "discriminatory" is that there might be an English language requirement in future citizenship rules, but there's been nothing to suggest a Bulgarian or German would be treated differently because of their nationality. Quite the opposite, the government has said it wants one set of rules for all nationalities.

The UK will be required by the treaty to apply a defined set of immigration rules consistently for all EU citizens. The EU will reciprocate for UK citizens. The EU won't agree a treaty on any other terms. The question is what those rules are.

There’s no question that one EU citizen will be treated any differently from another. They’ll be treated the same as all nationalities.

logical_song said:

TGOHF said:

So May still PM and still no mass Labour MP resignations leading to a new centrist party ?

Yes, pretty boring conferences considering the situation.

FF43 said:

glw said:

FF43 said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

Er....which other third countries have immigration rules set by the EU?

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1047387997635837952

Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?

He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.

AFAIK the only thing Javid has said that is "discriminatory" is that there might be an English language requirement in future citizenship rules, but there's been nothing to suggest a Bulgarian or German would be treated differently because of their nationality. Quite the opposite, the government has said it wants one set of rules for all nationalities.

The UK will be required by the treaty to apply a defined set of immigration rules consistently for all EU citizens. The EU will reciprocate for UK citizens. The EU won't agree a treaty on any other terms. The question is what those rules are.

archer101au said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

archer101au said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Can you tell me honestly how your Brexit keeps the Irish border open and guarantees just in time manufacturing. The Swindon car plants receives 350 HGV deliveries a day

Sure. The UK simply agrees to accept car parts that are in compliance with EU regulations via regulatory equivalence. We choose not to impose any tariffs. We agree with the major manufacturers that they can be fast tracked through customs via a trusted trader scheme and audits can be done at the premises. If the parts comply and there are no tariffs, there are no reasons for holdups.

For the NI border, the UK agrees that we will accept all imports of goods that meet EU regulations under regulatory equivalence. We use a trusted trader scheme for deliveries over a certain value and we do audits at premises away from the border. We exempt small transfers since I understand the vast majority of exports by value are done by less than 200 companies. We do checks in the Irish Sea to stop people using the special NI rules as a backdoor to the UK.

We cannot force the EU to reciprocate, but if we can do it, they could as well - their issue is political not practical . If they don’t, we subsidise UK exporters for the costs of having to hold more stocks in Europe which will be a small cost against the EU membership fees we save. ROI will never adopt a border so eventually a series of protocols will be agreed that allows the open border to be regulated by both sides in the same way.

Thanks for that.

However, your last paragraph is a wing and a prayer and maybe indicates why TM will not go down that route

Remainers want the NI border to be unsolveable because it gives them an excuse to tie the UK into EU regulations which is what they always wanted. May has no interest in solving it, because if she did then CETA would be the obvious outcome and she wants to remain tied as closely to the EU as possible.

Two days ago Hammond said there is no point talking about the NI border as the EU will not accept it. Yesterday he said that we need to sell them the idea of the customs partnership and that if it seems impossible so was the light bulb. Slight inconsistency here?

The EU and the Government are both using NI to get what they want, which is ongoing aligmment. If it wasn’t for those meddling DUPers.....

CarlottaVance said:

FF43 said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

Er....which other third countries have immigration rules set by the EU?

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1047387997635837952

Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?

He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.

But he agreed to that in CETA!

OldKingCole said:

RobD said:

FF43 said:

glw said:

FF43 said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

Er....which other third countries have immigration rules set by the EU?

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1047387997635837952

Isn't freedom of movement built around discrimination?

He means preventing different treatment of Bulgarians and Germans etc. Whatever the deal is on immigration that principle will be enforced as well as reciprocity for UK nationals to Schengen.

AFAIK the only thing Javid has said that is "discriminatory" is that there might be an English language requirement in future citizenship rules, but there's been nothing to suggest a Bulgarian or German would be treated differently because of their nationality. Quite the opposite, the government has said it wants one set of rules for all nationalities.

The UK will be required by the treaty to apply a defined set of immigration rules consistently for all EU citizens. The EU will reciprocate for UK citizens. The EU won't agree a treaty on any other terms. The question is what those rules are.

There’s no question that one EU citizen will be treated any differently from another. They’ll be treated the same as all nationalities.

Someone (?Brian Cox) is asking, if the ‘value’ of a job is going to be determined by salary, does that mean a footballer will get in in front of a nurse?
Or words to that effect.