Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The curious incident of the ERG at Christmas 2017

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited October 5 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The curious incident of the ERG at Christmas 2017

ERG press conference Nov 2018

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,776
    Firstly ....
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,776
    Secondly - Excellent thread Herders.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,776
    Thirdly - Time for breakers.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 3,097
    JackW said:

    Thirdly - Time for breakers.

    Well would I be second or fourth
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 26,951
    To be honest so much has gone wrong with the Brexit process that I struggle to remember the joint report. If it indeed assumed continuing alignment of the UK and EU on SM measures it was indeed remarkable that so little was said at the time.

    And yet that is a compromise which in my view most leavers (if not the loudest) would still accept. Out of the political structures, in the SM. It seems something we need to get back to.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,343
    FPT
    eristdoof said:

    HYUFD said:


    Most businesses do not export and most that export now export outside the EU so even with No Deal we will survive

    For every UK business that exports to outside the EU there is corresponding non-EU importer. These companies are buying from the UK and other EU countries are using one set of trading rules, the EU trading rules.

    Ater Brexit and after the UK has negotiated and signed the import-export rules with Liberistan, a Liberistani company will either need to deal with a new set of trading rules or they could source a similar product from France or Germany or Ireland or Belgium or .... or Cyprus under trading rules they already work with.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 1,137
    DavidL said:

    To be honest so much has gone wrong with the Brexit process that I struggle to remember the joint report. If it indeed assumed continuing alignment of the UK and EU on SM measures it was indeed remarkable that so little was said at the time.

    And yet that is a compromise which in my view most leavers (if not the loudest) would still accept. Out of the political structures, in the SM. It seems something we need to get back to.

    I would certainly agree with that last point. It is what May should have worked towards, with cross-party support, right from the start. But I remember when May's deal was first unveiled many people felt that its great strength was that May "got it" that the Brexit vote was all about immigration, and so we had to be out of the single market. Hence the backstop, and hence all the problems.
    The reality is that leaving the single market creates unsolvable problems at the Irish border, while staying in the single market leaves the Leave campaign's central pillar of ending free movement unachieved. What a mess!
    Great header by the way.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 25,081
    The question I have is why has Boris gone so hard on 31 Oct, both in public and in private.

    I get the political need but he has left himself absolutely no wiggle room.

    What is the game plan?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 26,951
    eristdoof said:

    FPT

    eristdoof said:

    HYUFD said:


    Most businesses do not export and most that export now export outside the EU so even with No Deal we will survive

    For every UK business that exports to outside the EU there is corresponding non-EU importer. These companies are buying from the UK and other EU countries are using one set of trading rules, the EU trading rules.

    Ater Brexit and after the UK has negotiated and signed the import-export rules with Liberistan, a Liberistani company will either need to deal with a new set of trading rules or they could source a similar product from France or Germany or Ireland or Belgium or .... or Cyprus under trading rules they already work with.
    What rules are you talking about? An electrical manufacturer already has to deal with a different voltage and current in the UK, a car manufacturer with the fact that we drive on the correct side of the road, all of them have to deal with a different tax regime, different building regulations, a different minimum wage structure and employment law. The SM provides guarantees of access to goods meeting some minimum standards but in most cases the framework directive allows countries latitude to go further and anyone seeking to sell into a particular country will need to check that out.

    What we don't have to worry about right now is tariffs. A FTA can achieve this as well. More importantly we have a structure that facilitates mutual regulation equivalence. So someone operating a financial service in this country has the absolute right to sell that product through the SM. For me this has always been the key feature. On what basis do we achieve sufficient regulatory equivalence to retain that access? It will require a high degree of alignment, hence what David reminds us the Joint Report provided for.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 26,951

    DavidL said:

    To be honest so much has gone wrong with the Brexit process that I struggle to remember the joint report. If it indeed assumed continuing alignment of the UK and EU on SM measures it was indeed remarkable that so little was said at the time.

    And yet that is a compromise which in my view most leavers (if not the loudest) would still accept. Out of the political structures, in the SM. It seems something we need to get back to.

    I would certainly agree with that last point. It is what May should have worked towards, with cross-party support, right from the start. But I remember when May's deal was first unveiled many people felt that its great strength was that May "got it" that the Brexit vote was all about immigration, and so we had to be out of the single market. Hence the backstop, and hence all the problems.
    The reality is that leaving the single market creates unsolvable problems at the Irish border, while staying in the single market leaves the Leave campaign's central pillar of ending free movement unachieved. What a mess!
    Great header by the way.
    The assumption built into this is that the 4 freedoms of the SM are indivisible. That was the EU position but we don't have to accept that. Freedom of movement is not a prerequisite of free movement of goods, services and money. It just isn't and we seem to have had some success ultimately in getting the EU to accept that.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,343
    "In paying too much attention to the DUP, the future Tory rebels presumably missed that the DUP’s objections were based on Unionism rather than Euroscepticism"

    If this is true then it was a really poor misjudgement. The DUP is always motivated first and foremost by Unionism, and this has been blatantly clear since the time of Rev Paisley. On Brexit the DUP are toleraters rather than active supporters.

    You do not need to be Mo Mowlam or Geroge Mitchell to know this.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,343
    Charles said:

    The question I have is why has Boris gone so hard on 31 Oct, both in public and in private.

    I get the political need but he has left himself absolutely no wiggle room.

    What is the game plan?

    It is a game plan drawn up in early July. It seems it is too inflexible to adapt to changing circumstances.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 51,339
    Good morning, everyone.

    Interesting article, Mr. Herdson.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,343
    DavidL said:

    eristdoof said:

    FPT

    eristdoof said:

    HYUFD said:


    Most businesses do not export and most that export now export outside the EU so even with No Deal we will survive

    For every UK business that exports to outside the EU there is corresponding non-EU importer. These companies are buying from the UK and other EU countries are using one set of trading rules, the EU trading rules.

    Ater Brexit and after the UK has negotiated and signed the import-export rules with Liberistan, a Liberistani company will either need to deal with a new set of trading rules or they could source a similar product from France or Germany or Ireland or Belgium or .... or Cyprus under trading rules they already work with.
    What rules are you talking about? An electrical manufacturer already has to deal with a different voltage and current in the UK, a car manufacturer with the fact that we drive on the correct side of the road, all of them have to deal with a different tax regime, different building regulations, a different minimum wage structure and employment law. The SM provides guarantees of access to goods meeting some minimum standards but in most cases the framework directive allows countries latitude to go further and anyone seeking to sell into a particular country will need to check that out.
    The original point was about overseas companies buying from the UK, this semms to be about overseas companies selling into the UK.
    DavidL said:


    What we don't have to worry about right now is tariffs. A FTA can achieve this as well. More importantly we have a structure that facilitates mutual regulation equivalence. So someone operating a financial service in this country has the absolute right to sell that product through the SM. For me this has always been the key feature. On what basis do we achieve sufficient regulatory equivalence to retain that access? It will require a high degree of alignment, hence what David reminds us the Joint Report provided for.

    Agreed.
    But my original point is that a lot of UK exports could be just as easily sourced from another EU country. Especially if there is a No Deal Brexit it is brave to assume that most of these overseas importers will simply stay with the UK suppliers rather than chose another supplier from within the same market that they have been trading with for years.
  • TGOHF2TGOHF2 Posts: 584
    Charles said:

    The question I have is why has Boris gone so hard on 31 Oct, both in public and in private.

    I get the political need but he has left himself absolutely no wiggle room.

    What is the game plan?

    Delay and dither is worse than any path - including no deal.

    This needs resolved and soon or the economy may tank on uncertainty.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 1,137
    Charles said:

    The question I have is why has Boris gone so hard on 31 Oct, both in public and in private.

    I get the political need but he has left himself absolutely no wiggle room.

    What is the game plan?

    Wasn't the Oct 31 commitment driven by fear of Farage, like everything else in this process? Plus hubristic self-confidence, again just like everything else in this process.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,631
    edited October 5
    Charles said:

    The question I have is why has Boris gone so hard on 31 Oct, both in public and in private.

    I think we should very seriously consider the possibility that it's because he's a complete idiot.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 1,137
    edited October 5
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    To be honest so much has gone wrong with the Brexit process that I struggle to remember the joint report. If it indeed assumed continuing alignment of the UK and EU on SM measures it was indeed remarkable that so little was said at the time.

    And yet that is a compromise which in my view most leavers (if not the loudest) would still accept. Out of the political structures, in the SM. It seems something we need to get back to.

    I would certainly agree with that last point. It is what May should have worked towards, with cross-party support, right from the start. But I remember when May's deal was first unveiled many people felt that its great strength was that May "got it" that the Brexit vote was all about immigration, and so we had to be out of the single market. Hence the backstop, and hence all the problems.
    The reality is that leaving the single market creates unsolvable problems at the Irish border, while staying in the single market leaves the Leave campaign's central pillar of ending free movement unachieved. What a mess!
    Great header by the way.
    The assumption built into this is that the 4 freedoms of the SM are indivisible. That was the EU position but we don't have to accept that. Freedom of movement is not a prerequisite of free movement of goods, services and money. It just isn't and we seem to have had some success ultimately in getting the EU to accept that.
    I think they are more or less indivisible. It's hard to have genuine free cross border competition in services without free movement. Access to a vast talent pool for specialised firms (not all of whose jobs will meet any arbitrary wage threshold for 'skilled jobs') is a huge benefit for the EU economy. Plus free movement is necessary for an integrated economy to work: if country A is given access to country B's markets and has more efficient firms then country B will face an increase in unemployment, and it is right that its workers have access to Labour markets in country A.
    I am not sure what the evidence is that the EU is willing to split up the four freedoms, either. They are allowing NI to stay in the single market for goods, but NI and the Republic already have a common travel area so there is free movement - and all NI born people can have Irish passports so can travel anywhere else in the EU too (lucky bastards!)
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 16,173
    TGOHF2 said:

    Charles said:

    The question I have is why has Boris gone so hard on 31 Oct, both in public and in private.

    I get the political need but he has left himself absolutely no wiggle room.

    What is the game plan?

    Delay and dither is worse than any path - including no deal.

    This needs resolved and soon or the economy may tank on uncertainty.
    Economy tanks because of the clusterfcuk Brexiteers have made of Brexit.

    Brexiteers: Economy has tanked because we have not got Brexit.

    I bet Domski has already wargamed that excuse.
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    To be honest so much has gone wrong with the Brexit process that I struggle to remember the joint report. If it indeed assumed continuing alignment of the UK and EU on SM measures it was indeed remarkable that so little was said at the time.

    And yet that is a compromise which in my view most leavers (if not the loudest) would still accept. Out of the political structures, in the SM. It seems something we need to get back to.

    I would certainly agree with that last point. It is what May should have worked towards, with cross-party support, right from the start. But I remember when May's deal was first unveiled many people felt that its great strength was that May "got it" that the Brexit vote was all about immigration, and so we had to be out of the single market. Hence the backstop, and hence all the problems.
    The reality is that leaving the single market creates unsolvable problems at the Irish border, while staying in the single market leaves the Leave campaign's central pillar of ending free movement unachieved. What a mess!
    Great header by the way.
    The assumption built into this is that the 4 freedoms of the SM are indivisible. That was the EU position but we don't have to accept that. Freedom of movement is not a prerequisite of free movement of goods, services and money. It just isn't and we seem to have had some success ultimately in getting the EU to accept that.
    The EU has always been prepared to consider some concilliatory measures with regard to Northern Ireland, due to the unique legal, political and security situation there.

    But the indivisibility of the four freedoms is not up for discussion, and never will be, it is probably the most central tenet of the whole construct.

    What makes you believe you "had success in getting the EU to accept the contrary"?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 12,381
    DavidL said:


    The assumption built into this is that the 4 freedoms of the SM are indivisible. That was the EU position but we don't have to accept that. Freedom of movement is not a prerequisite of free movement of goods, services and money. It just isn't and we seem to have had some success ultimately in getting the EU to accept that.

    They're not happy with it but TMay somehow persuaded them to suck it up to make the NI situation work.

    This is a great triumph of her negotiation that sadly she wasn't really able to take credit for because half her own side was against her.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 51,339
    Mr. Hamburg, it's curious, given the nation state of the United Kingdom is considered more divisible than the EU...
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 31,701
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    To be honest so much has gone wrong with the Brexit process that I struggle to remember the joint report. If it indeed assumed continuing alignment of the UK and EU on SM measures it was indeed remarkable that so little was said at the time.

    And yet that is a compromise which in my view most leavers (if not the loudest) would still accept. Out of the political structures, in the SM. It seems something we need to get back to.

    I would certainly agree with that last point. It is what May should have worked towards, with cross-party support, right from the start. But I remember when May's deal was first unveiled many people felt that its great strength was that May "got it" that the Brexit vote was all about immigration, and so we had to be out of the single market. Hence the backstop, and hence all the problems.
    The reality is that leaving the single market creates unsolvable problems at the Irish border, while staying in the single market leaves the Leave campaign's central pillar of ending free movement unachieved. What a mess!
    Great header by the way.
    The assumption built into this is that the 4 freedoms of the SM are indivisible. That was the EU position but we don't have to accept that. Freedom of movement is not a prerequisite of free movement of goods, services and money. It just isn't and we seem to have had some success ultimately in getting the EU to accept that.

    Freedom of movement is a pre-requisite for a single market. So is a single patent system, which is why the EU wants one of those as well.

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 12,381

    The EU has always been prepared to consider some concilliatory measures with regard to Northern Ireland, due to the unique legal, political and security situation there.

    But the indivisibility of the four freedoms is not up for discussion, and never will be, it is probably the most central tenet of the whole construct.

    What makes you believe you "had success in getting the EU to accept the contrary"?

    The all-UK backstop is basically full customs union membership without the corresponding freedom-of-movement obligations that Switzerland had to accept.
  • TGOHF2TGOHF2 Posts: 584

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    To be honest so much has gone wrong with the Brexit process that I struggle to remember the joint report. If it indeed assumed continuing alignment of the UK and EU on SM measures it was indeed remarkable that so little was said at the time.

    And yet that is a compromise which in my view most leavers (if not the loudest) would still accept. Out of the political structures, in the SM. It seems something we need to get back to.

    I would certainly agree with that last point. It is what May should have worked towards, with cross-party support, right from the start. But I remember when May's deal was first unveiled many people felt that its great strength was that May "got it" that the Brexit vote was all about immigration, and so we had to be out of the single market. Hence the backstop, and hence all the problems.
    The reality is that leaving the single market creates unsolvable problems at the Irish border, while staying in the single market leaves the Leave campaign's central pillar of ending free movement unachieved. What a mess!
    Great header by the way.
    The assumption built into this is that the 4 freedoms of the SM are indivisible. That was the EU position but we don't have to accept that. Freedom of movement is not a prerequisite of free movement of goods, services and money. It just isn't and we seem to have had some success ultimately in getting the EU to accept that.
    But the indivisibility of the four freedoms is not up for discussion, and never will be, it is probably the most central tenet of the whole construct.

    You make the EU sound like a strict religious doctrine.

    Which is probably spot on.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 31,701
    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    The question I have is why has Boris gone so hard on 31 Oct, both in public and in private.

    I think we should very seriously consider the possibility that it's because he's a complete idiot.

    The really stupid bit is promising a workaround to the Benn Act. Telling supporters we’re coming out despite legislation preventing it and then not coming out is not a smart move IMO.

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 12,381
    edited October 5

    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    The question I have is why has Boris gone so hard on 31 Oct, both in public and in private.

    I think we should very seriously consider the possibility that it's because he's a complete idiot.

    The really stupid bit is promising a workaround to the Benn Act. Telling supporters we’re coming out despite legislation preventing it and then not coming out is not a smart move IMO.

    I find this one hard to call.

    On the one hand it seems like a dumb idea to raise expectations with your supporters that something is possible, only to disappoint them and tell them it's impossible, which risks some of them thinking you were right the first time and you failed to follow through because you're not really on their side. But on the other hand you may be able to win by taking a very uncompromising position and then making you feel that your defeat is their defeat, and it just goes to show the perfidiousness of the enemy; That's what Tsipras managed to get away with, at least for a couple of years.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 3,097
    edited October 5

    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    The question I have is why has Boris gone so hard on 31 Oct, both in public and in private.

    I think we should very seriously consider the possibility that it's because he's a complete idiot.

    The really stupid bit is promising a workaround to the Benn Act. Telling supporters we’re coming out despite legislation preventing it and then not coming out is not a smart move IMO.

    He would have us believe,I think, that he needs to un nerve the Eu into thinking we are still going to no deal if they don’t give him what he wants because he has a cunning plan that will make them cave. The threat to them being so terrible whilst to the UK it’s would only be few bumps in the road. Or maybe he is a complete idiot.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 1,315

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    To be honest so much has gone wrong with the Brexit process that I struggle to remember the joint report. If it indeed assumed continuing alignment of the UK and EU on SM measures it was indeed remarkable that so little was said at the time.

    And yet that is a compromise which in my view most leavers (if not the loudest) would still accept. Out of the political structures, in the SM. It seems something we need to get back to.

    I would certainly agree with that last point. It is what May should have worked towards, with cross-party support, right from the start. But I remember when May's deal was first unveiled many people felt that its great strength was that May "got it" that the Brexit vote was all about immigration, and so we had to be out of the single market. Hence the backstop, and hence all the problems.
    The reality is that leaving the single market creates unsolvable problems at the Irish border, while staying in the single market leaves the Leave campaign's central pillar of ending free movement unachieved. What a mess!
    Great header by the way.
    The assumption built into this is that the 4 freedoms of the SM are indivisible. That was the EU position but we don't have to accept that. Freedom of movement is not a prerequisite of free movement of goods, services and money. It just isn't and we seem to have had some success ultimately in getting the EU to accept that.
    The EU has always been prepared to consider some concilliatory measures with regard to Northern Ireland, due to the unique legal, political and security situation there.

    But the indivisibility of the four freedoms is not up for discussion, and never will be, it is probably the most central tenet of the whole construct.

    What makes you believe you "had success in getting the EU to accept the contrary"?
    The EU allowed Greece (temporarily) to halt the free movement of capital.
  • The EU has always been prepared to consider some concilliatory measures with regard to Northern Ireland, due to the unique legal, political and security situation there.

    But the indivisibility of the four freedoms is not up for discussion, and never will be, it is probably the most central tenet of the whole construct.

    What makes you believe you "had success in getting the EU to accept the contrary"?

    The all-UK backstop is basically full customs union membership without the corresponding freedom-of-movement obligations that Switzerland had to accept.
    That much is correct, but, as you point out, even the relatively generous offer of the all-UK backstop would not have amounted to full participation in the EU internal market.
    And neither does the EU-Switzerland relation, there are a lot of barriers and controls on EU-Switzerland borders, even with relatively extensive freedom-of-movements obligations/rights.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 2,515

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    To be honest so much has gone wrong with the Brexit process that I struggle to remember the joint report. If it indeed assumed continuing alignment of the UK and EU on SM measures it was indeed remarkable that so little was said at the time.

    And yet that is a compromise which in my view most leavers (if not the loudest) would still accept. Out of the political structures, in the SM. It seems something we need to get back to.

    I would certainly agree with that last point. It is what May should have worked towards, with cross-party support, right from the start. But I remember when May's deal was first unveiled many people felt that its great strength was that May "got it" that the Brexit vote was all about immigration, and so we had to be out of the single market. Hence the backstop, and hence all the problems.
    The reality is that leaving the single market creates unsolvable problems at the Irish border, while staying in the single market leaves the Leave campaign's central pillar of ending free movement unachieved. What a mess!
    Great header by the way.
    The assumption built into this is that the 4 freedoms of the SM are indivisible. That was the EU position but we don't have to accept that. Freedom of movement is not a prerequisite of free movement of goods, services and money. It just isn't and we seem to have had some success ultimately in getting the EU to accept that.
    The EU has always been prepared to consider some concilliatory measures with regard to Northern Ireland, due to the unique legal, political and security situation there.

    But the indivisibility of the four freedoms is not up for discussion, and never will be, it is probably the most central tenet of the whole construct.

    What makes you believe you "had success in getting the EU to accept the contrary"?
    Absolute nonsense. France and Germany were happy to suspend free movement for Poland and the accession countries, when it suited them.

    The doctrine of sacred indivisibility, like much EU law, materialised Into being, magically.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 2,515

    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    The question I have is why has Boris gone so hard on 31 Oct, both in public and in private.

    I think we should very seriously consider the possibility that it's because he's a complete idiot.

    The really stupid bit is promising a workaround to the Benn Act. Telling supporters we’re coming out despite legislation preventing it and then not coming out is not a smart move IMO.


    Have you apologized to everyone for spreading that ridiculous lie about Michael Gove at the German embassy?
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    To be honest so much has gone wrong with the Brexit process that I struggle to remember the joint report. If it indeed assumed continuing alignment of the UK and EU on SM measures it was indeed remarkable that so little was said at the time.

    And yet that is a compromise which in my view most leavers (if not the loudest) would still accept. Out of the political structures, in the SM. It seems something we need to get back to.

    I would certainly agree with that last point. It is what May should have worked towards, with cross-party support, right from the start. But I remember when May's deal was first unveiled many people felt that its great strength was that May "got it" that the Brexit vote was all about immigration, and so we had to be out of the single market. Hence the backstop, and hence all the problems.
    The reality is that leaving the single market creates unsolvable problems at the Irish border, while staying in the single market leaves the Leave campaign's central pillar of ending free movement unachieved. What a mess!
    Great header by the way.
    The assumption built into this is that the 4 freedoms of the SM are indivisible. That was the EU position but we don't have to accept that. Freedom of movement is not a prerequisite of free movement of goods, services and money. It just isn't and we seem to have had some success ultimately in getting the EU to accept that.
    The EU has always been prepared to consider some concilliatory measures with regard to Northern Ireland, due to the unique legal, political and security situation there.

    But the indivisibility of the four freedoms is not up for discussion, and never will be, it is probably the most central tenet of the whole construct.

    What makes you believe you "had success in getting the EU to accept the contrary"?
    The EU allowed Greece (temporarily) to halt the free movement of capital.
    Yes, temporary safeguarding measures for genuine emergency situations were and are available (there are clearly defined legal provisions for that in the treaties), but a wholesale rejection of the core principle is basically inconceivable.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 15,200
    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    The question I have is why has Boris gone so hard on 31 Oct, both in public and in private.

    I think we should very seriously consider the possibility that it's because he's a complete idiot.
    Given that Brexit has been about expending enormous intellectual effort in finding increasingly convoluted ways to do stupid things, it’s not easy to be sure about that.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 30,481

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    To be honest so much has gone wrong with the Brexit process that I struggle to remember the joint report. If it indeed assumed continuing alignment of the UK and EU on SM measures it was indeed remarkable that so little was said at the time.

    And yet that is a compromise which in my view most leavers (if not the loudest) would still accept. Out of the political structures, in the SM. It seems something we need to get back to.

    I would certainly agree with that last point. It is what May should have worked towards, with cross-party support, right from the start. But I remember when May's deal was first unveiled many people felt that its great strength was that May "got it" that the Brexit vote was all about immigration, and so we had to be out of the single market. Hence the backstop, and hence all the problems.
    The reality is that leaving the single market creates unsolvable problems at the Irish border, while staying in the single market leaves the Leave campaign's central pillar of ending free movement unachieved. What a mess!
    Great header by the way.
    The assumption built into this is that the 4 freedoms of the SM are indivisible. That was the EU position but we don't have to accept that. Freedom of movement is not a prerequisite of free movement of goods, services and money. It just isn't and we seem to have had some success ultimately in getting the EU to accept that.

    Freedom of movement is a pre-requisite for a single market. So is a single patent system, which is why the EU wants one of those as well.

    It isn’t.

    A single market is a single regulatory regime. You don’t need free movement for that.

    You may need visa free travel for up to six months.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 1,137
    edited October 5
    TGOHF2 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    To be honest so much has gone wrong with the Brexit process that I struggle to remember the joint report. If it indeed assumed continuing alignment of the UK and EU on SM measures it was indeed remarkable that so little was said at the time.

    And yet that is a compromise which in my view most leavers (if not the loudest) would still accept. Out of the political structures, in the SM. It seems something we need to get back to.

    I would certainly agree with that last point. It is what May should have worked towards, with cross-party support, right from the start. But I remember when May's deal was first unveiled many people felt that its great strength was that May "got it" that the Brexit vote was all about immigration, and so we had to be out of the single market. Hence the backstop, and hence all the problems.
    The reality is that leaving the single market creates unsolvable problems at the Irish border, while staying in the single market leaves the Leave campaign's central pillar of ending free movement unachieved. What a mess!
    Great header by the way.
    The assumption built into this is that the 4 freedoms of the SM are indivisible. That was the EU position but we don't have to accept that. Freedom of movement is not a prerequisite of free movement of goods, services and money. It just isn't and we seem to have had some success ultimately in getting the EU to accept that.
    But the indivisibility of the four freedoms is not up for discussion, and never will be, it is probably the most central tenet of the whole construct.

    You make the EU sound like a strict religious doctrine.

    Which is probably spot on.

    The great irony of course is that the chief promoter of the single market was the UK. It used to be what we liked best about the whole European project, and now we are trying to dismantle it.
    The single market is not about religion, it's about commerce, about making money, competing in the global economy by creating a deep home market like China or the US. The nationalistic desire to keep people out and survive on our own - the Brexiteer project - has much more of the flavour of religion to it. That's why sceptical, practical people like me, who are more interested in raising our families and making a living than in theological discussions, find it so unatractive.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 15,476
    Thanks for the header.

    It is of course possible that the ERG and others didn’t bother reading the Joint Report or, if they did, they didn’t understand it. They seem to have little understanding about many aspects of the EU, its laws and Britain’s involvement. So why assume that they understood this?
  • ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    The question I have is why has Boris gone so hard on 31 Oct, both in public and in private.

    I think we should very seriously consider the possibility that it's because he's a complete idiot.
    I can think of a couple of possibilities; not sure if they are consistent or contradictory.

    One links to the theme of the header, actually- the tendency of people in general, and of Team Brexit in particular, to think exactly one step ahead, and no more.

    The deliberately vague Vote Leave campaign made it easier to win the referendum but made its implementation insanely difficult.

    The 2017 Joint Report was celebrated at the time, because it unlocked the fun future relationship talks, and the ERG were so bedazzled by that, they didn't think what they had signed up to.

    Do or Die won the premiership for BJ, but seems likely to make him look a fool at the end of this month. (Though if it leads to an exit by, say, Christmas, that will be forgiven.)

    So that's one possibility. The other is that he has outsourced his thinking to a group of people who are already convinced that British government is fundamentally rubbish, and needs destruction and replacement. If Boris visibly fails, that just proves to the public how decedent the state is. And if the failure destroys Boris? Whatevs. He's just the front man.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 1,137
    Byronic said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    To be honest so much has gone wrong with the Brexit process that I struggle to remember the joint report. If it indeed assumed continuing alignment of the UK and EU on SM measures it was indeed remarkable that so little was said at the time.

    And yet that is a compromise which in my view most leavers (if not the loudest) would still accept. Out of the political structures, in the SM. It seems something we need to get back to.

    I would certainly agree with that last point. It is what May should have worked towards, with cross-party support, right from the start. But I remember when May's deal was first unveiled many people felt that its great strength was that May "got it" that the Brexit vote was all about immigration, and so we had to be out of the single market. Hence the backstop, and hence all the problems.
    The reality is that leaving the single market creates unsolvable problems at the Irish border, while staying in the single market leaves the Leave campaign's central pillar of ending free movement unachieved. What a mess!
    Great header by the way.
    The assumption built into this is that the 4 freedoms of the SM are indivisible. That was the EU position but we don't have to accept that. Freedom of movement is not a prerequisite of free movement of goods, services and money. It just isn't and we seem to have had some success ultimately in getting the EU to accept that.
    The EU has always been prepared to consider some concilliatory measures with regard to Northern Ireland, due to the unique legal, political and security situation there.

    But the indivisibility of the four freedoms is not up for discussion, and never will be, it is probably the most central tenet of the whole construct.

    What makes you believe you "had success in getting the EU to accept the contrary"?
    Absolute nonsense. France and Germany were happy to suspend free movement for Poland and the accession countries, when it suited them.

    The doctrine of sacred indivisibility, like much EU law, materialised Into being, magically.
    The EU is a pragmatic organisation and so it allowed for a transition process. We chose not to avail ourselves of it, because we had a tight labour market, we had always supported the accession process, and analytical work had suggested - wrongly as it turned out - that few would come.
    Other countries like France were historically more wary of the two things - accession and the single market - that eventually drove us from the EU. Ironic, really.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 12,324
    Despite coming to France many times apart from immediately after the referendum Brexit is hardly if ever mentioned.

    That is until yesterday when I went to a see doctor. He asked if I'd prefer French or English. "English' I said and he laughed and asked what i thought of Boris Johnson? I told him I thought he was a disaster 'What about you/' i asked. 'I think he's funny!'."Funny?' I repeated.'Yes. Very very funny!' and then laughed heartily

    In that simple encounter I think I got what the Europeans (or the French at least) think of it. They believe we've become a country to ridicule and they're enjoying it. I liked him and his reaction very much. They don't care less about Brexit but they're loving our arrogance being pricked..
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 30,481
    Maybe Christmas 2017 and Christmas 2018 had something in common?

    In both instances they didn't understand what they were commenting on and so took their cues from others.

    They're followers who wish to be idolised, not leaders.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 1,137

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    To be honest so much has gone wrong with the Brexit process that I struggle to remember the joint report. If it indeed assumed continuing alignment of the UK and EU on SM measures it was indeed remarkable that so little was said at the time.

    And yet that is a compromise which in my view most leavers (if not the loudest) would still accept. Out of the political structures, in the SM. It seems something we need to get back to.

    I would certainly agree with that last point. It is what May should have worked towards, with cross-party support, right from the start. But I remember when May's deal was first unveiled many people felt that its great strength was that May "got it" that the Brexit vote was all about immigration, and so we had to be out of the single market. Hence the backstop, and hence all the problems.
    The reality is that leaving the single market creates unsolvable problems at the Irish border, while staying in the single market leaves the Leave campaign's central pillar of ending free movement unachieved. What a mess!
    Great header by the way.
    The assumption built into this is that the 4 freedoms of the SM are indivisible. That was the EU position but we don't have to accept that. Freedom of movement is not a prerequisite of free movement of goods, services and money. It just isn't and we seem to have had some success ultimately in getting the EU to accept that.

    Freedom of movement is a pre-requisite for a single market. So is a single patent system, which is why the EU wants one of those as well.

    It isn’t.

    A single market is a single regulatory regime. You don’t need free movement for that.

    You may need visa free travel for up to six months.
    Visa free travel for up to six months wouldn't prevent many of the things that most rile people up about free movement, while delivering few of the benefits for legitimate business and commerce.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 30,481

    Byronic said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    To be honest so much has gone wrong with the Brexit process that I struggle to remember the joint report. If it indeed assumed continuing alignment of the UK and EU on SM measures it was indeed remarkable that so little was said at the time.

    And yet that is a compromise which in my view most leavers (if not the loudest) would still accept. Out of the political structures, in the SM. It seems something we need to get back to.


    Great header by the way.
    The assumption built into this is that the 4 freedoms of the SM are indivisible. That was the EU position but we don't have to accept that. Freedom of movement is not a prerequisite of free movement of goods, services and money. It just isn't and we seem to have had some success ultimately in getting the EU to accept that.
    The EU has always been prepared to consider some concilliatory measures with regard to Northern Ireland, due to the unique legal, political and security situation there.

    But the indivisibility of the four freedoms is not up for discussion, and never will be, it is probably the most central tenet of the whole construct.

    What makes you believe you "had success in getting the EU to accept the contrary"?
    Absolute nonsense. France and Germany were happy to suspend free movement for Poland and the accession countries, when it suited them.

    The doctrine of sacred indivisibility, like much EU law, materialised Into being, magically.
    The EU is a pragmatic organisation and so it allowed for a transition process. We chose not to avail ourselves of it, because we had a tight labour market, we had always supported the accession process, and analytical work had suggested - wrongly as it turned out - that few would come.
    Other countries like France were historically more wary of the two things - accession and the single market - that eventually drove us from the EU. Ironic, really.
    I think we all know that, for the EU, free movement of people is a political totem, not an economic one. Many other extremely close free trade areas and even single markets perfectly well work without them.

    You may need a flexible and generous visa system, and an immigration system that welcomes talent, but that's not the same thing.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 1,021
    edited October 5
    HYUFD posted that most businesses don't export and those that do, export outside of the EU. This statement is true but it completely ignores the linkage between businesses.

    Several times I have given a real life example on here. I won't repeat the details but just to say that several decades ago I ran a bid for the Europe Africa division of a very large US company in a country that is now in the EU and wasn't then and anyway the current level of freedoms were not in place then anyway. We were competing against a company in the same position (US based, UK based Europe Africa division). The carnet issues on specialist equipment just about broke us. Fortunately it did the same to our competitor. I'm 100% sure if we were not in the same boat we would have lost. It is difficult to believe we won anyway bearing in mind the terrible job I did.

    So if we leave any sane organisation will move its Europe Africa division from the UK to the EU, even if most of the countries and companies it is dealing with are outside of the EU, which of course a number are currently doing so that it doesn't lose the business of the EU based organisations.


    So this does impact non EU trade.


    Also what about all those internal UK organisations that provide goods and services entirely internally to those companies who have just moved out. That is the supply chain and then to all the businesses who supply goods and services to those companies, etc.

    HYUFD you are living in a simple world. The impact is far from those who export directly to the EU.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 30,481
    FPT - if Bernie Sanders really did suffer a serious heart attack that should be terminal for campaign.

    I hope it is because, sadly, I wouldn’t want it to be terminal for him.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 8,862
    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    The question I have is why has Boris gone so hard on 31 Oct, both in public and in private.

    I think we should very seriously consider the possibility that it's because he's a complete idiot.
    That would be a lazy and innacurate assumption. A bit like 'There's no plan! The dog ate his homework! LOL. There's no plan!' which all the twitter idiots went with when there was clearly a very detailed and rather good plan, that shows every sign of being acceptable to parliament, and had nothing in it that could be rejected out of hand by the EU.
  • Byronic said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    To be honest so much has gone wrong with the Brexit process that I struggle to remember the joint report. If it indeed assumed continuing alignment of the UK and EU on SM measures it was indeed remarkable that so little was said at the time.

    And yet that is a compromise which in my view most leavers (if not the loudest) would still accept. Out of the political structures, in the SM. It seems something we need to get back to.

    I would certainly agree with that last point. It is what May should have worked towards, with cross-party support, right from the start. But I remember when May's deal was first unveiled many people felt that its great strength was that May "got it" that the Brexit vote was all about immigration, and so we had to be out of the single market. Hence the backstop, and hence all the problems.
    The reality is that leaving the single market creates unsolvable problems at the Irish border, while staying in the single market leaves the Leave campaign's central pillar of ending free movement unachieved. What a mess!
    Great header by the way.
    The assumption built into this is that the 4 freedoms of the SM are indivisible. That was the EU position but we don't have to accept that. Freedom of movement is not a prerequisite of free movement of goods, services and money. It just isn't and we seem to have had some success ultimately in getting the EU to accept that.
    The EU has always been prepared to consider some concilliatory measures with regard to Northern Ireland, due to the unique legal, political and security situation there.

    But the indivisibility of the four freedoms is not up for discussion, and never will be, it is probably the most central tenet of the whole construct.

    What makes you believe you "had success in getting the EU to accept the contrary"?
    Absolute nonsense. France and Germany were happy to suspend free movement for Poland and the accession countries, when it suited them.

    The doctrine of sacred indivisibility, like much EU law, materialised Into being, magically.
    In extraordinary circumstances temporary measures can be agreed between the EU members. On the occasion of the accession of the Eastern European countries the majority of erstwhile members did.
    The government you had voted into office did not.

    That does not mean that EU law has any magic qualities, and it does not mean that the principle of indivisibility can be unilaterally rejected.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 2,515
    Roger said:

    Despite coming to France many times apart from immediately after the referendum Brexit is hardly if ever mentioned.

    That is until yesterday when I went to a see doctor. He asked if I'd prefer French or English. "English' I said and he laughed and asked what i thought of Boris Johnson? I told him I thought he was a disaster 'What about you/' i asked. 'I think he's funny!'."Funny?' I repeated.'Yes. Very very funny!' and then laughed heartily

    In that simple encounter I think I got what the Europeans (or the French at least) think of it. They believe we've become a country to ridicule and they're enjoying it. I liked him and his reaction very much. They don't care less about Brexit but they're loving our arrogance being pricked..

    Remind your doctor that we are going through these embarrassing paroxysms because the British elite is doing its best (in part, and not very well) to honour democracy and respect a referendum vote.

    By contrast, the French elite simply ignored the French vote on the EU Constitution, and rammed the damn thing through parliament instead.

    Some French historians believe that that terrible betrayal of democratic trust, between ruled and rulers, led directly to the rise of the FN and the anger of the gilet jaunes
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 8,862
    Byronic said:

    Roger said:

    Despite coming to France many times apart from immediately after the referendum Brexit is hardly if ever mentioned.

    That is until yesterday when I went to a see doctor. He asked if I'd prefer French or English. "English' I said and he laughed and asked what i thought of Boris Johnson? I told him I thought he was a disaster 'What about you/' i asked. 'I think he's funny!'."Funny?' I repeated.'Yes. Very very funny!' and then laughed heartily

    In that simple encounter I think I got what the Europeans (or the French at least) think of it. They believe we've become a country to ridicule and they're enjoying it. I liked him and his reaction very much. They don't care less about Brexit but they're loving our arrogance being pricked..

    Remind your doctor that we are going through these embarrassing paroxysms because the British elite is doing its best (in part, and not very well) to honour democracy and respect a referendum vote.

    By contrast, the French elite simply ignored the French vote on the EU Constitution, and rammed the damn thing through parliament instead.

    Some French historians believe that that terrible betrayal of democratic trust, between ruled and rulers, led directly to the rise of the FN and the anger of the gilet jaunes
    He doesn't need to remind his Doctor of anything - his Doctor thinks Boris is funny. He is right, Boris is funny. The rest is just Roger desperately reaching for the worst interpretation of his Doctor thinking Boris is funny that he can, because he was fondly hoping that his sojourn in France would be full of blistering Brexit condemnations that he could report back here, and in the event nobody took him up.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 30,481

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    To be honest so much has gone wrong with the Brexit process that I struggle to remember the joint report. If it indeed assumed continuing alignment of the UK and EU on SM measures it was indeed remarkable that so little was said at the time.

    And yet that is a compromise which in my view most leavers (if not the loudest) would still accept. Out of the political structures, in the SM. It seems something we need to get back to.

    I would certainly agree with that last point. It is what May should have worked towards, with cross-party support, right from the start. But I remember when May's deal was first unveiled many people felt that its great strength was that May "got it" that the Brexit vote was all about immigration, and so we had to be out of the single market. Hence the backstop, and hence all the problems.
    The reality is that leaving the single market creates unsolvable problems at the Irish border, while staying in the single market leaves the Leave campaign's central pillar of ending free movement unachieved. What a mess!
    Great header by the way.
    The assumption built into this is that the 4 freedoms of the SM are indivisible. That was the EU position but we don't have to accept that. Freedom of movement is not a prerequisite of free movement of goods, services and money. It just isn't and we seem to have had some success ultimately in getting the EU to accept that.

    Freedom of movement is a pre-requisite for a single market. So is a single patent system, which is why the EU wants one of those as well.

    It isn’t.

    A single market is a single regulatory regime. You don’t need free movement for that.

    You may need visa free travel for up to six months.
    Visa free travel for up to six months wouldn't prevent many of the things that most rile people up about free movement, while delivering few of the benefits for legitimate business and commerce.
    Neither of those statements is true.
  • BudGBudG Posts: 699
    Once Boris has requested an extension to comply with the Benn Law and the Eu have granted the extension as requested, does the extension offered have to be ratified or agreed by the UK?

    If so, can Boris simply refuse to agree to it (having discharged his legal responsibility by requesting it) which will result in us leaving on October 31st without a deal?
  • It's a terrific piece by David Herdson. Though its premise, that poor quality planning, policy and political decisions by Brexiters need explaination, is debatable.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 3,097
    BudG said:

    Once Boris has requested an extension to comply with the Benn Law and the Eu have granted the extension as requested, does the extension offered have to be ratified or agreed by the UK?

    If so, can Boris simply refuse to agree to it (having discharged his legal responsibility by requesting it) which will result in us leaving on October 31st without a deal?

    If the extension is to 31/1 he has to accept it if it is for any other date it has to pass the commons and then he has to accept it.
  • Roger said:

    Despite coming to France many times apart from immediately after the referendum Brexit is hardly if ever mentioned.

    That is until yesterday when I went to a see doctor. He asked if I'd prefer French or English. "English' I said and he laughed and asked what i thought of Boris Johnson? I told him I thought he was a disaster 'What about you/' i asked. 'I think he's funny!'."Funny?' I repeated.'Yes. Very very funny!' and then laughed heartily

    In that simple encounter I think I got what the Europeans (or the French at least) think of it. They believe we've become a country to ridicule and they're enjoying it. I liked him and his reaction very much. They don't care less about Brexit but they're loving our arrogance being pricked..

    You seem disappointed that the doctor wasn't apoplectic with rage about us, Rog. I'd change your quack, mate, get one who really hates us. That'd make you feel much better.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 3,058
    The United Kingdom is a failed state, and the entire mess over Brexit could be resolved much more easily were it to be broken up. The sheer scale of the failure by our political system in general, and most of its constituent parties, has been colossal. Like the Palace of Westminster itself, the structure is rotten and the bulk of it simply needs tearing down and replacing with something better.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 568

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    To be honest so much has gone wrong with the Brexit process that I struggle to remember the joint report. If it indeed assumed continuing alignment of the UK and EU on SM measures it was indeed remarkable that so little was said at the time.

    And yet that is a compromise which in my view most leavers (if not the loudest) would still accept. Out of the political structures, in the SM. It seems something we need to get back to.

    I would certainly agree with that last point. It is what May should have worked towards, with cross-party support, right from the start. But I remember when May's deal was first unveiled many people felt that its great strength was that May "got it" that the Brexit vote was all about immigration, and so we had to be out of the single market. Hence the backstop, and hence all the problems.
    The reality is that leaving the single market creates unsolvable problems at the Irish border, while staying in the single market leaves the Leave campaign's central pillar of ending free movement unachieved. What a mess!
    Great header by the way.
    The assumption built into this is that the 4 freedoms of the SM are indivisible. That was the EU position but we don't have to accept that. Freedom of movement is not a prerequisite of free movement of goods, services and money. It just isn't and we seem to have had some success ultimately in getting the EU to accept that.
    I think they are more or less indivisible. It's hard to have genuine free cross border competition in services without free movement. Access to a vast talent pool for specialised firms (not all of whose jobs will meet any arbitrary wage threshold for 'skilled jobs') is a huge benefit for the EU economy. Plus free movement is necessary for an integrated economy to work: if country A is given access to country B's markets and has more efficient firms then country B will face an increase in unemployment, and it is right that its workers have access to Labour markets in country A.
    I am not sure what the evidence is that the EU is willing to split up the four freedoms, either. They are allowing NI to stay in the single market for goods, but NI and the Republic already have a common travel area so there is free movement - and all NI born people can have Irish passports so can travel anywhere else in the EU too (lucky bastards!)
    Genuine question - didn’t the EU introduce capital controls in Cyprus a few years back or am I misremembering?

    If I recall right, then it appears the four freedoms are indivisible until they aren’t?

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 51,339
    Mr. Valiant, possibly... didn't they skim bank accounts in Cyprus during the financial crisis?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 26,056
    Another day, another aspect of the dire FTPA:

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 27,418
    Why can we never find a PM with the authority of a rugby ref?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 26,056
    TGOHF2 said:
    "dead Parliament" - taken straight from Cox's last outing in Commons.

  • TGOHF2TGOHF2 Posts: 584
    Byronic said:

    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    The question I have is why has Boris gone so hard on 31 Oct, both in public and in private.

    I think we should very seriously consider the possibility that it's because he's a complete idiot.

    The really stupid bit is promising a workaround to the Benn Act. Telling supporters we’re coming out despite legislation preventing it and then not coming out is not a smart move IMO.


    Have you apologized to everyone for spreading that ridiculous lie about Michael Gove at the German embassy?
    Arf - that scuttling for the shadows would appear to be a no..
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 25,081
    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    The question I have is why has Boris gone so hard on 31 Oct, both in public and in private.

    I think we should very seriously consider the possibility that it's because he's a complete idiot.
    It is a mistake to assume that
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 25,081

    Why can we never find a PM with the authority of a rugby ref?

    Because he can’t red card players
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 15,200

    Roger said:

    Despite coming to France many times apart from immediately after the referendum Brexit is hardly if ever mentioned.

    That is until yesterday when I went to a see doctor. He asked if I'd prefer French or English. "English' I said and he laughed and asked what i thought of Boris Johnson? I told him I thought he was a disaster 'What about you/' i asked. 'I think he's funny!'."Funny?' I repeated.'Yes. Very very funny!' and then laughed heartily

    In that simple encounter I think I got what the Europeans (or the French at least) think of it. They believe we've become a country to ridicule and they're enjoying it. I liked him and his reaction very much. They don't care less about Brexit but they're loving our arrogance being pricked..

    You seem disappointed that the doctor wasn't apoplectic with rage about us, Rog. I'd change your quack, mate, get one who really hates us. That'd make you feel much better.
    A curious interpretation of “I liked him and his reaction very much”.
  • BudGBudG Posts: 699
    nichomar said:

    BudG said:

    Once Boris has requested an extension to comply with the Benn Law and the Eu have granted the extension as requested, does the extension offered have to be ratified or agreed by the UK?

    If so, can Boris simply refuse to agree to it (having discharged his legal responsibility by requesting it) which will result in us leaving on October 31st without a deal?

    If the extension is to 31/1 he has to accept it if it is for any other date it has to pass the commons and then he has to accept it.
    Thank you for clarifying.

    Goes back to looking at how Boris Houdini gets out of this one.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 3,097
    Charles said:

    Why can we never find a PM with the authority of a rugby ref?

    Because he can’t red card players
    But the speaker can better analogy for a ref.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 15,200

    Why can we never find a PM with the authority of a rugby ref?

    Because the PM is a player, not a referee.

    Johnson himself is fond of the rugby team metaphor, with him as captain. Which displays a wilful ignorance of the nature of government.

  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 15,805
    nichomar said:

    BudG said:

    Once Boris has requested an extension to comply with the Benn Law and the Eu have granted the extension as requested, does the extension offered have to be ratified or agreed by the UK?

    If so, can Boris simply refuse to agree to it (having discharged his legal responsibility by requesting it) which will result in us leaving on October 31st without a deal?

    If the extension is to 31/1 he has to accept it if it is for any other date it has to pass the commons and then he has to accept it.
    Not quite. If the extension offered is to a date other than 31/1 then it is automatically accepted unless Parliament rejects it within the next two days.

    The default is to accept unless the Commons, at the government's prompting, refused.
  • MangoMango Posts: 281
    DavidL said:

    To be honest so much has gone wrong with the Brexit process that I struggle to remember the joint report. If it indeed assumed continuing alignment of the UK and EU on SM measures it was indeed remarkable that so little was said at the time.

    And yet that is a compromise which in my view most leavers (if not the loudest) would still accept. Out of the political structures, in the SM. It seems something we need to get back to.

    Indeed, it is one of the three possible and logical solutions.

    I think that leaving the EU is a strategic error of the highest order, but I would accept Norway+ status as a reasonable compromise and the first step in dialling down the civil war mentality. I think the UK would have to clearly commit to maintaining that status for at least 10 years (i.e. no rejoining, no diverging), with an even greater reiteration of doing whatever it takes (a good European phrase that) to ensure satisfactory arrangements for the island of Ireland.

    Domestically we would then have to clear up the mess that pandering to nativism has unleashed, and address some of the underlying structural issues, but we would at least not have blown up the economy and our international reputation.

    Those marvellous trade deals with Fiji and Saudi Arabia will have to wait.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 15,200

    The United Kingdom is a failed state, and the entire mess over Brexit could be resolved much more easily were it to be broken up. The sheer scale of the failure by our political system in general, and most of its constituent parties, has been colossal. Like the Palace of Westminster itself, the structure is rotten and the bulk of it simply needs tearing down and replacing with something better.

    There is nothing simple about such a suggestion.
    The entire mess of Brexit would pale in comparison.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 16,173

    TGOHF2 said:
    "dead Parliament" - taken straight from Cox's last outing in Commons.

    Britain First!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 26,056
    We have hit uncharted political territory. An unstable president has lurched under the pressure of an impeachment inquiry into a form of madness that is either a very public suicide or some weird genius for survival.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/opinion/trump-impeach.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,026
    Charles said:

    Why can we never find a PM with the authority of a rugby ref?

    Because he can’t red card players
    Boris red-carded the 21 Conservative MPs from whom he removed the whip, thus ending their careers, after his fake vote of confidence; we can tell it was not real as his lips moved Boris did not resign on losing it.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 9,481
    edited October 5
    Although I think Brexiteers were distracted, the key reason why they didn't immediately jump on implications of the draft agreement was because they were still operating off the false assumptions driving their campaign and votes.

    There is a fundamental and unresolvable contradiction to Brexit. People voted Leave to be masters of their own ship and to get an unloved institution out of their lives, at no cost. However any Project Fearless Brexit requires a very close relationship with the EU, necessarily on its terms. We still have to follow the rules but no longer have any agency over them. EU aggravation increases exponentially. Brexit delivers the opposite of what people voted for.

    All the argument since 2017 is that unresolvable contradiction staying unresolved.

    Back to December 2017, Brexiteers were still bound up in their campaign rhetoric, but treaties are hard and fast commitments. The implications took time to filter through.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 8,862

    The United Kingdom is a failed state, and the entire mess over Brexit could be resolved much more easily were it to be broken up. The sheer scale of the failure by our political system in general, and most of its constituent parties, has been colossal. Like the Palace of Westminster itself, the structure is rotten and the bulk of it simply needs tearing down and replacing with something better.

    Dramatic much? France is more of a failed state than we are, and nobody is proposing that they pack it in. We disagree about stuff. That's it.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 12,324

    Byronic said:

    Roger said:

    Despite coming to France many times apart from immediately after the referendum Brexit is hardly if ever mentioned.

    That is until yesterday when I went to a see doctor. He asked if I'd prefer French or English. "English' I said and he laughed and asked what i thought of Boris Johnson? I told him I thought he was a disaster 'What about you/' i asked. 'I think he's funny!'."Funny?' I repeated.'Yes. Very very funny!' and then laughed heartily

    In that simple encounter I think I got what the Europeans (or the French at least) think of it. They believe we've become a country to ridicule and they're enjoying it. I liked him and his reaction very much. They don't care less about Brexit but they're loving our arrogance being pricked..

    Remind your doctor that we are going through these embarrassing paroxysms because the British elite is doing its best (in part, and not very well) to honour democracy and respect a referendum vote.

    By contrast, the French elite simply ignored the French vote on the EU Constitution, and rammed the damn thing through parliament instead.

    Some French historians believe that that terrible betrayal of democratic trust, between ruled and rulers, led directly to the rise of the FN and the anger of the gilet jaunes
    He doesn't need to remind his Doctor of anything - his Doctor thinks Boris is funny. He is right, Boris is funny. The rest is just Roger desperately reaching for the worst interpretation of his Doctor thinking Boris is funny that he can, because he was fondly hoping that his sojourn in France would be full of blistering Brexit condemnations that he could report back here, and in the event nobody took him up.

    It's difficult to imagine being in a country 22 miles from our shores at the heart of the EU and trying to understand why something which is totally obsessing us appears invisible to them. If the gilet jaunes set off a few fireworks in Paris the coffee bars of Hartlepool would be buzzing. South Molton St would be painted yellow. Barnier can't be the only Frenchman with an opinion.

    My post was not an attempt to ridicule the UK just an attempt to cast a chink of light into an area of darkness.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 62,888
    The key difference between Boris and May is Boris ensured he had DUP and ERG support (and thus a likely Commons majority) before making his proposals to the EU
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 35,762
    New Zealand wont be losing any sleep watching england make hard work if a 14 man Argentina.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 4,638
    The other explanation is that the dog DID bark but was ignored at the time, and we don't remember it barking .
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 62,888
    edited October 5

    DavidL said:

    To be honest so much has gone wrong with the Brexit process that I struggle to remember the joint report. If it indeed assumed continuing alignment of the UK and EU on SM measures it was indeed remarkable that so little was said at the time.

    And yet that is a compromise which in my view most leavers (if not the loudest) would still accept. Out of the political structures, in the SM. It seems something we need to get back to.

    I would certainly agree with that last point. It is what May should have worked towards, with cross-party support, right from the start. But I remember when May's deal was first unveiled many people felt that its great strength was that May "got it" that the Brexit vote was all about immigration, and so we had to be out of the single market. Hence the backstop, and hence all the problems.
    The reality is that leaving the single market creates unsolvable problems at the Irish border, while staying in the single market leaves the Leave campaign's central pillar of ending free movement unachieved. What a mess!
    Great header by the way.
    Exactly, until immigration is brought under control with free movement replaces by a points system staying in the Single Market is not an option without betraying one of the key platforms of the Leave vote.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 3,058
    Nigelb said:

    The United Kingdom is a failed state, and the entire mess over Brexit could be resolved much more easily were it to be broken up. The sheer scale of the failure by our political system in general, and most of its constituent parties, has been colossal. Like the Palace of Westminster itself, the structure is rotten and the bulk of it simply needs tearing down and replacing with something better.

    There is nothing simple about such a suggestion.
    The entire mess of Brexit would pale in comparison.
    Allows England (or England and Wales) to stay in the EU or go in peace, resolves the partition of Ireland, negates the Irish border problem, abolishes the Barnett formula, answers the West Lothian question and almost certainly ends the run of ineffectual hung parliaments all in one go. So not wholly without merit.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 8,862
    Nigelb said:

    Roger said:

    Despite coming to France many times apart from immediately after the referendum Brexit is hardly if ever mentioned.

    That is until yesterday when I went to a see doctor. He asked if I'd prefer French or English. "English' I said and he laughed and asked what i thought of Boris Johnson? I told him I thought he was a disaster 'What about you/' i asked. 'I think he's funny!'."Funny?' I repeated.'Yes. Very very funny!' and then laughed heartily

    In that simple encounter I think I got what the Europeans (or the French at least) think of it. They believe we've become a country to ridicule and they're enjoying it. I liked him and his reaction very much. They don't care less about Brexit but they're loving our arrogance being pricked..

    You seem disappointed that the doctor wasn't apoplectic with rage about us, Rog. I'd change your quack, mate, get one who really hates us. That'd make you feel much better.
    A curious interpretation of “I liked him and his reaction very much”.
    By the way, I hope all is well now Roger. We never agree, but I do wish you the very best in health.
  • eekeek Posts: 5,791
    HYUFD said:

    The key difference between Boris and May is Boris ensured he had DUP and ERG support (and thus a likely Commons majority) before making his proposals to the EU

    And the ERG and the DUP are enough for the deal (were it to be accepted by the EU) to get through Parliament.

    I suspect Boris still doesn't have the numbers.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 3,058

    New Zealand wont be losing any sleep watching england make hard work if a 14 man Argentina.

    Neither will France. Or Wales.

    A quarter-final floptacular beckons.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 16,330

    Another day, another aspect of the dire FTPA:

    That's exactly what I said on here about that letter. :D
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 62,888
    kjh said:

    HYUFD posted that most businesses don't export and those that do, export outside of the EU. This statement is true but it completely ignores the linkage between businesses.

    Several times I have given a real life example on here. I won't repeat the details but just to say that several decades ago I ran a bid for the Europe Africa division of a very large US company in a country that is now in the EU and wasn't then and anyway the current level of freedoms were not in place then anyway. We were competing against a company in the same position (US based, UK based Europe Africa division). The carnet issues on specialist equipment just about broke us. Fortunately it did the same to our competitor. I'm 100% sure if we were not in the same boat we would have lost. It is difficult to believe we won anyway bearing in mind the terrible job I did.

    So if we leave any sane organisation will move its Europe Africa division from the UK to the EU, even if most of the countries and companies it is dealing with are outside of the EU, which of course a number are currently doing so that it doesn't lose the business of the EU based organisations.


    So this does impact non EU trade.


    Also what about all those internal UK organisations that provide goods and services entirely internally to those companies who have just moved out. That is the supply chain and then to all the businesses who supply goods and services to those companies, etc.

    HYUFD you are living in a simple world. The impact is far from those who export directly to the EU.

    Since when has a Europe Africa division ever involved anything other than EU trade? Since when has a company supplying them.not also been supplying a company trading in the EU? None of which negates the point only 8% of UK exporters export to the EU.

    So nothing to say we cannot survive leaving the EU even with No Deal despite the views of those who would betray the biggest vote in peacetime British history
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 31,701
    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    The key difference between Boris and May is Boris ensured he had DUP and ERG support (and thus a likely Commons majority) before making his proposals to the EU

    And the ERG and the DUP are enough for the deal (were it to be accepted by the EU) to get through Parliament.

    I suspect Boris still doesn't have the numbers.

    Neither the ERG nor the DUP can back any deal acceptable to the EU.

  • PendduPenddu Posts: 260
    England may be 3 tries up and playing against 14 men....but they will regret leaving 9 kicking points behind - and I expect them to be down to 14 men soon (Yellow not red).

    Games is not over..
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 62,888
    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    The key difference between Boris and May is Boris ensured he had DUP and ERG support (and thus a likely Commons majority) before making his proposals to the EU

    And the ERG and the DUP are enough for the deal (were it to be accepted by the EU) to get through Parliament.

    I suspect Boris still doesn't have the numbers.
    They are as the 317 votes for the successful passage of the Brady amendment with ERG and DUP support showed
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 31,701
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    To be honest so much has gone wrong with the Brexit process that I struggle to remember the joint report. If it indeed assumed continuing alignment of the UK and EU on SM measures it was indeed remarkable that so little was said at the time.

    And yet that is a compromise which in my view most leavers (if not the loudest) would still accept. Out of the political structures, in the SM. It seems something we need to get back to.

    I would certainly agree with that last point. It is what May should have worked towards, with cross-party support, right from the start. But I remember when May's deal was first unveiled many people felt that its great strength was that May "got it" that the Brexit vote was all about immigration, and so we had to be out of the single market. Hence the backstop, and hence all the problems.
    The reality is that leaving the single market creates unsolvable problems at the Irish border, while staying in the single market leaves the Leave campaign's central pillar of ending free movement unachieved. What a mess!
    Great header by the way.
    Exactly, until immigration is brought under control with free movement replaces by a points system staying in the Single Market is not an option without betraying one of the key platforms of the Leave vote.

    What are other key platforms of the Leave vote expendable?

  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 1,137
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    To be honest so much has gone wrong with the Brexit process that I struggle to remember the joint report. If it indeed assumed continuing alignment of the UK and EU on SM measures it was indeed remarkable that so little was said at the time.

    And yet that is a compromise which in my view most leavers (if not the loudest) would still accept. Out of the political structures, in the SM. It seems something we need to get back to.

    I would certainly agree with that last point. It is what May should have worked towards, with cross-party support, right from the start. But I remember when May's deal was first unveiled many people felt that its great strength was that May "got it" that the Brexit vote was all about immigration, and so we had to be out of the single market. Hence the backstop, and hence all the problems.
    The reality is that leaving the single market creates unsolvable problems at the Irish border, while staying in the single market leaves the Leave campaign's central pillar of ending free movement unachieved. What a mess!
    Great header by the way.
    Exactly, until immigration is brought under control with free movement replaces by a points system staying in the Single Market is not an option without betraying one of the key platforms of the Leave vote.
    You do understand that a "points system" and the single market are incompatible, right?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 62,888

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    To be honest so much has gone wrong with the Brexit process that I struggle to remember the joint report. If it indeed assumed continuing alignment of the UK and EU on SM measures it was indeed remarkable that so little was said at the time.

    And yet that is a compromise which in my view most leavers (if not the loudest) would still accept. Out of the political structures, in the SM. It seems something we need to get back to.

    I would certainly agree with that last point. It is what May should have worked towards, with cross-party support, right from the start. But I remember when May's deal was first unveiled many people felt that its great strength was that May "got it" that the Brexit vote was all about immigration, and so we had to be out of the single market. Hence the backstop, and hence all the problems.
    The reality is that leaving the single market creates unsolvable problems at the Irish border, while staying in the single market leaves the Leave campaign's central pillar of ending free movement unachieved. What a mess!
    Great header by the way.
    Exactly, until immigration is brought under control with free movement replaces by a points system staying in the Single Market is not an option without betraying one of the key platforms of the Leave vote.

    What are other key platforms of the Leave vote expendable?

    Regain sovereignty, end ECJ jurisdiction, stop sending money to Brussels etc.

    That was the Vote Leave platform and must be delivered
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 16,330
    edited October 5
    FPT

    GIN1138 said:


    I don't think a VONC would be allowed before Parliament has voted on Queens Speech.

    The way I see it playing out:

    1. Queens Speech 14th October followed by 5-6 days of debate (in this period normal buisness doesn't take place)

    2. EU summit 17th/18th October. Boris flys home with a deal late on 18th.

    3. Emergency debate tabled by government on Saturday 19th October to discuss and vote on the deal. Deal passes.

    4. Queens Speech vote on 21st October. Government loses.

    5. Possible VONC following Queens Speech loss. Government loses.

    6. general election agreed on 22nd October for 28th November or 5th December.

    IMO there is a reason the Queens Speech is happening on 14th October with EU summit on 17th and 18th. That is not a coincidence

    This seems to assume a very helpful series of votes for the government, I don't really understand why the opposition parties would cooperate with it.

    Opposition will vote against the governments Queens Speech yes?

    Government loses QS.

    Under FTPA QS are not VONC but as good as. Nevertheless I suspect that after defeating the government on the QS the Opposition would be forced to lay down a VONC which the government is also likely to lose.

    At that point an election would have to be agreed as no one else has the numbers to get a QS through either...

    I suppose we could find ourselves with the extraordinary spectacle of the Opposition being so fri they actually vote for the governments Queens Speech but that would be very odd...
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 3,097
    This is how they think they can force 31/10
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EGDJqC7W4AAJte2?format=jpg&name=medium

    Which is being challenged in the courts as the equivalent of frustrating the benn act. If it holds up then bunging hungry for example a few billion would be perceived as frustrating the act. The rebel alliance may, in the event, the court rules against Maugham, have to pass a specific act to outlaw it or no confidence the government.
This discussion has been closed.