Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A Customs Union deal needs to be on the table if No Deal is to
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A Customs Union deal needs to be on the table if No Deal is to be avoided
It’s lonely at the top. It’s probably lonelier if you cut yourself off and isolate yourself from your colleagues, even if they are after their own interests and your own job. This last week has proven just how politically lonely Theresa May is, yet still she carries on. There’s something admirable in that and perhaps it’s no small part of the explanation for the rise in rise in the level of sympathy the public feel for the PM, as noted in the previous thread, and also in her rising ‘Best PM’ lead (the two times YouGov have asked that this year, the leads – 18 and 16 per cent, respectively – have been the biggest since the 2017 election).
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://twitter.com/catmckinnell/status/1086630455825362944?s=21
We didn't vote to stay in the customs union, and might as well stay in properly rather than pretend to leave properly and end up with a daft halfway house.
Otherwise, how can trading arrangements between UK and country X diverge from those of Ireland and country X?
The only way May can avoid meltdown amongst the Conservative vote is to have a revised manifesto in a General Election, that proposes that CU - and see if people are prepared to change tack.
But adding CU is the worst of all worlds. If you think the current deal is Shit, then adding CU makes it Shit+. The Conservative vote would still meltdown.
If you are to be forever in a Customs Union you might as well stay in the EU. You can’t negotiate your own trade deal if you can’t set your own trading laws and your own customs tariffs. The common external tariff is not in our best interests. The highest tariffs are on food as a protectionists measure for French farmers. Offering a customs union is for those who think any deal is better than no deal.
Norway’s deal, which is similar, gives them exemption from the CAP and the CFP but nothing else. What’s the appeal of that ? Zero. We’d still be subject to the ECJ, have freedom of movement and simply be a rule taker with no say in the rules and we’d still end up paying for trade.
If there is a path to avoiding a no deal Brexit it runs through the Labour Party. Jeremy Corbyn has been evasive as to what his solution/strategy is, but he has said many times that a no deal Brexit would be a national disaster. What would happen if the Parliamentary Conservative Party split over a no deal Brexit? Jeremy Corbyn might be able to win a vote of no confidence and become Prime Minister immediately, but what would he then do? Would he support a second referendum, an extension of Article 50, a permanent customs union or something else? This is difficult to know, but it could result in a no deal Brexit not taking place.
Anoraks will get into a stew over it but, when it comes to it, it won't shift votes.
And remember the vast majority were positively happy with our EEC membership - people are happy with free trade - what turned people against the EU was immigration and all the political stuff.
"If the EU dictate the Referendum question, then I think the Referendum will only have one answer."
They won't dictate it. They will simply refuse an extension for a referendum which does not give them something they won't get just by waiting until March 29th.
It's brutal power politics. We should not be surprised. It is exactly how Britain behaved when it had the upper hand. Now it doesn't. We don't like it. And instead of coming to terms with the new reality we're thrashing around moaning that the world isn't fair, isn't like it should be. What are we: four? Time for Britain to grow up.
“We support the current UK Government pledge to renegotiate
elements of our relationship with the European Union.”
So long as all MPs of both parties adhere to their manifesto commitments, there is a clear majority. This can be seen further by the customs union amendments that were defeated earlier in this very session.
None of which changes that they did not win outright, and they cannot get anything through the Commons now, so unless they want to try the ridiculous idea of a GE, they have to depart from their manifesto, probably in some huge ways.
is why she is a danger to the country she is leading. No matter what the cost? Really: if the cost meant deaths, she'd still see it as her job? Really???
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1086628351798841344
Withdrawing the whip from those who ignore the manifesto upon which they were elected and holding a GE would make more sense if the Gov can’t deliver on its own manifesto for its flagship policy.
2. It might be a viable deal - more so than anything else bar a last-minute and extremely grudging return to May's Chequers Plus one;
3. Even if it doesn't come off, it shows flexibility and not an ideological commitment to No Deal.
4. And also, if it doesn't come off, it makes the rest of the Commons complicit, not just the government.
Theresa May is a very responsible person but to her Brexit is something that overrides all other priorities.
Where will the electoral benefits be held in a parties manifesto approach?
1. Stand pat
2. Move back closer to the EU
3. Move further away
My feeling is Labour will go for 1.
LD's/SNP/Greens for 2.
Conservatives for 3.
Depending on how the arguments are framed there could be some rich seams of votes to be harvested.
If this eventual outcome of this decision was consequence free our parliament would have already overturned the referendum result and told the country we were remaining.
But electorally (and I hope that is the extent of any backlash) there will be a price to pay for whoever is seen to have subverted the democratic will of 17m+ voters.
Remainers are frightened and want to back May in to a corner so she has to take the rap.
May, quite understandably, isn't keen on doing the remainers dirty work for them.
This is the last thing that he wants.
In fact if we ignore the party politics of all this - which I know we cannot - there is a deal to be struck.
Norway Plus.
This is more or less Labour's Brexit, the DUP would accept it, so would many pragmatic leavers and remainers, and it is also the Deal on the table - once we recognize that the Deal is essentially the Withdrawal Agreement, that it is purely this which we need to ratify in order to leave the EU with a transition period. The Political Declaration is not binding and in any case is not even close to being the finished article.
The Withdrawal Agreement is the only thing the EU care about at this point - Citizens rights, Money, Transition, Irish Backstop - and any 'soft' Brexit is compatible with it.
So, yes, Customs Union and Single Market. Norway Plus. If that cannot be done due to Lab and Con party political calculation, then I cannot see any resolution of Brexit with this parliament and we will have to have a general election.
A point yet to be raised is that Labour also stood in 2017 on a Brexit which included the ability to make our own trade deals - i.e. outside the CU. They've already reneged on that, and Theresa May is right not to do the same. Politicians casually reneging on manifesto promises is a huge part of why public disillusionment with them is so high.
The Withdrawal Agreement is even IMO incompatible with the current Political Declaration - which tries to describe TM's desired destination of out of the SM, out of FOM, out of the CU.
This vision (absent tech border solutions) does not obviate the Backstop and thus can never be implemented.
Norway Plus, however, could be.
Ultimately though the WA sets the tone for the next round of talks, the pressures to move softer will be even stronger, and equally compelling.
Concerns about the impact of a new referendum on our democracy and political climate aren’t unreasonable but the impact of the public gradually realising what they’ve been tied into under the deal would surely be worse.
I agree with lots of this except the last sentence - I don't think it's the only solution, nor the simplest. Others already covered at length include:
- Pushing her Deal, subject to confirmation in a Ref2.
- Agreeing to call a spring GE in return for Labour MV abstention.
- Calling a snap GE with her Deal as the flagship Tory policy (it won't be liked amongst Tories but who can stop her?)
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/01/25-questions-about-another-early-general-election.html
And unless the DUP are nessecary in a coalition next Parliament, their veto on Irish Sea customs is irrelevant.
No deal means the supply chains from continental EU may need to be rejigged a bit, but nothing major.
Clearly there are not the numbers in the present parliament, by any logic to rule out No Deal.
Clearly there are not the numbers for any Custom's Union
Clearly there are not the numbers for a Loser's Referendum, unless the question is we are leaving but "Deal or No Deal" but we are leaving.
It is difficult to see now how a General Election can be avoided.
Any attempt to rule out No Deal and the government would not survive the day out.
Personally, I would have thought a GE much less likely to resolve the issue than a #peoplesvote, and the latter far less likely to break her party. She may even be able to get her Deal through that way.
Rules of origin are only used in preferential FTA deals. The EU does not have one with the USA for cars. So RoO do not apply. US car tariffs are 2.5%.
So take JLR 180K sales into USA current Tariffs 2.5% new Trumpian tariffs 25%
JLR sales to EU27 126K current tariffs 0% new no deal tariffs 10%.
Which one would you prefer?
Make no mistake, If Trump puts tariffs of 25% on UK car exports, the redundancies are going to be large.
https://twitter.com/bbcpolitics/status/1073225154967277568?s=21
She would be allowed to be leader if the ticket was Leave on 29 March with no Customs Union. Otherwise, God knows Rory ???
However, on the other hand Theresa has a long history of doing the right thing, about 6 to 8 weeks too late. That would suggest a GE on May 2. As we know 28 February is the first possible date. Clearly there have been preparations, perhaps that explains the weird timing for the deferred Meaningful Vote.
I don't think there is advice coming out to selected candidates as yet but we do know candidate selection is all but complete, unlike 2017.
If she does have to go then she had better learn from herself and Heath, keep the campaign as short as possible.
So I perfectly understand the Brexiteer objection (this is not Brexit) and the Remainer objection (we may as well retain our full membership of the EU).
The deal is a stupid deal.
However, unlike you I prefer it to another referendum or to crashing out with no deal at all.
A straightforward revoke and remain, plus an apology to the British people for holding the 2106 referendum, is my ideal world outcome.
They have all answered basically the same - it will be a pain, but we can handle it.
The transcripts are on the parliament site, go read them make your own mind up, instead of listening to some journalist tweeting their interpretation with a slant.
If the result of the first is not respected, why respect the result of the second?
Any thoughts on spread betting on the value of the pound as an alternative?