Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » TMay’s plan to enshrine the Brexit date in law looks set to fa

2456

Comments

  • daodao said:

    Scott_P said:

    kle4 said:

    you treat anything the other side in negotiations say as fundamental truth

    No, I treat fundamental truth like fundamental truth.

    Membership is the best deal on offer is a fundamental truth.

    That the Brexiteers don't understand that is not my problem.
    "Membership is the best deal on offer is a fundamental truth." Yes, but only from an economic perspective. The UK will be poorer outside the EU, but Brexiteers had/have other motivations.
    Not all 52%.
  • The Government's impending failure on this proposed amendment shows the continuing lack of buy-in in Parliament to the idea that Brexit is definitely happening. This should alarm Leavers.

    Set against that, there may well be an element of "watch the birdie". This isn't a particularly significant amendment and it may well give those wishing to rebel something harmless to rebel on. There are more substantial battles ahead.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 5,110

    does the Cabinet even agree on a line in the sand date....? It does appear a distraction from the bigger issues (one which grabs attention) .

    As for the housing issue there is no easy quick fix solution, if anyone thinks a lab govt will solve that one in its first (and only?) term then they'll believe anything....

    There is an easy fix solution.

    Allow local authorities to borrow to build local authority houses (by issuing bonds as many major cities do in other countries).

    The current prohibition on local authority house building is just ideological. The borrowing would be balanced by the assets in the balance sheet. Local authorities are allowed to borrow to invest in commercial properties, and many do, but not in housing. Bizarre.
  • Sky news showing press conference with the Irish Foreign Minister and Boris where the Irish FM suggests the trade deal will take 4 to 5 years and Boris nods in agreement.

    Strange

    Boris has been reading PB, last night I said the whole Brexit process should take up to five years.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 21,072
    edited November 2017
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Scott_P said:

    kle4 said:

    you treat anything the other side in negotiations say as fundamental truth

    No, I treat fundamental truth like fundamental truth.

    Membership is the best deal on offer is a fundamental truth.

    That the Brexiteers don't understand that is not my problem.
    Yes it is.

    The rules are clear: to obtain the right to moan, you have to vote. And if you want to moan like a dockside hooker taking a podium place at the world moaning championships, we need to see a canvassing record. Sorry, but there it is.
    First, on a style point, that's overuse of the dockside hooker analogy. Somewhat droll first time, repetitive thereafter.

    Second, nah. Let's suppose that 20 people read PB who were undecided on the EU ref. By reading stuff on here prior to the vote those 20 might have been influenced. Perhaps as much as being given a leaflet outside Wimbledon tube station. Perhaps there were more than 20 people described thus.

    So I think a PB poster can feel that they contributed to the national debate as much (and often as well) as hitting the streets. Perhaps moreso (extended content of discussion). Perhaps.
  • The entrenched positions on the extremities of the debate are becoming so boring and are only serving the sterile nature of Brexit.

    It would be nice to see sensible debate where those with implacable opposition at least accept that there are two sides to the argument and do so with some grace
  • TOPPING said:

    Such a model would provide “no direct branching in sectors like financial services”. The documents added that there were only “limited EU commitments to allow cross-border provision of services”.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/standard-trade-deal-is-as-good-as-youll-get-brussels-tells-brexit-bound-uk-wqqhbtjdz

    Well Michael Gove might just have worked out what letters to capitalise in MiFID but the rest of those involved could have told him the above increasingly loudly over the past months.
    My phone used to regularly auto correct MiFID II to ‘MILF’

    Was a nightmare writing work related emails and reports on my phone.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 21,072

    The Government's impending failure on this proposed amendment shows the continuing lack of buy-in in Parliament to the idea that Brexit is definitely happening. This should alarm Leavers.

    Set against that, there may well be an element of "watch the birdie". This isn't a particularly significant amendment and it may well give those wishing to rebel something harmless to rebel on. There are more substantial battles ahead.

    An easy get out would be to prevaricate, extend A50 right up until Lab wins the next election, at which point Brexit is reversed and we stay in. No one to blame and everyone to blame.

    That would be a worrying scenario if I were a Leaver.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 21,072

    TOPPING said:

    Such a model would provide “no direct branching in sectors like financial services”. The documents added that there were only “limited EU commitments to allow cross-border provision of services”.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/standard-trade-deal-is-as-good-as-youll-get-brussels-tells-brexit-bound-uk-wqqhbtjdz

    Well Michael Gove might just have worked out what letters to capitalise in MiFID but the rest of those involved could have told him the above increasingly loudly over the past months.
    My phone used to regularly auto correct MiFID II to ‘MILF’

    Was a nightmare writing work related emails and reports on my phone.
    But opened up whole new avenues at the same time?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 28,357
    Scott_P said:

    kle4 said:

    you treat anything the other side in negotiations say as fundamental truth

    No, I treat fundamental truth like fundamental truth.

    Membership is the best deal on offer is a fundamental truth.

    .
    It's a point of view, not a fundamental truth.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    HYUFD said:
    But there is no equivalence

    We export more than 50% of our cars to the EU

    They export less than 10% to us

    A bad day for them is catastrophic for us
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 11,100

    Sky news showing press conference with the Irish Foreign Minister and Boris where the Irish FM suggests the trade deal will take 4 to 5 years and Boris nods in agreement.

    Strange

    Boris has been reading PB, last night I said the whole Brexit process should take up to five years.
    Ok, that's enough! I want whichever of you PB posters is Boris to own up now.

    Jeremy Ben
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Such a model would provide “no direct branching in sectors like financial services”. The documents added that there were only “limited EU commitments to allow cross-border provision of services”.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/standard-trade-deal-is-as-good-as-youll-get-brussels-tells-brexit-bound-uk-wqqhbtjdz

    Well Michael Gove might just have worked out what letters to capitalise in MiFID but the rest of those involved could have told him the above increasingly loudly over the past months.
    My phone used to regularly auto correct MiFID II to ‘MILF’

    Was a nightmare writing work related emails and reports on my phone.
    But opened up whole new avenues at the same time?
    Indeed.

    Though on one occasion one of the old boys asked me what’s a MILF?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Sean_F said:

    It's a point of view, not a fundamental truth.

    The chair recognises the contribution from the Flat Earth Society...
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 28,357
    Scott_P said:

    Sean_F said:

    It's a point of view, not a fundamental truth.

    The chair recognises the contribution from the Flat Earth Society...
    A fundamental truth is a scientific fact.

    A political opinion is just that.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 65,132
    edited November 2017
    Scott_P said:

    HYUFD said:
    But there is no equivalence

    We export more than 50% of our cars to the EU

    They export less than 10% to us

    A bad day for them is catastrophic for us
    We export a minority of our total exports to the EU as they do to the UK but we are both still each other's largest export destination.

    The EU also exports far more cars in total to the UK than the UK does to the EU.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 28,980
    edited November 2017

    Sky news showing press conference with the Irish Foreign Minister and Boris where the Irish FM suggests the trade deal will take 4 to 5 years and Boris nods in agreement.

    Strange

    Boris has been reading PB, last night I said the whole Brexit process should take up to five years.
    There is an important meeting of German business on monday demanding that the EU make a new offer to the UK to enable some restriction on free movement and sovereignty to be offered to the UK to keep the UK in the EU.

    There is going to be a broadside against Barnier and the Commission demanding that this cannot continue.

    Interesting to see moves in the EU business community to attack the EU and it is long overdue.

    I have little doubt a genuine offer to the UK on this basis would have a big impact on public opinion and almost certainly result in the failure of a full Brexit as it would be politically impossible the way the HOC and HOL is so pro remain.

    Betrayal would be heard across the land but not sure it would prevail.

    Still the idea the EU may do something sensible is a fairy story in itself
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 65,132
    TOPPING said:

    daodao said:

    Scott_P said:

    kle4 said:

    you treat anything the other side in negotiations say as fundamental truth

    No, I treat fundamental truth like fundamental truth.

    Membership is the best deal on offer is a fundamental truth.

    That the Brexiteers don't understand that is not my problem.
    "Membership is the best deal on offer is a fundamental truth." Yes, but only from an economic perspective. The UK will be poorer outside the EU, but Brexiteers had/have other motivations.
    Again agree. And I didn't see that on the side of the bus: The UK will be poorer outside the EU.
    In the short term maybe fractionally in the long term not if we expand trade further overseas beyond the EU. Plus we will have more control over our own laws and borders
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 22,319
    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    daodao said:

    Scott_P said:

    kle4 said:

    you treat anything the other side in negotiations say as fundamental truth

    No, I treat fundamental truth like fundamental truth.

    Membership is the best deal on offer is a fundamental truth.

    That the Brexiteers don't understand that is not my problem.
    "Membership is the best deal on offer is a fundamental truth." Yes, but only from an economic perspective. The UK will be poorer outside the EU, but Brexiteers had/have other motivations.
    Again agree. And I didn't see that on the side of the bus: The UK will be poorer outside the EU.
    In the short term maybe fractionally in the long term not if we expand trade further overseas beyond the EU. Plus we will have more control over our own laws and borders
    Lol.
  • TOPPING said:

    The Government's impending failure on this proposed amendment shows the continuing lack of buy-in in Parliament to the idea that Brexit is definitely happening. This should alarm Leavers.

    Set against that, there may well be an element of "watch the birdie". This isn't a particularly significant amendment and it may well give those wishing to rebel something harmless to rebel on. There are more substantial battles ahead.

    An easy get out would be to prevaricate, extend A50 right up until Lab wins the next election, at which point Brexit is reversed and we stay in. No one to blame and everyone to blame.

    That would be a worrying scenario if I were a Leaver.
    Labour would have to have a clear position on the EU for the campaign and that is as likely as Bill Cash and Anna Soubry having a unified position on Brexit
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 7,655
    Scott_P said:

    HYUFD said:
    But there is no equivalence

    We export more than 50% of our cars to the EU

    They export less than 10% to us

    A bad day for them is catastrophic for us
    In any business I have ever run, worked for or heard of, an overnight 10% drop in sales is catastrophic.
  • Looks as if the polls are right. Very static at present
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 28,357

    Sky news showing press conference with the Irish Foreign Minister and Boris where the Irish FM suggests the trade deal will take 4 to 5 years and Boris nods in agreement.

    Strange

    Boris has been reading PB, last night I said the whole Brexit process should take up to five years.
    There is an important meeting of German business on monday demanding that the EU make a new offer to the UK to enable some restriction on free movement and sovereignty to be offered to the UK to keep the UK in the EU.

    There is going to be a broadside against Barnier and the Commission demanding that this cannot continue.

    Interesting to see moves in the EU business community to attack the EU and it is long overdue.

    I have little doubt a genuine offer to the UK on this basis would have a big impact on public opinion and almost certainly result in the failure of a full Brexit as it would be politically impossible the way the HOC and HOL is so pro remain.

    Betrayal would be heard across the land but not sure it would prevail.

    Still the idea the EU may do something sensible is a fairy story in itself
    There is no way the EU will do that. Any country or group of countries (eg the Visegrad Group) could then use A 50 to obtain concessions.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 11,489
    Scott_P said:

    HYUFD said:
    But there is no equivalence

    We export more than 50% of our cars to the EU

    They export less than 10% to us

    A bad day for them is catastrophic for us
    You're right that there is no equivalence.

    We have a huge trade deficit in goods and no real single market in services. The EU has an awfully big market on its doorstep; given their resident's business' success in selling into it, you'd think they'd be a bit more careful about their approach in these negotiations.
  • Sky news showing press conference with the Irish Foreign Minister and Boris where the Irish FM suggests the trade deal will take 4 to 5 years and Boris nods in agreement.

    Strange

    Boris has been reading PB, last night I said the whole Brexit process should take up to five years.
    Ok, that's enough! I want whichever of you PB posters is Boris to own up now.

    Jeremy Ben
    It is not me
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 21,072

    Sky news showing press conference with the Irish Foreign Minister and Boris where the Irish FM suggests the trade deal will take 4 to 5 years and Boris nods in agreement.

    Strange

    Boris has been reading PB, last night I said the whole Brexit process should take up to five years.
    Ok, that's enough! I want whichever of you PB posters is Boris to own up now.

    Jeremy Ben
    It is not me
    No, I am NotBoris.
  • Sky news showing press conference with the Irish Foreign Minister and Boris where the Irish FM suggests the trade deal will take 4 to 5 years and Boris nods in agreement.

    Strange

    Boris has been reading PB, last night I said the whole Brexit process should take up to five years.
    Ok, that's enough! I want whichever of you PB posters is Boris to own up now.

    Jeremy Ben
    A Leaver with a poor grasp of classical history, Morris Dancer is Boris.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @AllieRenison: I dont think Boris Johnson literally meant Dover/Calais + NI border were the same but really unwise to put them in the same breath. Political differences are huge and therefore huge sensitivities. They are meant to be distinct, even if both are substantively engaged in Phase Two.
  • Sean_F said:

    Sky news showing press conference with the Irish Foreign Minister and Boris where the Irish FM suggests the trade deal will take 4 to 5 years and Boris nods in agreement.

    Strange

    Boris has been reading PB, last night I said the whole Brexit process should take up to five years.
    There is an important meeting of German business on monday demanding that the EU make a new offer to the UK to enable some restriction on free movement and sovereignty to be offered to the UK to keep the UK in the EU.

    There is going to be a broadside against Barnier and the Commission demanding that this cannot continue.

    Interesting to see moves in the EU business community to attack the EU and it is long overdue.

    I have little doubt a genuine offer to the UK on this basis would have a big impact on public opinion and almost certainly result in the failure of a full Brexit as it would be politically impossible the way the HOC and HOL is so pro remain.

    Betrayal would be heard across the land but not sure it would prevail.

    Still the idea the EU may do something sensible is a fairy story in itself
    There is no way the EU will do that. Any country or group of countries (eg the Visegrad Group) could then use A 50 to obtain concessions.
    Absolutely but to see European business groups publically attacking Barnier and the EU will not go unnoticed by the many millions employed across Europe in UK exports
  • I’m so old I can remember when David Davis and the disgraced Liam Fox said a deal with the EU would be the easiest thing in the world.
  • Meanwhile, Ken Clarke has said the UK remaining in the single market and customs union is vital for peace and stability in Northern Ireland.

    "The border problem in Northern Ireland, the supreme importance of keeping the settlement in place, retaining peace in Northern Ireland is probably the single biggest, most important reason why it would be preferable for the United Kingdom as a whole to stay in the single market and the customs union," he said.

    "If the Brexiteers, these right-wing nationalists, won't allow us to do that then the best solution after that, I agree with the taoiseach actually, is to have a border down the Irish Sea.


    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-42019697
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 22,319

    TOPPING said:

    The Government's impending failure on this proposed amendment shows the continuing lack of buy-in in Parliament to the idea that Brexit is definitely happening. This should alarm Leavers.

    Set against that, there may well be an element of "watch the birdie". This isn't a particularly significant amendment and it may well give those wishing to rebel something harmless to rebel on. There are more substantial battles ahead.

    An easy get out would be to prevaricate, extend A50 right up until Lab wins the next election, at which point Brexit is reversed and we stay in. No one to blame and everyone to blame.

    That would be a worrying scenario if I were a Leaver.
    Labour would have to have a clear position on the EU for the campaign and that is as likely as Bill Cash and Anna Soubry having a unified position on Brexit
    Labour is watching to see where public opinion will go.
  • IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    The Government's impending failure on this proposed amendment shows the continuing lack of buy-in in Parliament to the idea that Brexit is definitely happening. This should alarm Leavers.

    Set against that, there may well be an element of "watch the birdie". This isn't a particularly significant amendment and it may well give those wishing to rebel something harmless to rebel on. There are more substantial battles ahead.

    An easy get out would be to prevaricate, extend A50 right up until Lab wins the next election, at which point Brexit is reversed and we stay in. No one to blame and everyone to blame.

    That would be a worrying scenario if I were a Leaver.
    Labour would have to have a clear position on the EU for the campaign and that is as likely as Bill Cash and Anna Soubry having a unified position on Brexit
    Labour is watching to see where public opinion will go.
    And that is why they are unfit to govern
  • Mr. NorthWales, if such an offer were made, as suggested by me some months ago (probably a year, even), then that could be taken by some here as justification for a second referendum. Or a third, depending on your perspective.
  • I’m so old I can remember when David Davis and the disgraced Liam Fox said a deal with the EU would be the easiest thing in the world.

    I see the Minister for Winging It triumphed in Germany last night. What a cock.

  • TOPPING said:

    The Government's impending failure on this proposed amendment shows the continuing lack of buy-in in Parliament to the idea that Brexit is definitely happening. This should alarm Leavers.

    Set against that, there may well be an element of "watch the birdie". This isn't a particularly significant amendment and it may well give those wishing to rebel something harmless to rebel on. There are more substantial battles ahead.

    An easy get out would be to prevaricate, extend A50 right up until Lab wins the next election, at which point Brexit is reversed and we stay in. No one to blame and everyone to blame.

    That would be a worrying scenario if I were a Leaver.
    It was reported last night that a few EU27 countries are taking legal advice about extending Article 50.

    Your prediction might turn out to be true.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 7,655
    Sean_F said:

    Sky news showing press conference with the Irish Foreign Minister and Boris where the Irish FM suggests the trade deal will take 4 to 5 years and Boris nods in agreement.

    Strange

    Boris has been reading PB, last night I said the whole Brexit process should take up to five years.
    There is an important meeting of German business on monday demanding that the EU make a new offer to the UK to enable some restriction on free movement and sovereignty to be offered to the UK to keep the UK in the EU.

    There is going to be a broadside against Barnier and the Commission demanding that this cannot continue.

    Interesting to see moves in the EU business community to attack the EU and it is long overdue.

    I have little doubt a genuine offer to the UK on this basis would have a big impact on public opinion and almost certainly result in the failure of a full Brexit as it would be politically impossible the way the HOC and HOL is so pro remain.

    Betrayal would be heard across the land but not sure it would prevail.

    Still the idea the EU may do something sensible is a fairy story in itself
    There is no way the EU will do that. Any country or group of countries (eg the Visegrad Group) could then use A 50 to obtain concessions.
    Visegrad Group = net gainers from EU by a huge margin, and Germany is pissed off with Poland and Hungary. To play the A50 threat card you have to be a big net payer with the real and obvious-to-Brussels possibility that a referendum would be won by *exit. I don't think there are any candidates.
  • TOPPING said:

    The Government's impending failure on this proposed amendment shows the continuing lack of buy-in in Parliament to the idea that Brexit is definitely happening. This should alarm Leavers.

    Set against that, there may well be an element of "watch the birdie". This isn't a particularly significant amendment and it may well give those wishing to rebel something harmless to rebel on. There are more substantial battles ahead.

    An easy get out would be to prevaricate, extend A50 right up until Lab wins the next election, at which point Brexit is reversed and we stay in. No one to blame and everyone to blame.

    That would be a worrying scenario if I were a Leaver.
    Labour would have to have a clear position on the EU for the campaign and that is as likely as Bill Cash and Anna Soubry having a unified position on Brexit
    He's assuming Labour's leadership are against Brexit.

    A bit silly, all things considered.
  • Who could have predicted this. Oh.

    Brussels does not believe it is possible to strike anything more than a limited Canadian-style free trade agreement with the UK, according to a leaked European Commission document.

    The internal discussion paper stated that Britain’s rejection of membership of the single market and the customs union meant that co-operation would have to be restricted.

    The paper, leaked to the Politico website, stated that “single market arrangements in certain areas” or the “evolution of our regulatory frameworks” could not be managed within EU law as it stood. It added that the UK would have to be satisfied with a “standard FTA (free trade agreement)”.

    The document stated that Britain’s insistence on “regulatory autonomy” and its intention to remove itself from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice would make it “not compatible” as a partner.

    Such a model would provide “no direct branching in sectors like financial services”. The documents added that there were only “limited EU commitments to allow cross-border provision of services”.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/standard-trade-deal-is-as-good-as-youll-get-brussels-tells-brexit-bound-uk-wqqhbtjdz

    The UK gets to decide whether it wants a Canada or Norway style relationship. The EU27 will decide the rest.

  • Meanwhile, Ken Clarke has said the UK remaining in the single market and customs union is vital for peace and stability in Northern Ireland.

    "The border problem in Northern Ireland, the supreme importance of keeping the settlement in place, retaining peace in Northern Ireland is probably the single biggest, most important reason why it would be preferable for the United Kingdom as a whole to stay in the single market and the customs union," he said.

    "If the Brexiteers, these right-wing nationalists, won't allow us to do that then the best solution after that, I agree with the taoiseach actually, is to have a border down the Irish Sea.


    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-42019697

    Ken wanting the Bowler Hats to pull the plug and bring down the government?

    I guess he would prefer to see a Labour Brexit than a Kipper-lite Brexit.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    that is as likely as Bill Cash and Anna Soubry having a unified position on Brexit

    They do have a unified position on Brexit

    They both agree the Government is going to screw it up
  • Mr. F, almost all other countries are locked into the single currency. For them, leaving would be significantly more difficult.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,334

    I’m so old I can remember when David Davis and the disgraced Liam Fox said a deal with the EU would be the easiest thing in the world.

    I see the Minister for Winging It triumphed in Germany last night. What a cock.

    He criticised the EU for putting politics before prosperity. Maybe he has never heard of irony.

    The Brexit process is the biggest political attack on prosperity in modern history.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 21,072

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    The Government's impending failure on this proposed amendment shows the continuing lack of buy-in in Parliament to the idea that Brexit is definitely happening. This should alarm Leavers.

    Set against that, there may well be an element of "watch the birdie". This isn't a particularly significant amendment and it may well give those wishing to rebel something harmless to rebel on. There are more substantial battles ahead.

    An easy get out would be to prevaricate, extend A50 right up until Lab wins the next election, at which point Brexit is reversed and we stay in. No one to blame and everyone to blame.

    That would be a worrying scenario if I were a Leaver.
    Labour would have to have a clear position on the EU for the campaign and that is as likely as Bill Cash and Anna Soubry having a unified position on Brexit
    Labour is watching to see where public opinion will go.
    And that is why they are unfit to govern
    They are not governing; they are in opposition. And they are doing it as well as they can atm (despite a decline by Jezza most recently).
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 21,072

    TOPPING said:

    The Government's impending failure on this proposed amendment shows the continuing lack of buy-in in Parliament to the idea that Brexit is definitely happening. This should alarm Leavers.

    Set against that, there may well be an element of "watch the birdie". This isn't a particularly significant amendment and it may well give those wishing to rebel something harmless to rebel on. There are more substantial battles ahead.

    An easy get out would be to prevaricate, extend A50 right up until Lab wins the next election, at which point Brexit is reversed and we stay in. No one to blame and everyone to blame.

    That would be a worrying scenario if I were a Leaver.
    Labour would have to have a clear position on the EU for the campaign and that is as likely as Bill Cash and Anna Soubry having a unified position on Brexit
    He's assuming Labour's leadership are against Brexit.

    A bit silly, all things considered.
    If you mean me, I'm assuming Labour's leadership want to get into power.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 12,375
    edited November 2017

    I’m so old I can remember when David Davis and the disgraced Liam Fox said a deal with the EU would be the easiest thing in the world.

    I'm so old I remember when Leavers were claiming we wouldn't leave the single market.
  • Mr. Alistair, I'm so old I remember when Remainers claimed they'd respect the result ;)
  • Scott_P said:
    Brexit Secretary David Davis in 2012: “If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.”
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @election_data: Can someone sort out a poker night for me? I want David Davis, Boris Johnson and Matt Goodwin around the table. Go!
  • Scott_P said:
    The answer is obvious, give Northern Ireland to the Republic.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    The answer is obvious, give Northern Ireland to the Republic.

    Easiest Brexit decision ever...
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 22,319

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    The Government's impending failure on this proposed amendment shows the continuing lack of buy-in in Parliament to the idea that Brexit is definitely happening. This should alarm Leavers.

    Set against that, there may well be an element of "watch the birdie". This isn't a particularly significant amendment and it may well give those wishing to rebel something harmless to rebel on. There are more substantial battles ahead.

    An easy get out would be to prevaricate, extend A50 right up until Lab wins the next election, at which point Brexit is reversed and we stay in. No one to blame and everyone to blame.

    That would be a worrying scenario if I were a Leaver.
    Labour would have to have a clear position on the EU for the campaign and that is as likely as Bill Cash and Anna Soubry having a unified position on Brexit
    Labour is watching to see where public opinion will go.
    And that is why they are unfit to govern
    Except that we're in the land of the blind...
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @MrHarryCole: No10 not backing down on exit date amendment: "What the amendment does is provide certainty over our position that we are leaving the EU on March 29, 2019. We would encourage all MPs to support it."
  • I remember publishing a thread by one of Robert's friends warning this would happen, a tragedy and farce.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 28,357

    I’m so old I can remember when David Davis and the disgraced Liam Fox said a deal with the EU would be the easiest thing in the world.

    I see the Minister for Winging It triumphed in Germany last night. What a cock.

    He criticised the EU for putting politics before prosperity. Maybe he has never heard of irony.

    The Brexit process is the biggest political attack on prosperity in modern history.
    It's a choice between two desirable ends. Economic integration with neighbouring countries or self-government. More of us favour the latter than the former.

    No serious analysis suggests the UK won't remain a prosperous country outside the EU. The only question is whether the rate of increase in prosperity will be slower than if we remained a member.
  • Mr. Eagles, you advocated leaving the EU 10 years later. You'd just be deferring and exacerbating uncertainty by such an approach.
  • Mr. Eagles, you advocated leaving the EU 10 years later. You'd just be deferring and exacerbating uncertainty by such an approach.

    You keep on missing my important qualifier in that.

    Iff, IFF, IFF the EU became dominated by the Eurozone countries wishing to properly federalise.
  • Mr. Eagles, hmm. I haven't seen that qualifier of yours before.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Sean_F said:

    No serious analysis suggests the UK won't remain a prosperous country outside the EU.

    That might be true if and only if you restrict "serious analysis" to those that assume we will get a deal.

    if you follow the PM's mantra of "no deal is better" then "serious analysis" suggests we are fucked much worse off...
  • Mr. Eagles, hmm. I haven't seen that qualifier of yours before.

    I've said many times, I'm no fan of the single currency, but it seems crazy to have economic and monetary union but not political union as well.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 22,319
    Scott_P said:

    Sean_F said:

    No serious analysis suggests the UK won't remain a prosperous country outside the EU.

    That might be true if and only if you restrict "serious analysis" to those that assume we will get a deal.

    if you follow the PM's mantra of "no deal is better" then "serious analysis" suggests we are fucked much worse off...
    And Britain is used to being both prosperous and influential. There are few signs that the Tories are prepared for the inevitable loss of influence and national standing after Brexit.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 28,357
    Scott_P said:

    Sean_F said:

    No serious analysis suggests the UK won't remain a prosperous country outside the EU.

    That might be true if and only if you restrict "serious analysis" to those that assume we will get a deal.

    if you follow the PM's mantra of "no deal is better" then "serious analysis" suggests we are fucked much worse off...
    There likely will be a deal. It will contain elements I dislike and elements you dislike, but there it is.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 5,593
    Scott_P said:

    Sean_F said:

    No serious analysis suggests the UK won't remain a prosperous country outside the EU.

    That might be true if and only if you restrict "serious analysis" to those that assume we will get a deal.

    if you follow the PM's mantra of "no deal is better" then "serious analysis" suggests we are fucked much worse off...
    Prosperous country is an odd barometer.
    I'd argue that short of war/asteroid/major climactic shock - nothing will stop us being a prosperous country.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 28,357
    rkrkrk said:

    Scott_P said:

    Sean_F said:

    No serious analysis suggests the UK won't remain a prosperous country outside the EU.

    That might be true if and only if you restrict "serious analysis" to those that assume we will get a deal.

    if you follow the PM's mantra of "no deal is better" then "serious analysis" suggests we are fucked much worse off...
    Prosperous country is an odd barometer.
    I'd argue that short of war/asteroid/major climactic shock - nothing will stop us being a prosperous country.
    I would agree.
  • It seems like a unique agreement is now dead so we seem to have 4 models to look at.

    1. Norway. remain in EU single market but get fish back and no more meps or ability to change EU rules.

    2. Canada. Sign up the best ftas possible with all the main trade blocks such as nafta, EC and apec.

    3. USA. Try go it alone WTO strategy as far as possible.

    4. Stay where we are.

    I am a remainer but there is an argument for the USA option. The existing trade blocs have benefited countries such as Germany which are good at manufacturing but not services. We can use the removal from the trade blocks as a way to rebuild our manufacturing behind trade barriers. why do we need German cars when we can buy jaguars or Astras. We can mandate parts manufacturers such as Bosch to set up in the UK. This will give a big hit to consumer choice but will help to rebuild North England. There is no doubt our global services industries such as education and the city will be hit by the change and the radical change to the economy will cost a fortune but it is a plan. Just not the plan being sold us by Davies and Johnson.
  • Mr. Ace, just on North England: most decision-makers live and work in the south. This means that sometimes they're biased deliberately, and sometimes unconsciously just because they don't 'get' the North. For all its flaws, Osborne's Northern Powerhouse was a basically good idea.

    Your suggestion is an interesting one, though.
  • Sean_F said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Scott_P said:

    Sean_F said:

    No serious analysis suggests the UK won't remain a prosperous country outside the EU.

    That might be true if and only if you restrict "serious analysis" to those that assume we will get a deal.

    if you follow the PM's mantra of "no deal is better" then "serious analysis" suggests we are fucked much worse off...
    Prosperous country is an odd barometer.
    I'd argue that short of war/asteroid/major climactic shock - nothing will stop us being a prosperous country.
    I would agree.

    Yep - the UK will always have a pretty sizeable well paid, wealthy number of residents. But that may not be particularly helpful to the majority of its citizens.

  • Scott_P said:
    It's been obvious for quite a while that those who told us the EU would be desperate for a deal, the Irish border presented no problems, that the UK holds all the cards and we could have all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downside, actually had no clue whatsoever about how the EU works, what WTO rules allow and do not allow and why FTAs get done.

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 13,596



    Labour would have to have a clear position on the EU for the campaign and that is as likely as Bill Cash and Anna Soubry having a unified position on Brexit

    He's assuming Labour's leadership are against Brexit.

    A bit silly, all things considered.
    The mistake which some people make is to think that everyone Cares Passionately about EU membership. I do. You do. Anna Soubry and Bill Cash do. But the Labour leadership don't. They see it as an organisation with practical uses and some potential for good as well as some snags. On balance they're in favour, but it's not crucial to them either way. In that, they resemble many voters.

    Now that's very annoying to all of us who see it as the defining issue of our generation, etc. But it makes it quite easy to reverse an unfinished Brexit process if the opportunity arises and it seems like a good idea. I wouldn't bet on it, but nor would I rule it out. And if it delivered a net 10% gain in voters enabling them to do socialist things they really do care about, then sure, they'll do it.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    It's been obvious for quite a while that those who told us the EU would be desperate for a deal, the Irish border presented no problems, that the UK holds all the cards and we could have all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downside, actually had no clue whatsoever about how the EU works, what WTO rules allow and do not allow and why FTAs get done.

    But we still get £350m a week for the NHS, right?
  • marke09marke09 Posts: 926
    Yasmin Alibhai-Brown tells Sky she would rather be Robert Mugabe than Theresa May at the moment because of "that whole Brexit thing". Searing analysis.
  • Mr. Eagles, hmm. I haven't seen that qualifier of yours before.

    I've said many times, I'm no fan of the single currency, but it seems crazy to have economic and monetary union but not political union as well.
    which is basically one the main reasons why we left. That would be unthinkable for the UK, but is clearly where the EU is and needs to be heading.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 5,942
    Morning all :)

    Well, what a surprise, another morning with the usual suspects blethering on about A50.

    Let's talk about tax, baby, as someone almost certainly never said. While Margaret Hodge's comments as the chair of the APPG group on Responsible Tax have drawn some attention and the usual back-biting nonsense, some more interesting comments from Mel Stride, Financial Secretary to the Treasury (a future CoE ?). He claimed for every £1 the Government was due in tax, it collected 94p. Now, a 6p deficiency in the tax take is still a lot of money but it made me wonder whether the scale of tax evasion has been overblown.

    Clearly, most people pay the taxes they are supposed to and Stride claimed anti-evasion measures taken by the Coalition had brought in some £160 billion to the Exchequer, a sum which made a dent of sorts in the overall debt and deficit (getting back £35 billion a year is a big help even set against the scale of public spending as a whole).

    What he didn't talk about was the scale of the black economy and it made me wonder whether plans to lower VAT registration to £20k would weaken tax revenues and increase said cash-based economy further.

    The Government seems not to have a bad story to tell about cracking down on tax evasion but as far as avoidance is concerned, I find myself pulled in two directions. I can understand the use of offshore investment as a way of preventing being hammered for tax in multiple jurisdictions but I struggle with the notion that we should somehow accept "tax avoidance" as a good thing. Governments should get the tax revenue to which they are legally entitled (no more) and citizens, it seems to me, have a moral responsibility to make their contribution (no more).

    Clearly, when it comes to multi national organisations trading in a number of countries, it's culturally very different. While I appreciate Dyson's motivated self-interest, companies too use public services and it seems while the larger ones can get away with almost anything, it's the SMEs who end up suffering.

    Tax evasion should be ruthlessly hunted down - tax avoidance isn't something I condone or support but in certain circumstances it's easy to understand why it happens. Global co-operation is the only solution and perhaps more transparency from some jurisdictions would be a good start.
  • Mr. Palmer, do you see that as happening (potentially) via a Commons revocation or another referendum*?

    *Assuming unilaterally revoking it is possible.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 21,072
    Sean_F said:

    I’m so old I can remember when David Davis and the disgraced Liam Fox said a deal with the EU would be the easiest thing in the world.

    I see the Minister for Winging It triumphed in Germany last night. What a cock.

    He criticised the EU for putting politics before prosperity. Maybe he has never heard of irony.

    The Brexit process is the biggest political attack on prosperity in modern history.
    It's a choice between two desirable ends. Economic integration with neighbouring countries or self-government. More of us favour the latter than the former.

    No serious analysis suggests the UK won't remain a prosperous country outside the EU. The only question is whether the rate of increase in prosperity will be slower than if we remained a member.
    Do you really think we were not self-governing so as to make a difference to your life as a member of the EU.

    I remember my journey (sobbing by audience members) to Remain came about by adding experiences of friends in other industries (farming, intellectual property, tech) to those of my own to determine both the degree of self-government and the impact one way or the other of Brexit.

    The two concrete examples I came up with were lowering VAT on home energy supplies, and Droite de Suite.

    What other areas are we prevented from self-governing?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 25,918

    So on that criterion ' works ' ?

    Thousands of wealthy professionals are living in taxpayer-subsidised council houses despite earning more £100,000 a year, official figures have disclosed.

    Up to 5,000 people with six-figure salaries – including transport union boss Bob Crow - are enjoying the benefit of paying cheap rents for council homes or properties let by housing associations.

    Analysis by the Department for Communities and Local Government suggests that these rich tenants, who are in the top 5 per cent of all earners, are subsidised by about £4,200 each a year through the low rents that they pay.


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10641341/Council-houses-go-to-professionals-earning-100000.html

    Worried about their 'cliff edge'?
    Not on those numbers no. I'm not prepared to extend state power and interference in the lives of millions with periodic reviews and evictions to deal with 5000 exceptions. And frankly nearly all social housing blocks/estates/communities could do with more £100k + residents not less. The idea such communities aren't poor enough seems bizarre to me.

    On Crow, God rest his soul, would it have been better if he had used RtB and pocketed a huge windfall ? I rather admire a Trade Union leader who stayed in a council house. It was like all the flack Frank Dobbs used to get. A Labour MP in a council house. Shocking !
    Fundamentally it's about how scarce state resources should be allocated. I would prefer it was focused on this who need it. I suppose you could argue that the estates benefit from an income mix but why not ask well off people to pay market rate?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @faisalislam: "New customs union arrangements" are going to "work across the board" says Johnson in Dublin... so we're going to be in a customs union then
  • marke09 said:

    Yasmin Alibhai-Brown tells Sky she would rather be Robert Mugabe than Theresa May at the moment because of "that whole Brexit thing". Searing analysis.

    And ridiculous analysis as well.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 21,072
    edited November 2017



    Labour would have to have a clear position on the EU for the campaign and that is as likely as Bill Cash and Anna Soubry having a unified position on Brexit

    He's assuming Labour's leadership are against Brexit.

    A bit silly, all things considered.
    The mistake which some people make is to think that everyone Cares Passionately about EU membership. I do. You do. Anna Soubry and Bill Cash do. But the Labour leadership don't. They see it as an organisation with practical uses and some potential for good as well as some snags. On balance they're in favour, but it's not crucial to them either way. In that, they resemble many voters.

    Now that's very annoying to all of us who see it as the defining issue of our generation, etc. But it makes it quite easy to reverse an unfinished Brexit process if the opportunity arises and it seems like a good idea. I wouldn't bet on it, but nor would I rule it out. And if it delivered a net 10% gain in voters enabling them to do socialist things they really do care about, then sure, they'll do it.
    Exactly - I almost wrote "the next GE won't be a Brexit GE" but didn't, because, er, it might be. But the point is, which you make, is that Labour can maintain the flexibility by keeping Brexit in the background, being as non-committal as they need and then emerge, say, in 20XX, in power, and say: Right, this is what is happening.
  • Scott_P said:
    It's been obvious for quite a while that those who told us the EU would be desperate for a deal, the Irish border presented no problems, that the UK holds all the cards and we could have all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downside, actually had no clue whatsoever about how the EU works, what WTO rules allow and do not allow and why FTAs get done.

    Interesting tactic from the Irish. Being they are likely to be hit quite significantly by Brexit as well I can only assume the rest of the EU have promised the required support
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 16,173
    edited November 2017

    It seems like a unique agreement is now dead so we seem to have 4 models to look at.

    1. Norway. remain in EU single market but get fish back and no more meps or ability to change EU rules.

    2. Canada. Sign up the best ftas possible with all the main trade blocks such as nafta, EC and apec.

    3. USA. Try go it alone WTO strategy as far as possible.

    4. Stay where we are.

    I am a remainer but there is an argument for the USA option. The existing trade blocs have benefited countries such as Germany which are good at manufacturing but not services. We can use the removal from the trade blocks as a way to rebuild our manufacturing behind trade barriers. why do we need German cars when we can buy jaguars or Astras. We can mandate parts manufacturers such as Bosch to set up in the UK. This will give a big hit to consumer choice but will help to rebuild North England. There is no doubt our global services industries such as education and the city will be hit by the change and the radical change to the economy will cost a fortune but it is a plan. Just not the plan being sold us by Davies and Johnson.

    Fair points - but what is utterly insane is that our government has barely even started to have such a debate a year and a half after the referendum.
    And the opposition is little better in this respect, if at all.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 21,072
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Global co-operation is the only solution and perhaps more transparency from some jurisdictions would be a good start.

    Wishful thinking.

    Now, about A50...
  • Have Thames Water been taken over by the Lib Dems?

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 16,173



    Labour would have to have a clear position on the EU for the campaign and that is as likely as Bill Cash and Anna Soubry having a unified position on Brexit

    He's assuming Labour's leadership are against Brexit.

    A bit silly, all things considered.
    The mistake which some people make is to think that everyone Cares Passionately about EU membership. I do. You do. Anna Soubry and Bill Cash do. But the Labour leadership don't. They see it as an organisation with practical uses and some potential for good as well as some snags. On balance they're in favour, but it's not crucial to them either way. In that, they resemble many voters.

    Now that's very annoying to all of us who see it as the defining issue of our generation, etc. But it makes it quite easy to reverse an unfinished Brexit process if the opportunity arises and it seems like a good idea. I wouldn't bet on it, but nor would I rule it out. And if it delivered a net 10% gain in voters enabling them to do socialist things they really do care about, then sure, they'll do it.
    Whether or not everyone 'cares passionately about EU membership' is pretty well irrelevant to the opposition's abdication of responsibility on the issue.
    That may, or may not play well with the electorate, but it doesn't alter the cynicism.
  • marke09 said:

    Yasmin Alibhai-Brown tells Sky she would rather be Robert Mugabe than Theresa May at the moment because of "that whole Brexit thing". Searing analysis.

    What on earth is she on about?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 27,781

    IanB2 said:

    HtB actually makes things worse, by increasing the amount of money chasing the same number of homes, and providing greater help to those who are best placed to get on to the ladder in the first place. Reducing property tax could have the same effect, unless it is very carefully targeted.

    Ultimately the solution to both the Willetts problem and housing is to make holding property unattractive other than as a primary home, and to redistribute from those holding wealth toward those earning income by taxing the former and lifting the tax burden on the latter.

    House prices have almost nothing to do with the supply and demand for houses - therefore building more houses (although necessary) won't make any difference.

    House prices are driven by money supply inflation, since when money is lent for mortgages by commercial banks it is new money that increases the money supply and therefore causes inflation.

    The 'genius' of central bank policy for 20 years now has been to have massive inflation in the economy but direct it to assets rather than consumer goods.

    Inflation in assets is no different than inflation in goods. Both are caused by increased money supply. The only way to stop house prices rising is to restrict the ability of banks to create new money.
    I wouldn't go as far as to say that supply and demand have "almost nothing" to do with the price of houses.

    However, you are certainly correct that money supply is a much big factor than people think. Take London: prices rose 4x between 1995 and 2007, when there was relatively little immigration, but just 40% since, when there was a lot.

    The reason that there is so much money creation is... demand for money. And when I say demand for money, I mean demand for credit. When people borrow money, they create it. We can restrict credit creation through greater controls on banks, or we can restrict it through pushing the savings rate up. In the decade since the financial crisis, successive Chancellors have enacted policies that have deliberately driven down the savings rate - restricting the benefits from ISAs, reducing tax benefits associated with pensions, etc. These kept aggregate demand up, and the UK economy ticking over, but at the expense of an economy that becomes ever more unbalanced.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 16,173

    Scott_P said:
    It's been obvious for quite a while that those who told us the EU would be desperate for a deal, the Irish border presented no problems, that the UK holds all the cards and we could have all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downside, actually had no clue whatsoever about how the EU works, what WTO rules allow and do not allow and why FTAs get done.

    I think those of the David Davis tendency genuinely expected Europe to come up with a solution for us, and now that the EU has politely declined to do so - and rather less politely set conditions for even talking about a deal - are scrabbling around for a face saving something.... which they haven't quite worked out yet.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 12,042
    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    HtB actually makes things worse, by increasing the amount of money chasing the same number of homes, and providing greater help to those who are best placed to get on to the ladder in the first place. Reducing property tax could have the same effect, unless it is very carefully targeted.

    Ultimately the solution to both the Willetts problem and housing is to make holding property unattractive other than as a primary home, and to redistribute from those holding wealth toward those earning income by taxing the former and lifting the tax burden on the latter.

    House prices have almost nothing to do with the supply and demand for houses - therefore building more houses (although necessary) won't make any difference.

    House prices are driven by money supply inflation, since when money is lent for mortgages by commercial banks it is new money that increases the money supply and therefore causes inflation.

    The 'genius' of central bank policy for 20 years now has been to have massive inflation in the economy but direct it to assets rather than consumer goods.

    Inflation in assets is no different than inflation in goods. Both are caused by increased money supply. The only way to stop house prices rising is to restrict the ability of banks to create new money.
    I wouldn't go as far as to say that supply and demand have "almost nothing" to do with the price of houses.

    However, you are certainly correct that money supply is a much big factor than people think. Take London: prices rose 4x between 1995 and 2007, when there was relatively little immigration, but just 40% since, when there was a lot.

    The reason that there is so much money creation is... demand for money. And when I say demand for money, I mean demand for credit. When people borrow money, they create it. We can restrict credit creation through greater controls on banks, or we can restrict it through pushing the savings rate up. In the decade since the financial crisis, successive Chancellors have enacted policies that have deliberately driven down the savings rate - restricting the benefits from ISAs, reducing tax benefits associated with pensions, etc. These kept aggregate demand up, and the UK economy ticking over, but at the expense of an economy that becomes ever more unbalanced.
    The Jenga tower in The Big Short was genius.
  • How and when will Schroedinger's Cake wave function collapse?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 27,781
    Scott_P said:
    While I think five years is too long, it is worth remembering that there was a seven year transition period when the UK joined the EEC.
  • How and when will Schroedinger's Cake wave function collapse?
    When Boris looks at it.
  • eekeek Posts: 6,299
    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    HtB actually makes things worse, by increasing the amount of money chasing the same number of homes, and providing greater help to those who are best placed to get on to the ladder in the first place. Reducing property tax could have the same effect, unless it is very carefully targeted.

    Ultimately the solution to both the Willetts problem and housing is to make holding property unattractive other than as a primary home, and to redistribute from those holding wealth toward those earning income by taxing the former and lifting the tax burden on the latter.

    House prices have almost nothing to do with the supply and demand for houses - therefore building more houses (although necessary) won't make any difference.

    House prices are driven by money supply inflation, since when money is lent for mortgages by commercial banks it is new money that increases the money supply and therefore causes inflation.

    The 'genius' of central bank policy for 20 years now has been to have massive inflation in the economy but direct it to assets rather than consumer goods.

    Inflation in assets is no different than inflation in goods. Both are caused by increased money supply. The only way to stop house prices rising is to restrict the ability of banks to create new money.
    I wouldn't go as far as to say that supply and demand have "almost nothing" to do with the price of houses.

    However, you are certainly correct that money supply is a much big factor than people think. Take London: prices rose 4x between 1995 and 2007, when there was relatively little immigration, but just 40% since, when there was a lot.

    The reason that there is so much money creation is... demand for money. And when I say demand for money, I mean demand for credit. When people borrow money, they create it. We can restrict credit creation through greater controls on banks, or we can restrict it through pushing the savings rate up. In the decade since the financial crisis, successive Chancellors have enacted policies that have deliberately driven down the savings rate - restricting the benefits from ISAs, reducing tax benefits associated with pensions, etc. These kept aggregate demand up, and the UK economy ticking over, but at the expense of an economy that becomes ever more unbalanced.
    Your argument there shows that you need to both have greater controls on banks (1997-2007) and higher savings rates (2009-onwards).
  • I've been making these points for a few years, the bit in bold is what happens when the Leave campaign focuses upon taking back control of laws and borders.

    This suggests that, after Brexit, the British government hopes to retain partial access to the EU’s internal market under the same conditions as a member state, provided that the UK promises to follow relevant EU laws, under the control of an ad hoc tribunal. But that is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what the single market is. In fact, it is not possible for a third state to have total or partial access to the internal market under the same conditions as EU member states and other members of the EEA.

    This is not because of ill will on the EU’s part. It has no choice but to protect the homogeneity, credibility and legal security of its single market.

    First, the single market is based on the free movement of goods, services, capital and people, and choosing among these freedoms is not permitted. Second, the single market is much more than an area in which customs tariffs and quotas disappear. It aims to abolish all regulatory obstacles to exchange and binds participating states to a set of strict conditions.

    These include the norms and standards for goods, the primacy of EU law over national laws and the exclusive final power of interpretation by the EU court. Individuals and economic actors may control the correct implementation of that law through their national courts.

    There can be no compromise on these conditions — the credibility of the single market depends on it. This is why no third state has ever achieved partial or full membership of the EU single market, with the exception of the three members of the European Free Trade Association that are also members of the EEA. These countries have formally accepted the four freedoms and have agreed to be bound by the judgments of the Efta court. In case of divergence with the EU court on internal market law, the EU court would prevail.

    Although EEA membership would be the best option economically for the UK, it has rejected it for political reasons.
  • I wonder whether the addition of the date and time was an amendment by the government with an eye to potentially failing all along.

    It's a touch Machiavellian but by adding this to the [already very long list] of amendments it has concentrated the Tory rebels on fighting something that was not deemed important enough to be included in the bill originally.

    If this government amendment gets rejected but so too do all the opposition ones ... if the Tory rebels get their pound of flesh with this alone but the government gets its bill through intact ... then the whips will have done a very good job.
This discussion has been closed.