politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » From the Commons library a treasure trove of data for election

Superb resource.

MarqueeMark said:

We. Will. Never. Rejoin.......

You can't rejoin if you haven't left.

fifth like Boris

IanB2 said:

FPT:

GIN1138 said:

IanB2 said:

GIN1138 said:

IanB2 said:

GIN1138 said:

rottenborough said:

Philip Collins has a cunning plan for May to do a deal with Lab moderate remainers for a 2nd vote: her deal vs remain.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/163188a2-fef4-11e8-92e0-7fb8092617eb

Very much doubt May has it in her to be so bold. And he fails to say what happens if her deal wins and then HoC again doesn't pass it. I suppose the referendum could be made binding - can that be done?

Why is there the assumption that the second referendum doesn't have WTO on the ballot paper?

Because no sane politician or sensible government would or could afford to put it forward.

But Leave Means Leave (or some other group) will take the electoral commission to court as soon as the question is revealed without WTO Brexit on the ballot?

What if the "enemies of the people" side with the people and say WTO must be on the ballot?

Would't that be delicious.

Parliament decides what the referendum choice is; the Commission just confirms the wording of the statements on offer.

OK so Leave Means Leave will take the electoral commission AND the government to court to get No Deal on the ballot.

You are simply providing further illustration of not living in the real world.

GIN doesn’t like or understand Parliamentary sovereignty.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The EU are attacking the MPs for not knowing what they want

I can't blame them.....

Give women the vote, and look where we are now!

AlastairMeeks said:

On topic, this resource looks brilliant.

"A festive download to share with your loved one" xD

Last night provided a very strong argument for remaining. Our politicians are simply not up to the job of negotiating on the world stage.
I wish it wasn't so, but it is.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Further commentators saying it is upto the HOC to determine what it wants and to find concensus to put to the EU.

Brexit means Brexit. What don’t they understand?

You have to admire the EU considering we held all the aces and they needed us more than we need them.

Great double-speak from Liam Fox.
https://twitter.com/liamfox/status/1073298501746991104?s=21

Pulpstar said:

Last night provided a very strong argument for remaining. Our politicians are simply not up to the job of negotiating on the world stage.
I wish it wasn't so, but it is.

A bit harsh. DD has nearly cracked the Oklahoma deal.

Xenon said:

GIN1138 said:

Foxy said:

GIN1138 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Commentators confirm the ERG position that if we leave on no deal in March the EU will be forced into erecting a border and they have a real blind spot on this

The EU has said they won't erect a hard border in any circumstances (as as ROI and UK? )

Have they? On the radio last night they were saying that they (and we) would be obliged to under WTO rules.

I thought WTO had said exceptions can be made when the political situation is particularly "delicate" like with NI and ROI?

Is there any truth in this?

Yes and No.

We could choose not to enforce a hard border but another nation could bring a complaint which could force a hard border.

“There is nothing in WTO rules that forces anyone to put up border posts,” said WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell on a visit to Dublin last week.

“Someone has to bring a complaint and say that their interests have been hurt.”

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/wto-says-its-rules-would-not-force-eu-or-uk-to-erect-hard-irish-border-1.3710136?mode=amp

Given how many nations are looking to use the WTO to get a better deal from the UK a successful complaint is inevitable.

"The eurozone ‘flash’ PMI survey for December is in and it’s much weaker than expected, signalling a weak end to 2018 for the region’s economy."

TheScreamingEagles said:

Superb resource.

Someone has been busy.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Xenon said:

GIN1138 said:

Foxy said:

GIN1138 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Commentators confirm the ERG position that if we leave on no deal in March the EU will be forced into erecting a border and they have a real blind spot on this

The EU has said they won't erect a hard border in any circumstances (as as ROI and UK? )

Have they? On the radio last night they were saying that they (and we) would be obliged to under WTO rules.

I thought WTO had said exceptions can be made when the political situation is particularly "delicate" like with NI and ROI?

Is there any truth in this?

Yes and No.

We could choose not to enforce a hard border but another nation could bring a complaint which could force a hard border.

“There is nothing in WTO rules that forces anyone to put up border posts,” said WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell on a visit to Dublin last week.

“Someone has to bring a complaint and say that their interests have been hurt.”

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/wto-says-its-rules-would-not-force-eu-or-uk-to-erect-hard-irish-border-1.3710136?mode=amp

Given how many nations are looking to use the WTO to get a better deal from the UK a successful complaint is inevitable.

We must treat every country that shares a land border with us equally and fairly.

How’s your lip reading?
https://twitter.com/philipsime/status/1073516384095739904?s=21

Pulpstar said:

What is the nonsense with the backstop about then Richard ? What is May's proposal to the EU for the clarifying rider.
If there is/was no substantial rider possible why not simply tell her MPs that.

Well, quite. She's stubbornly carrying on but it's a waste of time. She needs to do some kind of dazzling political acrobatic manoeuvre to jolt the narrative into a completely different place, but she's no Blair or Wilson, she can't and won't do it, and the parliamentary arithmetic is disastrously difficult. In any case it's probably too late.

FPT:

JosiasJessop said:

El_Capitano said:

JosiasJessop said:

The Conservatives are supposed to be about good economic governance.
--> even as the economy is going well, they're trashing that reputation on the altar of Brexit.

Labour are supposed to be about being good for people.
--> by risking the economic chaos of no deal that will hurt real people, by being in the grip of interest groups, and by having an anti-Semite in charge, they're trashing that reputation.

Lib Dems are supposed to be a reasonable middle ground.
--> they're not trashing that reputation as they're invisible, and the ones that do offer suggestions are wildly unrealistic.

The DUP are supposed to want to keep NI in the UK.
--> they're risking exactly the opposite.

Only the SNP seem to be doing anything like their traditional role. Then again, it's quite easy for them given their situation (especially the Scottish vote in the EU ref).

Caroline Lucas seems to be enjoying a bit of a resurgence these days. I doubt we’re going to have a Green surge a la Germany, but they could conceivably overtake the Lib Dems if Vince remains somnolent.

(It really is time to dump Vince and elect Jo Swinson or, better, Layla Moran.)

I utterly agree. Cable has many problems, but not only is he (and therefore his party) invisible at the moment, but I can't see any indications he's rebuilding his party's local base - something that has traditionally been a Lib Dem strength, and which his predecessor was addressing.

(I'd love it if a Lib Dem activist could say whether this perception is correct.)

I'm not an activist, but several of my friends are and I keep an eye on the local branches.

My sense is that the party is holding up in the seats it currently holds, and has realistic ambitions for a few more, but only that. Unless something drastic changes, 15-16ish seems a likely figure for Lib Dem seats at the next GE. In my neck of the woods, both Oxford West & Abingdon and Oxford City are strong local parties and performing well.

Elsewhere the position is pretty dire. My constituency (nominally in the top 50 LD targets) has just had a very underwhelming PPC selection process and I think it's likely that the Lib Dems will be third next time round, despite coming a very creditable second within recent memory.

The activists I know at national level (generally from the social liberal wing) are very underwhelmed with Cable's "reforms" - I found myself laughing out loud at the critique one of them posted to Facebook the other day.

One interesting angle is that there's an on-going informal pact between the Greens and Lib Dems around Oxford, which has led to some electoral success (Layla Moran probably owes her seat to it) and could conceivably work well on a national scale.

GIN1138 said:

IanB2 said:

GIN1138 said:

IanB2 said:

GIN1138 said:

rottenborough said:

Philip Collins has a cunning plan for May to do a deal with Lab moderate remainers for a 2nd vote: her deal vs remain.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/163188a2-fef4-11e8-92e0-7fb8092617eb

Very much doubt May has it in her to be so bold. And he fails to say what happens if her deal wins and then HoC again doesn't pass it. I suppose the referendum could be made binding - can that be done?

Why is there the assumption that the second referendum doesn't have WTO on the ballot paper?

Because no sane politician or sensible government would or could afford to put it forward.

But Leave Means Leave (or some other group) will take the electoral commission to court as soon as the question is revealed without WTO Brexit on the ballot?

What if the "enemies of the people" side with the people and say WTO must be on the ballot?

Would't that be delicious.

Parliament decides what the referendum choice is; the Commission just confirms the wording of the statements on offer.

OK so Leave Means Leave will take the electoral commission AND the government to court to get No Deal on the ballot.

Eh? On what grounds? I think no deal should be on there but that's a political decision not for a court to interfere with.

grabcocque said:

I think we need to hear from the DUP today.

Glad to be of service:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1073526065346301952

Xenon said:

GIN1138 said:

Foxy said:

GIN1138 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Commentators confirm the ERG position that if we leave on no deal in March the EU will be forced into erecting a border and they have a real blind spot on this

The EU has said they won't erect a hard border in any circumstances (as as ROI and UK? )

Have they? On the radio last night they were saying that they (and we) would be obliged to under WTO rules.

I thought WTO had said exceptions can be made when the political situation is particularly "delicate" like with NI and ROI?

Is there any truth in this?

Well, the answer is "yes and no".

There have been national security exceptions to WTO rules that have been accepted. But that usually (or maybe even always) related to countries in armed conflict; I can't think of anything analagous.

The issue here is that if the Chilean government complained that Ireland - with whom we had a WTO/MFN relationship with - was given preferential access, and was effectively excluded from tariffs, then they might very well rule against us. (This is why the technology solution works longer term: British (and Irish) firms are still paying tariffs, it's just that enforcement takes place away from the border.

Now, we could of course just ignore the WTO ruling. The US (and China) ignore WTO rulings all the time. But if we're going to not pay any attention to treaties with international bodies, then we might as well just sign up to the backstop and abrogate anyway.

AlastairMeeks said:

grabcocque said:

I think we need to hear from the DUP today.

Glad to be of service:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1073526065346301952

Whatever the legitimate grievances may be a lot of people seem to believe even now that just 'standing up' gets new facts.

Mr. Cocque, to be fair, it's less a case of a sword dangling over May's head as May jumping on a large spike and then being surprised it isn't comfortable.

The DUP were quite clear they didn't want a customs barrier in the Irish Sea.

John_M said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Xenon said:

GIN1138 said:

Foxy said:

GIN1138 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Commentators confirm the ERG position that if we leave on no deal in March the EU will be forced into erecting a border and they have a real blind spot on this

The EU has said they won't erect a hard border in any circumstances (as as ROI and UK? )

Have they? On the radio last night they were saying that they (and we) would be obliged to under WTO rules.

I thought WTO had said exceptions can be made when the political situation is particularly "delicate" like with NI and ROI?

Is there any truth in this?

Yes and No.

We could choose not to enforce a hard border but another nation could bring a complaint which could force a hard border.

“There is nothing in WTO rules that forces anyone to put up border posts,” said WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell on a visit to Dublin last week.

“Someone has to bring a complaint and say that their interests have been hurt.”

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/wto-says-its-rules-would-not-force-eu-or-uk-to-erect-hard-irish-border-1.3710136?mode=amp

Given how many nations are looking to use the WTO to get a better deal from the UK a successful complaint is inevitable.

We must treat every country that shares a land border with us equally and fairly.

It's not about the land border. If we had an explicit policy of not checking fish from the Maldives, or collecting tariffs on their importation, then the Norwegians could complain.

If the DUP want to kill the hated Deal. They just need to vote with Labour on a VONC


Simples

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Last night provided a very strong argument for remaining. Our politicians are simply not up to the job of negotiating on the world stage.
I wish it wasn't so, but it is.

I think that's unfair, Theresa May and the civil servants have actually done a pretty good job on the negotiations. The failure has been the domestic one of failing to carry people with her, although given the parliamentary arithmetic and the destructiveness of the ERG faction, that was probably always going to be impossible. Maybe someone as wily, slippery and clubbable as Harold Wilson was could have managed it, but Theresa May is the exact opposite type.

What is the nonsense with the backstop about then Richard ? What is May's proposal to the EU for the clarifying rider.
If there is/was no substantial rider possible why not simply tell her MPs that.

I still don't understand why she has not been able to secure a rider based upon the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. It would be a cheap gift for the EU to make (albeit the DUP would *hate* it), and it would remove a great deal of the sovereignty concerns.

bigjohnowls said:

If the DUP want to kill the hated Deal. They just need to vote with Labour on a VONC


Simples

They're playing a much cleverer game than that.

El_Capitano said:

Have we seen this before?

https://twitter.com/RCorbettMEP/status/1073521199869816832

Time for labour to shift. A relatively comprehensive win for remain us in sight.

rcs1000 said:

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Last night provided a very strong argument for remaining. Our politicians are simply not up to the job of negotiating on the world stage.
I wish it wasn't so, but it is.

I think that's unfair, Theresa May and the civil servants have actually done a pretty good job on the negotiations. The failure has been the domestic one of failing to carry people with her, although given the parliamentary arithmetic and the destructiveness of the ERG faction, that was probably always going to be impossible. Maybe someone as wily, slippery and clubbable as Harold Wilson was could have managed it, but Theresa May is the exact opposite type.

What is the nonsense with the backstop about then Richard ? What is May's proposal to the EU for the clarifying rider.
If there is/was no substantial rider possible why not simply tell her MPs that.

I still don't understand why she has not been able to secure a rider based upon the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. It would be a cheap gift for the EU to make (albeit the DUP would *hate* it), and it would remove a great deal of the sovereignty concerns.

That, or moving rUK into single market for goods for the backstop.

bigjohnowls said:

If the DUP want to kill the hated Deal. They just need to vote with Labour on a VONC


Simples

They don't need to the deal is already dead.

Xenon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

John_M said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Xenon said:

GIN1138 said:

Foxy said:

GIN1138 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Commentators confirm the ERG position that if we leave on no deal in March the EU will be forced into erecting a border and they have a real blind spot on this

The EU has said they won't erect a hard border in any circumstances (as as ROI and UK? )

Have they? On the radio last night they were saying that they (and we) would be obliged to under WTO rules.

I thought WTO had said exceptions can be made when the political situation is particularly "delicate" like with NI and ROI?

Is there any truth in this?

Yes and No.

We could choose not to enforce a hard border but another nation could bring a complaint which could force a hard border.

“There is nothing in WTO rules that forces anyone to put up border posts,” said WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell on a visit to Dublin last week.

“Someone has to bring a complaint and say that their interests have been hurt.”

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/wto-says-its-rules-would-not-force-eu-or-uk-to-erect-hard-irish-border-1.3710136?mode=amp

Given how many nations are looking to use the WTO to get a better deal from the UK a successful complaint is inevitable.

We must treat every country that shares a land border with us equally and fairly.

If only it was that simple.

Is there any example of the WTO insisting on a hard border even if it would cause political upheaval and possibly bloodshed?

I am really dubious that this would ever happen.

It's not about a physical border: it's about the explicit choice not to collect tariffs from a particular country.

The remedy the WTO would insist on would not be a border in Northern Ireland, but that the Uruguayan meat exporter was allowed to send their produce to the UK tariff free.

Which, by the way, means that the Professor Minford policy of "zero tariffs" would be a sensible way forward, except that it would be a disaster for rural seats in the rest of the UK.

On a completely different topic, this initiative in Dublin to help people with multiple problems of bad health, homelessness, and addiction looks rather good:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/14/inclusion-health-an-irish-answer-to-the-homelessness-crisis

Could such an approach be scaled up and applied widely?

bigjohnowls said:

If the DUP want to kill the hated Deal. They just need to vote with Labour on a VONC


Simples

They want to kill the Deal, not the country!

rcs1000 said:

Xenon said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Xenon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

John_M said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Xenon said:

GIN1138 said:

Foxy said:

GIN1138 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Commentators confirm the ERG position that if we leave on no deal in March the EU will be forced into erecting a border and they have a real blind spot on this

The EU has said they won't erect a hard border in any circumstances (as as ROI and UK? )

Have they? On the radio last night they were saying that they (and we) would be obliged to under WTO rules.

I thought WTO had said exceptions can be made when the political situation is particularly "delicate" like with NI and ROI?

Is there any truth in this?

Yes and No.

We could choose not to enforce a hard border but another nation could bring a complaint which could force a hard border.

“There is nothing in WTO rules that forces anyone to put up border posts,” said WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell on a visit to Dublin last week.

“Someone has to bring a complaint and say that their interests have been hurt.”

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/wto-says-its-rules-would-not-force-eu-or-uk-to-erect-hard-irish-border-1.3710136?mode=amp

Given how many nations are looking to use the WTO to get a better deal from the UK a successful complaint is inevitable.

We must treat every country that shares a land border with us equally and fairly.

If only it was that simple.

Is there any example of the WTO insisting on a hard border even if it would cause political upheaval and possibly bloodshed?

I am really dubious that this would ever happen.

If I'm a French milk producer or Danish pig farmer, why shouldn't I argue that I am being unfairly pushed out of the UK market by my Irish competitors who enjoy an unlawful benefit?

France or Denmark are not going to insist on a hard border in Ireland. Neither are Norway.

Do people really believe that they will?

The WTO would not insist on a hard border in Northern Ireland, they would say that the the French farmer should be allowed to export to the UK under the same terms as an Irish one. Effectively, the EU would get tariff free exports to the UK.

And the UK tariff free exports to the EU. Simples. Problem solved.

El_Capitano said:

strong local parties and performing well.

Elsewhere the position is pretty dire. My constituency (nominally in the top 50 LD targets) has just had a very underwhelming PPC selection process and I think it's likely that the Lib Dems will be third next time round, despite coming a very creditable second within recent memory.

The activists I know at national level (generally from the social liberal wing) are very underwhelmed with Cable's "reforms" - I found myself laughing out loud at the critique one of them posted to Facebook the other day.

One interesting angle is that there's an on-going informal pact between the Greens and Lib Dems around Oxford, which has led to some electoral success (Layla Moran probably owes her seat to it) and could conceivably work well on a national scale.

In my (inner London) constituency where the Lib Dems had a solid presence and several council seats before 2010 there is now virtually no activity. The Greens have become Labour's main opposition, they outpolled the Lib Dems by a considerable margin last year.

rcs1000 said:

Xenon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

John_M said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Xenon said:

GIN1138 said:

Foxy said:

GIN1138 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Commentators confirm the ERG position that if we leave on no deal in March the EU will be forced into erecting a border and they have a real blind spot on this

The EU has said they won't erect a hard border in any circumstances (as as ROI and UK? )

Have they? On the radio last night they were saying that they (and we) would be obliged to under WTO rules.

I thought WTO had said exceptions can be made when the political situation is particularly "delicate" like with NI and ROI?

Is there any truth in this?

Yes and No.

We could choose not to enforce a hard border but another nation could bring a complaint which could force a hard border.

“There is nothing in WTO rules that forces anyone to put up border posts,” said WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell on a visit to Dublin last week.

“Someone has to bring a complaint and say that their interests have been hurt.”

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/wto-says-its-rules-would-not-force-eu-or-uk-to-erect-hard-irish-border-1.3710136?mode=amp

Given how many nations are looking to use the WTO to get a better deal from the UK a successful complaint is inevitable.

We must treat every country that shares a land border with us equally and fairly.

If only it was that simple.

Is there any example of the WTO insisting on a hard border even if it would cause political upheaval and possibly bloodshed?

I am really dubious that this would ever happen.

It's not about a physical border: it's about the explicit choice not to collect tariffs from a particular country.

The remedy the WTO would insist on would not be a border in Northern Ireland, but that the Uruguayan meat exporter was allowed to send their produce to the UK tariff free.

Which, by the way, means that the Professor Minford policy of "zero tariffs" would be a sensible way forward, except that it would be a disaster for rural seats in the rest of the UK.

Because it's been such a disaster in New Zealand?

FFS its 2018. Why do people still argue tariffs work?

Mr. Urquhart, aye. The EU buggering up on the internet/commerce is standard operating procedure.

Philip_Thompson said:

And the UK tariff free exports to the EU. Simples. Problem solved.

It's a bit more complex than that, because the case would be brought against Ireland, not against the EU. (And this is on the assumption that the Irish government didn't charge tariffs.)

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Xenon said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Xenon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

John_M said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Xenon said:

GIN1138 said:

Foxy said:

GIN1138 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Commentators confirm the ERG position that if we leave on no deal in March the EU will be forced into erecting a border and they have a real blind spot on this

The EU has said they won't erect a hard border in any circumstances (as as ROI and UK? )

Have they? On the radio last night they were saying that they (and we) would be obliged to under WTO rules.

I thought WTO had said exceptions can be made when the political situation is particularly "delicate" like with NI and ROI?

Is there any truth in this?

Yes and No.

We could choose not to enforce a hard border but another nation could bring a complaint which could force a hard border.

“There is nothing in WTO rules that forces anyone to put up border posts,” said WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell on a visit to Dublin last week.

“Someone has to bring a complaint and say that their interests have been hurt.”

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/wto-says-its-rules-would-not-force-eu-or-uk-to-erect-hard-irish-border-1.3710136?mode=amp

Given how many nations are looking to use the WTO to get a better deal from the UK a successful complaint is inevitable.

We must treat every country that shares a land border with us equally and fairly.

If only it was that simple.

Is there any example of the WTO insisting on a hard border even if it would cause political upheaval and possibly bloodshed?

I am really dubious that this would ever happen.

If I'm a French milk producer or Danish pig farmer, why shouldn't I argue that I am being unfairly pushed out of the UK market by my Irish competitors who enjoy an unlawful benefit?

France or Denmark are not going to insist on a hard border in Ireland. Neither are Norway.

Do people really believe that they will?

The WTO would not insist on a hard border in Northern Ireland, they would say that the the French farmer should be allowed to export to the UK under the same terms as an Irish one. Effectively, the EU would get tariff free exports to the UK.

And the UK tariff free exports to the EU. Simples. Problem solved.

But then someone like Argentina kicks up a fuss and wins their complaint.

They have already been making noises.

DanSmith said:

Looks like May's relationship with the main players in Europe has completely broken, needs to go.

Quite, if only junker would f##k off...oh are you talking about May?

DanSmith said:

Looks like May's relationship with the main players in Europe has completely broken, needs to go.

I don't understand why the party kept her. No need to replace her with an ERGer. Someone sane in cabinet like Javid, Hunt or Gove could do the job.

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Because it's been such a disaster in New Zealand?

FFS its 2018. Why do people still argue tariffs work?

I'm not talking about whats right and whats wrong, but on what is politically possible.

Conservative MPs, a great number of whom are from rural constituencies, are not going to vote to eliminate tariffs on the imports of agricultural produce from places with much lower costs of production.

They should. It worked in New Zealand.

Xenon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

But then someone like Argentina kicks up a fuss and wins their complaint.

They have already been making noises.

This would give the EU the incentive to make a free trade deal with us. it's them blocking the deal and not us.

A hard border is not going to happen.

Precisely. Trade deal trumps MFN status.

MFN is a misnomer. It's really just lowest common denominator.

[Internal quotes snipped for length]

rcs1000 said:

The WTO would not insist on a hard border in Northern Ireland, they would say that the the French farmer should be allowed to export to the UK under the same terms as an Irish one. Effectively, the EU would get tariff free exports to the UK.

Surely the EU would already have that, by virtue of its single market with Ireland and ours with Northern Ireland (unless you put a border down the Irish Sea which the DUP will not tolerate). The WTO would say that Australian, Ghanaian and even American farmers must have the same terms. But yes, the wider point is that the WTO would not seek to impose a border.

It is the British who want the border. The trouble is there is nowhere to put it. It can't go on the Ireland border because of the GFA and related considerations dating back 100 years, and it can't go down the Irish Sea because the DUP won't tolerate it and nor would the thinking unionist once it's been thought about.

The options are: unify Ireland; stay in the CU/Single Market/EU; or the Brexiteer's preferred option, technological magic (with emphasis on the magic rather than the technology).

Philip_Thompson said:

DanSmith said:

Looks like May's relationship with the main players in Europe has completely broken, needs to go.

I don't understand why the party kept her. No need to replace her with an ERGer. Someone sane in cabinet like Javid, Hunt or Gove could do the job.

Because there was a risk of an ERGer succeeding her.

As we’ve seen the ERG aren’t interested in compromise and welcome No Deal.

DecrepitJohnL said:

[Internal quotes snipped for length]

rcs1000 said:

The WTO would not insist on a hard border in Northern Ireland, they would say that the the French farmer should be allowed to export to the UK under the same terms as an Irish one. Effectively, the EU would get tariff free exports to the UK.

Surely the EU would already have that, by virtue of its single market with Ireland and ours with Northern Ireland (unless you put a border down the Irish Sea which the DUP will not tolerate). The WTO would say that Australian, Ghanaian and even American farmers must have the same terms. But yes, the wider point is that the WTO would not seek to impose a border.

It is the British who want the border. The trouble is there is nowhere to put it. It can't go on the Ireland border because of the GFA and related considerations dating back 100 years, and it can't go down the Irish Sea because the DUP won't tolerate it and nor would the thinking unionist once it's been thought about.

The options are: unify Ireland; stay in the CU/Single Market/EU; or the Brexiteer's preferred option, technological magic (with emphasis on the magic rather than the technology).

No. Trade deal.

No need for magic as a trade deal trumps other considerations. The problem is the EU don't want to be bound into needing to give us a deal but it's the only solution that respects everyone.