I did not vote for Brexit and it still concerns me but at the moment it is making me rich.
Brexit is so far making the country a litte poorer but within that there are some wide variations and there is a certain irony that that those who seem to be doing the best out of Brexit are not the ones who voted for it. I run a mid sized manufacturing company selling globally. We have never been busier as a result of the drop in sterling. As long as we can stay aligned with European regulations for medical products there is no reason to see this stop.
If TM can pull off the trick that we remain in the common market but we have some better control over immigration then she deserves to stay PM.
Can't agree more. My company is in the same situation.
We are in the same position, too. But this was always going to be the case, wasn't it?
But the other big thing that is becoming clear is that the only “conclusion” that makes any sense is re-emerging as a concrete political possibility. The Border problem can be dealt with only if the UK stays in the customs union and, preferably, also the single market.
"The mathematics are simple: if A equals B and B equals C, then C equals A. A is Ireland’s position in the single market and customs union, B is Northern Ireland’s full alignment to that position and C is the UK’s commitment not to differ from Northern Ireland. The commitment to have no barriers to east-west trade means that London is effectively a prisoner of Belfast."
He has noticed exactly the issue that I was pointing out earlier.
A handful of Remoaners will continue to undermine the most democratic vote for change in British history, and will continue to side with a mercenary foreign power in extracting maximum power over the United Kingdom. Today however is a turning point and we are now well on the way to extricating ourselves form the Mafiosi/Orewellian superstate that is the EU.
I do like that phrase in the Stephen Bush article "I can't believe it's not brexit!"
The circle has been a little bit squashed to look like it can maybe, potentially, possibly, be squared.
It can't.
TM gone within a year.
Unless her health takes a turn for the worse, that seems highly unlikely. By getting the DUP onside she has cut the ground from under the feet of the headbangers to the right of the party. When opportunists like Johnson are as quick to tweet their support as he was this morning, it's a fairly good clue as to which way the wind is blowing in the Tory party. Equally the opposition has been seriously wrong footed again, with Keir Starmer's jeremiads about David Davis' clusterfucks now looking irrelevant.
Obviously nothing is certain when you lack a parliamentary majority, but the stability of weakness seems likely to persist far longer than you think.
I'm intrigued to see how the likes of JRM, John Redwood et al. react. Apparently Steve Baker is on side which is a big + for TM.
But I'm struggling to reconcile what has been reported, with what JRM's views were in parliament only a few days ago.
I'm sure JRM will be struggling, too. Which is what happens when the ground shifts from under you.
The sense I get from Redwood's blog is that he is hoping this will all change once phase 2 is complete. That seems daft to me - we are not going to undo what has already been agreed.
In any case - that position means he is only putting off his rebellion against the govt.
If TM is smart - then she will have civil servants working frantically to find areas where regulatory divergence is allowed under the terms of this agreement, and will be commissioning analysis to show how UK regulations can now be changed when they couldn't before.
That stuff Boris wrote about changing bus regulations too keep cyclists safe - that kind of thing ought to be possible perhaps...
I had this naïve idea that Leavers wanted a country that in due course could be united. Right now Leavers seem to be putting a crowbar in the nation's political faultline and pushing.
Evidently they want a divided and unhappy country to continue indefinitely.
If what is reported is correct - then this is surely the best possible deal at this stage from a Remainer perspective (absent the large bill I suppose)?
Leave supporters seem to think that they can move on from their atrocious behaviour and the nation will unite behind them. It won't.
Ah the huge issue that appears nowhere in polling of the wider public.
Which opinion poll would you think it would turn up in? At the general election, the Conservatives found themselves pummelled wherever Remain supporters gathered together in numbers. That will continue for the foreseeable future.
I did have a quick check on the odds of TM leaving this year. Possible if this deal unravels fast - but the odds are actually very poor - something like 26/1 on betfair isn't tempting.
I don't see how the Brexiteers can sign up to this really - I think too many of them are too principled to pretend this is what they wanted.
If they are moving towards a Canada-style FTA and nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and TMay wants to show what an amazing deal we are going to get from the EU (or why leave?) then we will be under the ECJ yoke for the next seven years at least.
I had this naïve idea that Leavers wanted a country that in due course could be united. Right now Leavers seem to be putting a crowbar in the nation's political faultline and pushing.
Evidently they want a divided and unhappy country to continue indefinitely.
If what is reported is correct - then this is surely the best possible deal at this stage from a Remainer perspective (absent the large bill I suppose)?
Leave supporters seem to think that they can move on from their atrocious behaviour and the nation will unite behind them. It won't.
Ah the huge issue that appears nowhere in polling of the wider public.
Which opinion poll would you think it would turn up in? At the general election, the Conservatives found themselves pummelled wherever Remain supporters gathered together in numbers. That will continue for the foreseeable future.
Well on a board like this full of politics obsessives and hardcore supporters from both wings - you are the only singular voice calling out not for a mere post referendum truth and reconciliation committee but some sort of "owabi" followed by Seppuku by Dominic Cummings et al for having the temerity to accurately reflect that the Uk public wasn't in favour of unfettered immigration.
We would need to pay the EU £20bn over the next couple of years anyway - so paying £40bn over roughly the next four year is only £20bn extra to leave.
Come on - you can spin better than that!
How about this: we would have to continue making payments for ever to the EU if we stayed in. We've actually saved an infinite amount of money therefore!
We would need to pay the EU £20bn over the next couple of years anyway - so paying £40bn over roughly the next four year is only £20bn extra to leave.
Come on - you can spin better than that!
How about this: we would have to continue making payments for ever to the EU if we stayed in. We've actually saved an infinite amount of money therefore!
We would need to pay the EU £20bn over the next couple of years anyway - so paying £40bn over roughly the next four year is only £20bn extra to leave.
Come on - you can spin better than that!
How about this: we would have to continue making payments for ever to the EU if we stayed in. We've actually saved an infinite amount of money therefore!
Or more simply we will be in profit in year 5.
Not really - that depends on how our tax take is affected by withdrawal, doesn't it?
I had this naïve idea that Leavers wanted a country that in due course could be united. Right now Leavers seem to be putting a crowbar in the nation's political faultline and pushing.
Evidently they want a divided and unhappy country to continue indefinitely.
If what is reported is correct - then this is surely the best possible deal at this stage from a Remainer perspective (absent the large bill I suppose)?
Leave supporters seem to think that they can move on from their atrocious behaviour and the nation will unite behind them. It won't.
Ah the huge issue that appears nowhere in polling of the wider public.
Which opinion poll would you think it would turn up in? At the general election, the Conservatives found themselves pummelled wherever Remain supporters gathered together in numbers. That will continue for the foreseeable future.
Good to see you acknowledging that the election result was not due to Corbyn, but due to Brexit. But the next election will not be until 2022, and by then Brexit will be done and dusted. Remember too that if Labour had not been led by a Brexiteer who failed to campaign for remain, Brexit would almost certainly not have happened.
We would need to pay the EU £20bn over the next couple of years anyway - so paying £40bn over roughly the next four year is only £20bn extra to leave.
Come on - you can spin better than that!
How about this: we would have to continue making payments for ever to the EU if we stayed in. We've actually saved an infinite amount of money therefore!
Or more simply we will be in profit in year 5.
Not really - that depends on how our tax take is affected by withdrawal, doesn't it?
Not really. Only if there was a significant drop in our GDP (which now looks vanishingly unlikely) would our contributions to the EU drop from their current rate of contribution of which this is 4 years. These are the numbers we can know. Numbers comparing tax takes in and out will be entirely hypothetical.
I had this naïve idea that Leavers wanted a country that in due course could be united. Right now Leavers seem to be putting a crowbar in the nation's political faultline and pushing.
Evidently they want a divided and unhappy country to continue indefinitely.
If what is reported is correct - then this is surely the best possible deal at this stage from a Remainer perspective (absent the large bill I suppose)?
Leave supporters seem to think that they can move on from their atrocious behaviour and the nation will unite behind them. It won't.
Ah the huge issue that appears nowhere in polling of the wider public.
Which opinion poll would you think it would turn up in? At the general election, the Conservatives found themselves pummelled wherever Remain supporters gathered together in numbers. That will continue for the foreseeable future.
Good to see you acknowledging that the election result was not due to Corbyn, but due to Brexit. But the next election will not be until 2022, and by then Brexit will be done and dusted. Remember too that if Labour had not been led by a Brexiteer who failed to campaign for remain, Brexit would almost certainly not have happened.
You seem to think that Remain supporters are going to forget. This is a defining political experience for many. They feel that their birthright as enlightened Europeans has been stolen from them by malign clowns. They are not going to forgive easily and nothing that the madder Leavers have done since is making it more likely that they will.
But the other big thing that is becoming clear is that the only “conclusion” that makes any sense is re-emerging as a concrete political possibility. The Border problem can be dealt with only if the UK stays in the customs union and, preferably, also the single market.
"The mathematics are simple: if A equals B and B equals C, then C equals A. A is Ireland’s position in the single market and customs union, B is Northern Ireland’s full alignment to that position and C is the UK’s commitment not to differ from Northern Ireland. The commitment to have no barriers to east-west trade means that London is effectively a prisoner of Belfast."
He has noticed exactly the issue that I was pointing out earlier.
Will the Tory right suddenly discover a new-found desire for a united Ireland?
I think Labour has serious problems coming up. The Keir and Chuka cunning plan ... We should aim for full access to the market while negotiating about FOM is already unravelling as they emphasise that the market is the crucial aspect. That's the issue they will stick to, and the give point is accepting FoM if forced (and we all know they will be forced).
Things may change if Jezza is wheeled into retirement, and the Starmer master plan to stay in the EU is launched.
My constituency voted 58% Leave and has a 20,000 Labour majority. It takes a lot to change the voting patterns of a lifetime but they may test it to destruction. Are they willing to be wiped out in many parts of the North?
Personally, I quite like the Poles and Lithuanians, they're good Catholic boys and girls. And they work hard. But ...
We would need to pay the EU £20bn over the next couple of years anyway - so paying £40bn over roughly the next four year is only £20bn extra to leave.
Come on - you can spin better than that!
How about this: we would have to continue making payments for ever to the EU if we stayed in. We've actually saved an infinite amount of money therefore!
Or more simply we will be in profit in year 5.
Not really - that depends on how our tax take is affected by withdrawal, doesn't it?
Not really. Only if there was a significant drop in our GDP (which now looks vanishingly unlikely) would our contributions to the EU drop from their current rate of contribution of which this is 4 years. These are the numbers we can know. Numbers comparing tax takes in and out will be entirely hypothetical.
You misunderstand. If not paying £10 billion means the government gets £20 billion less in income, we are operating at a net loss of £10 billion.
If they are moving towards a Canada-style FTA and nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and TMay wants to show what an amazing deal we are going to get from the EU (or why leave?) then we will be under the ECJ yoke for the next seven years at least.
By which you actually mean we will have to abide by ECJ rulings on very specific and limited areas for the next 7 years instead of abiding by all of their rulings for ever which was the alternative if we stayed in.
We would need to pay the EU £20bn over the next couple of years anyway - so paying £40bn over roughly the next four year is only £20bn extra to leave.
Come on - you can spin better than that!
How about this: we would have to continue making payments for ever to the EU if we stayed in. We've actually saved an infinite amount of money therefore!
(1) existing single market rules that make *mutual sense* for both the UK and EU (e.g. agriculture, energy) will be aligned. Same friendly service but with a Union Jack.
(2) existing single market rules that we believe should be *interpreted* differently (but with same objective) will have equivalence. Some product and goods standards
(3) new regulatory rules for new technology, services and systems will have an exclusive UK angle, and be allowed to diverge.
In NI, the assembly and exec will review and decide to maintain alignment with Eire, as required.
Free visas for the under 30s in Europe for 2 years. Freeish movement for high skilled workers.
Brexit is a process. Something for everyone.
Federal Europe can do one.
Is free visas in Europe for us supposed to make us vote Tory? This reminds me of the railcard policy which literally no one cared about. The issue with the Tories for younger voters is cultural values + intergenerational unfairness for younger voters.
I spent part of yesterday suggesting to the Leavers that they have done sweet FA to persuade Remain voters that they are anything other than malign clowns. Unfortunately, they seem to feel the need for a safe space to protect them against such unkind suggestions rather than find a way to address them.
There's no point addressing them if the people who make such assertions are not open to reason. The outcome will be the outcome - whether its good or bad.
What we won't be, is part of the increasingly integrated EU federal project. The more they integrate, the more the difference will make itself clear.
I had this naïve idea that Leavers wanted a country that in due course could be united. Right now Leavers seem to be putting a crowbar in the nation's political faultline and pushing.
Evidently they want a divided and unhappy country to continue indefinitely.
I don't think You, Ian Dunt, Catherine Bearder and James O'Brien qualify as a significant problem to UK unity.
I had this naïve idea that Leavers wanted a country that in due course could be united. Right now Leavers seem to be putting a crowbar in the nation's political faultline and pushing.
Evidently they want a divided and unhappy country to continue indefinitely.
If what is reported is correct - then this is surely the best possible deal at this stage from a Remainer perspective (absent the large bill I suppose)?
Leave supporters seem to think that they can move on from their atrocious behaviour and the nation will unite behind them. It won't.
Ah the huge issue that appears nowhere in polling of the wider public.
Which opinion poll would you think it would turn up in? At the general election, the Conservatives found themselves pummelled wherever Remain supporters gathered together in numbers. That will continue for the foreseeable future.
Good to see you acknowledging that the election result was not due to Corbyn, but due to Brexit. But the next election will not be until 2022, and by then Brexit will be done and dusted. Remember too that if Labour had not been led by a Brexiteer who failed to campaign for remain, Brexit would almost certainly not have happened.
You seem to think that Remain supporters are going to forget. This is a defining political experience for many. They feel that their birthright as enlightened Europeans has been stolen from them by malign clowns. They are not going to forgive easily and nothing that the madder Leavers have done since is making it more likely that they will.
You do not represent the mainstream Remainer movement. You represent the extremist wing that has the support of a tiny minority of Remainers. I would say you are the UKIP equivalent of Remain but in fact you are more like the BNP equivalent.
If they are moving towards a Canada-style FTA and nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and TMay wants to show what an amazing deal we are going to get from the EU (or why leave?) then we will be under the ECJ yoke for the next seven years at least.
By which you actually mean we will have to abide by ECJ rulings on very specific and limited areas for the next 7 years instead of abiding by all of their rulings for ever which was the alternative if we stayed in.
I know which one I prefer.
The role of the ECJ in other areas has yet to be clarified. That will be for Phase Two, won't it?
We would need to pay the EU £20bn over the next couple of years anyway - so paying £40bn over roughly the next four year is only £20bn extra to leave.
Come on - you can spin better than that!
How about this: we would have to continue making payments for ever to the EU if we stayed in. We've actually saved an infinite amount of money therefore!
Or more simply we will be in profit in year 5.
Not really - that depends on how our tax take is affected by withdrawal, doesn't it?
Not really. Only if there was a significant drop in our GDP (which now looks vanishingly unlikely) would our contributions to the EU drop from their current rate of contribution of which this is 4 years. These are the numbers we can know. Numbers comparing tax takes in and out will be entirely hypothetical.
You misunderstand. If not paying £10 billion means the government gets £20 billion less in income, we are operating at a net loss of £10 billion.
I don't. The key word is "if". The tax take might have been at risk in a cliff edge scenario. That now looks unlikely. I would predict that any changes will be so marginal that identifying them as Brexit effects will be impossible.
I had this naïve idea that Leavers wanted a country that in due course could be united. Right now Leavers seem to be putting a crowbar in the nation's political faultline and pushing.
Evidently they want a divided and unhappy country to continue indefinitely.
If what is reported is correct - then this is surely the best possible deal at this stage from a Remainer perspective (absent the large bill I suppose)?
Leave supporters seem to think that they can move on from their atrocious behaviour and the nation will unite behind them. It won't.
Ah the huge issue that appears nowhere in polling of the wider public.
Which opinion poll would you think it would turn up in? At the general election, the Conservatives found themselves pummelled wherever Remain supporters gathered together in numbers. That will continue for the foreseeable future.
Which wasn't in many places (and in many of those that it was, the seats were held by someone else anyway). Despite their best efforts to the contrary, Theresa May and her team still managed to just about win the election.
Downing Street said only around two or three cases are expected to be referred each year to the European Court of Justice, under provisions which will allow UK courts and tribunals to seek the Luxembourg court's "interpretation" of questions relating to the rights of EU nationals in Britain.
Mrs May's official spokesman stressed that the decision to refer would be "entirely voluntary" for UK courts and the ECJ would not have the power to call in cases.
Sounds reasonable. And only limited to eight years now.
They can demand all they want - but I don't think TM needs a vote on this. She will on the final agreement of course.
But wouldn't Labour (or enough at any rate) vote for this in any case?
Yes, Labour would. But remember that a Tory leader is only ever 24 hours from being deposed (while parliament is sitting).
My feeling is of having just possibly dodged a bullet. I think if Tory Leavers try to scupper things at this stage the national rage will result in a Corbyn landslide and tories out of power for a generation. I therefore don't think it will happen. Today is the day that May's policy of having the flounciest leavers at the heart of government pays off.
If they are moving towards a Canada-style FTA and nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and TMay wants to show what an amazing deal we are going to get from the EU (or why leave?) then we will be under the ECJ yoke for the next seven years at least.
By which you actually mean we will have to abide by ECJ rulings on very specific and limited areas for the next 7 years instead of abiding by all of their rulings for ever which was the alternative if we stayed in.
I know which one I prefer.
In terms of ex-pat rights, the UK has done quite well out of the talks - though that was always the easiest of the three areas to get agreement in.
Are you not just a bit worried about the implications of what continued regulatory alignment might mean in terms of the ongoing role of the ECJ?
I had this naïve idea that Leavers wanted a country that in due course could be united. Right now Leavers seem to be putting a crowbar in the nation's political faultline and pushing.
Evidently they want a divided and unhappy country to continue indefinitely.
If what is reported is correct - then this is surely the best possible deal at this stage from a Remainer perspective (absent the large bill I suppose)?
Leave supporters seem to think that they can move on from their atrocious behaviour and the nation will unite behind them. It won't.
Ah the huge issue that appears nowhere in polling of the wider public.
Which opinion poll would you think it would turn up in? At the general election, the Conservatives found themselves pummelled wherever Remain supporters gathered together in numbers. That will continue for the foreseeable future.
Which wasn't in many places (and in many of those that it was, the seats were held by someone else anyway). Despite their best efforts to the contrary, Theresa May and her team still managed to just about win the election.
Indeed. The Tory share of the vote went up quite significantly at the election.
There was a truly bizarre program on Today yesterday from Canterbury where the nation was being told in all seriousness it was easier to come out as gay rather than Conservative and that the fact that 6% of University staff supported their policies was their fault for having such bad polices rather than any indication of bias. The fact that the Tory vote went up to a 25 year high and was higher than the vote for any other party was completely ignored. It was an alternative universe.
If they are moving towards a Canada-style FTA and nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and TMay wants to show what an amazing deal we are going to get from the EU (or why leave?) then we will be under the ECJ yoke for the next seven years at least.
By which you actually mean we will have to abide by ECJ rulings on very specific and limited areas for the next 7 years instead of abiding by all of their rulings for ever which was the alternative if we stayed in.
I know which one I prefer.
The role of the ECJ in other areas has yet to be clarified. That will be for Phase Two, won't it?
While you're absolutely correct that this is yet to be negotiated - the direction of travel is fairly clear, in that we won't be part of the SM/CU, and not a member - the ECJ is unlikely to have any significant role apart from in the construction and administration of shared external projects. That doesn't pose any threat to national sovereignty, because there is no compulsion to participate that isn't reversible by national decision. It's not a constitutional issue.
If they are moving towards a Canada-style FTA and nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and TMay wants to show what an amazing deal we are going to get from the EU (or why leave?) then we will be under the ECJ yoke for the next seven years at least.
By which you actually mean we will have to abide by ECJ rulings on very specific and limited areas for the next 7 years instead of abiding by all of their rulings for ever which was the alternative if we stayed in.
I know which one I prefer.
Oh absolutely, but seven years takes us into the unknown persuasion of government-wise. Plus as @david_herdson points out what about regulatory alignment?
If they are moving towards a Canada-style FTA and nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and TMay wants to show what an amazing deal we are going to get from the EU (or why leave?) then we will be under the ECJ yoke for the next seven years at least.
By which you actually mean we will have to abide by ECJ rulings on very specific and limited areas for the next 7 years instead of abiding by all of their rulings for ever which was the alternative if we stayed in.
I know which one I prefer.
Oh absolutely, but seven years takes us into the unknown persuasion of government-wise.
Surely a Labour government wouldn't unilaterally give away sovereignty to the EU with nothing in return.....
If they are moving towards a Canada-style FTA and nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and TMay wants to show what an amazing deal we are going to get from the EU (or why leave?) then we will be under the ECJ yoke for the next seven years at least.
By which you actually mean we will have to abide by ECJ rulings on very specific and limited areas for the next 7 years instead of abiding by all of their rulings for ever which was the alternative if we stayed in.
I know which one I prefer.
In terms of ex-pat rights, the UK has done quite well out of the talks - though that was always the easiest of the three areas to get agreement in.
Are you not just a bit worried about the implications of what continued regulatory alignment might mean in terms of the ongoing role of the ECJ?
If they are moving towards a Canada-style FTA and nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and TMay wants to show what an amazing deal we are going to get from the EU (or why leave?) then we will be under the ECJ yoke for the next seven years at least.
By which you actually mean we will have to abide by ECJ rulings on very specific and limited areas for the next 7 years instead of abiding by all of their rulings for ever which was the alternative if we stayed in.
I know which one I prefer.
In terms of ex-pat rights, the UK has done quite well out of the talks - though that was always the easiest of the three areas to get agreement in.
Are you not just a bit worried about the implications of what continued regulatory alignment might mean in terms of the ongoing role of the ECJ?
Not really. As I say this will be very strictly limited to those areas where we have to ensure continuity of the GFA. If the Irish or the EU do start to get too funny about it with mission creep then there is always the prospect of reducing the areas where we trade with the Irish. Which would be very much to their detriment.
Bear in mind my ideal Brexit was via EFTA/EEA so this is very much in line with what I wanted. For me the only real downside is that we will not have freedom of movement but I long ago accepted I was not going to get my perfect Brexit and am happy with the compromise.
I had this naïve idea that Leavers wanted a country that in due course could be united. Right now Leavers seem to be putting a crowbar in the nation's political faultline and pushing.
Evidently they want a divided and unhappy country to continue indefinitely.
If what is reported is correct - then this is surely the best possible deal at this stage from a Remainer perspective (absent the large bill I suppose)?
Leave supporters seem to think that they can move on from their atrocious behaviour and the nation will unite behind them. It won't.
Ah the huge issue that appears nowhere in polling of the wider public.
Which opinion poll would you think it would turn up in? At the general election, the Conservatives found themselves pummelled wherever Remain supporters gathered together in numbers. That will continue for the foreseeable future.
Which wasn't in many places (and in many of those that it was, the seats were held by someone else anyway). Despite their best efforts to the contrary, Theresa May and her team still managed to just about win the election.
Indeed. The Tory share of the vote went up quite significantly at the election.
There was a truly bizarre program on Today yesterday from Canterbury where the nation was being told in all seriousness it was easier to come out as gay rather than Conservative and that the fact that 6% of University staff supported their policies was their fault for having such bad polices rather than any indication of bias. The fact that the Tory vote went up to a 25 year high and was higher than the vote for any other party was completely ignored. It was an alternative universe.
I thought the Conservatives might struggle a bit in St. Alban's and parts of Surrey and Hampshire where there was a big Remain vote, like Guildford and East Hants (not necessarily losing seats, but certainly seeing big swings against, but it didn't happen). And, while the Conservatives did best in the most Eurosceptic parts of Scotland, they also won seats like Aberdeen South and East Renfrew which were strongly Remain.
To see a big anti-Conservative swing, I think there had to be a big Remain vote plus something else, such as lots of students and university workers (eg Canterbury, Reading East, Portsmouth South, Cardiff North, Bristol NW) or major housing issues (eg Kensington, Enfield North) or lots of younger urban professionals (eg Battersea, Ealing Acton) as opposed to older urban professionals.
If they are moving towards a Canada-style FTA and nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and TMay wants to show what an amazing deal we are going to get from the EU (or why leave?) then we will be under the ECJ yoke for the next seven years at least.
By which you actually mean we will have to abide by ECJ rulings on very specific and limited areas for the next 7 years instead of abiding by all of their rulings for ever which was the alternative if we stayed in.
I know which one I prefer.
The role of the ECJ in other areas has yet to be clarified. That will be for Phase Two, won't it?
If we are heading for a Canada style FTA then that should not be an issue.
If they are moving towards a Canada-style FTA and nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and TMay wants to show what an amazing deal we are going to get from the EU (or why leave?) then we will be under the ECJ yoke for the next seven years at least.
By which you actually mean we will have to abide by ECJ rulings on very specific and limited areas for the next 7 years instead of abiding by all of their rulings for ever which was the alternative if we stayed in.
I know which one I prefer.
In terms of ex-pat rights, the UK has done quite well out of the talks - though that was always the easiest of the three areas to get agreement in.
Are you not just a bit worried about the implications of what continued regulatory alignment might mean in terms of the ongoing role of the ECJ?
Not really. As I say this will be very strictly limited to those areas where we have to ensure continuity of the GFA. If the Irish or the EU do start to get too funny about it with mission creep then there is always the prospect of reducing the areas where we trade with the Irish. Which would be very much to their detriment.
Bear in mind my ideal Brexit was via EFTA/EEA so this is very much in line with what I wanted. For me the only real downside is that we will not have freedom of movement but I long ago accepted I was not going to get my perfect Brexit and am happy with the compromise.
No one's going to reduce anything. No one will care. It will be one of those things whereby the ROI accepts a new EU reg and before you know it, with no fanfare from anyone, NI and rUK will have accepted it and we will wake up the next morning to see the sun has risen once more and all is well in the world.
(1) existing single market rules that make *mutual sense* for both the UK and EU (e.g. agriculture, energy) will be aligned. Same friendly service but with a Union Jack.
(2) existing single market rules that we believe should be *interpreted* differently (but with same objective) will have equivalence. Some product and goods standards
(3) new regulatory rules for new technology, services and systems will have an exclusive UK angle, and be allowed to diverge.
In NI, the assembly and exec will review and decide to maintain alignment with Eire, as required.
Free visas for the under 30s in Europe for 2 years. Freeish movement for high skilled workers.
Brexit is a process. Something for everyone.
Federal Europe can do one.
Is free visas in Europe for us supposed to make us vote Tory? This reminds me of the railcard policy which literally no one cared about. The issue with the Tories for younger voters is cultural values + intergenerational unfairness for younger voters.
Nope. But I think it'll happen all the same.
Lol - most voters, never mind young ones, don't talk about 'intergenerational unfairness' down the pub at the w/e or anywhere else for that matter.
(1) existing single market rules that make *mutual sense* for both the UK and EU (e.g. agriculture, energy) will be aligned. Same friendly service but with a Union Jack.
(2) existing single market rules that we believe should be *interpreted* differently (but with same objective) will have equivalence. Some product and goods standards
(3) new regulatory rules for new technology, services and systems will have an exclusive UK angle, and be allowed to diverge.
In NI, the assembly and exec will review and decide to maintain alignment with Eire, as required.
Free visas for the under 30s in Europe for 2 years. Freeish movement for high skilled workers.
Brexit is a process. Something for everyone.
Federal Europe can do one.
Is free visas in Europe for us supposed to make us vote Tory? This reminds me of the railcard policy which literally no one cared about. The issue with the Tories for younger voters is cultural values + intergenerational unfairness for younger voters.
I spent part of yesterday suggesting to the Leavers that they have done sweet FA to persuade Remain voters that they are anything other than malign clowns. Unfortunately, they seem to feel the need for a safe space to protect them against such unkind suggestions rather than find a way to address them.
There's no point addressing them if the people who make such assertions are not open to reason. The outcome will be the outcome - whether its good or bad.
What we won't be, is part of the increasingly integrated EU federal project. The more they integrate, the more the difference will make itself clear.
I had this naïve idea that Leavers wanted a country that in due course could be united. Right now Leavers seem to be putting a crowbar in the nation's political faultline and pushing.
Evidently they want a divided and unhappy country to continue indefinitely.
Alastair, pretty much every leaver on here is pretty happy with a deal that is a prelude to a soft Brexit that the majority of Remainers can also live with. It really is time to move on.
Sadly this won't happen The ultras on both sides yearn for catastophe or cave-in with nothing in between. Best to ignore.
(1) existing single market rules that make *mutual sense* for both the UK and EU (e.g. agriculture, energy) will be aligned. Same friendly service but with a Union Jack.
(2) existing single market rules that we believe should be *interpreted* differently (but with same objective) will have equivalence. Some product and goods standards
(3) new regulatory rules for new technology, services and systems will have an exclusive UK angle, and be allowed to diverge.
In NI, the assembly and exec will review and decide to maintain alignment with Eire, as required.
Free visas for the under 30s in Europe for 2 years. Freeish movement for high skilled workers.
Brexit is a process. Something for everyone.
Federal Europe can do one.
Is free visas in Europe for us supposed to make us vote Tory? This reminds me of the railcard policy which literally no one cared about. The issue with the Tories for younger voters is cultural values + intergenerational unfairness for younger voters.
Nope. But I think it'll happen all the same.
Lol - most voters, never mind young ones, don't talk about 'intergenerational unfairness' down the pub at the w/e or anywhere else for that matter.
Not in those terms. Doesn't mean they don't talk about it, or - still less - feel it.
(1) existing single market rules that make *mutual sense* for both the UK and EU (e.g. agriculture, energy) will be aligned. Same friendly service but with a Union Jack.
(2) existing single market rules that we believe should be *interpreted* differently (but with same objective) will have equivalence. Some product and goods standards
(3) new regulatory rules for new technology, services and systems will have an exclusive UK angle, and be allowed to diverge.
In NI, the assembly and exec will review and decide to maintain alignment with Eire, as required.
Free visas for the under 30s in Europe for 2 years. Freeish movement for high skilled workers.
Brexit is a process. Something for everyone.
Federal Europe can do one.
Is free visas in Europe for us supposed to make us vote Tory? This reminds me of the railcard policy which literally no one cared about. The issue with the Tories for younger voters is cultural values + intergenerational unfairness for younger voters.
Nope. But I think it'll happen all the same.
Lol - most voters, never mind young ones, don't talk about 'intergenerational unfairness' down the pub at the w/e or anywhere else for that matter.
People may not use the word 'intergenerational unfairness' but they certainly do make reference to the issues the term refers to. Most people care about the cost of living, housing, and certainly, young people talk about tuition fees, and wanting to get on in life.
I'm also interested in how Conservatives all of a sudden know all about what young people talk about. Previously many were convinced that we are all going to be too busy playing Playstation to turn up at the polls.
I had this naïve idea that Leavers wanted a country that in due course could be united. Right now Leavers seem to be putting a crowbar in the nation's political faultline and pushing.
Evidently they want a divided and unhappy country to continue indefinitely.
If what is reported is correct - then this is surely the best possible deal at this stage from a Remainer perspective (absent the large bill I suppose)?
Leave supporters seem to think that they can move on from their atrocious behaviour and the nation will unite behind them. It won't.
Ah the huge issue that appears nowhere in polling of the wider public.
Which opinion poll would you think it would turn up in? At the general election, the Conservatives found themselves pummelled wherever Remain supporters gathered together in numbers. That will continue for the foreseeable future.
Which wasn't in many places (and in many of those that it was, the seats were held by someone else anyway). Despite their best efforts to the contrary, Theresa May and her team still managed to just about win the election.
Indeed. The Tory share of the vote went up quite significantly at the election.
There was a truly bizarre program on Today yesterday from Canterbury where the nation was being told in all seriousness it was easier to come out as gay rather than Conservative and that the fact that 6% of University staff supported their policies was their fault for having such bad polices rather than any indication of bias. The fact that the Tory vote went up to a 25 year high and was higher than the vote for any other party was completely ignored. It was an alternative universe.
I thought the Conservatives might struggle a bit in St. Alban's and parts of Surrey and Hampshire where there was a big Remain vote, like Guildford and East Hants (not necessarily losing seats, but certainly seeing big swings against, but it didn't happen).
But then, whats the alternative? Labour no chance in seats like that, and in East Hants they're a distant second.
If they are moving towards a Canada-style FTA and nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and TMay wants to show what an amazing deal we are going to get from the EU (or why leave?) then we will be under the ECJ yoke for the next seven years at least.
By which you actually mean we will have to abide by ECJ rulings on very specific and limited areas for the next 7 years instead of abiding by all of their rulings for ever which was the alternative if we stayed in.
I know which one I prefer.
Oh absolutely, but seven years takes us into the unknown persuasion of government-wise. Plus as @david_herdson points out what about regulatory alignment?
The 7 (or rather 8) years would be part of the final agreement. If that is the deal then after that period it lapses.
Of course any government in the future could choose to take us back into some form of ECJ control but that is possible with or without this deal.
(1) existing single market rules that make *mutual sense* for both the UK and EU (e.g. agriculture, energy) will be aligned. Same friendly service but with a Union Jack.
(2) existing single market rules that we believe should be *interpreted* differently (but with same objective) will have equivalence. Some product and goods standards
(3) new regulatory rules for new technology, services and systems will have an exclusive UK angle, and be allowed to diverge.
In NI, the assembly and exec will review and decide to maintain alignment with Eire, as required.
Free visas for the under 30s in Europe for 2 years. Freeish movement for high skilled workers.
Brexit is a process. Something for everyone.
Federal Europe can do one.
Is free visas in Europe for us supposed to make us vote Tory? This reminds me of the railcard policy which literally no one cared about. The issue with the Tories for younger voters is cultural values + intergenerational unfairness for younger voters.
Nope. But I think it'll happen all the same.
Lol - most voters, never mind young ones, don't talk about 'intergenerational unfairness' down the pub at the w/e or anywhere else for that matter.
People may not use the word 'intergenerational unfairness' but they certainly do make reference to the issues the term refers to. Most people care about the cost of living, housing, and certainly, young people talk about tuition fees, and wanting to get on in life.
I'm also interested in how Conservatives all of a sudden know all about what young people talk about. Previously many were convinced that we are all going to be too busy playing Playstation to turn up at the polls.
Interesting that you make sweeping statements about a large group of people, and then go on to wonder how others can be so confident in their own sweeping statements.
@OwenPaterson: Big improvement on Monday text @EU_Commission has moved a long way. Still problematic areas inc Clause 49 (full alignment), role of ECJ & money. At last we are moving to free trade discussions. Problem areas must be debated & resolved. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed
See, we haven't really agreed. We can still nuke the deal later...
(1) existing single market rules that make *mutual sense* for both the UK and EU (e.g. agriculture, energy) will be aligned. Same friendly service but with a Union Jack.
(2) existing single market rules that we believe should be *interpreted* differently (but with same objective) will have equivalence. Some product and goods standards
(3) new regulatory rules for new technology, services and systems will have an exclusive UK angle, and be allowed to diverge.
In NI, the assembly and exec will review and decide to maintain alignment with Eire, as required.
Free visas for the under 30s in Europe for 2 years. Freeish movement for high skilled workers.
Brexit is a process. Something for everyone.
Federal Europe can do one.
Is free visas in Europe for us supposed to make us vote Tory? This reminds me of the railcard policy which literally no one cared about. The issue with the Tories for younger voters is cultural values + intergenerational unfairness for younger voters.
Nope. But I think it'll happen all the same.
Lol - most voters, never mind young ones, don't talk about 'intergenerational unfairness' down the pub at the w/e or anywhere else for that matter.
People may not use the word 'intergenerational unfairness' but they certainly do make reference to the issues the term refers to. Most people care about the cost of living, housing, and certainly, young people talk about tuition fees, and wanting to get on in life.
I'm also interested in how Conservatives all of a sudden know all about what young people talk about. Previously many were convinced that we are all going to be too busy playing Playstation to turn up at the polls.
They're multitalented. All the provincial Conservative Leave supporters are very confident that metropolitan Remain voters are ready to move on.
I think the regulatory alignment thing is getting a little out of hand. In the UK regulatory matters for financial service providers are currently regulated by the FCA. Its regulations are a combination of EU, international and domestic provisions. They are accepted by the EU as competent regulators for EU requirements. Once we leave their approval will no longer be required but it is to be hoped that the EU will continue to recognise them as a competent regulator (and vice versa of course) with the result that the EU single passport will remain in force. This does not mean that we have to adopt all EU rules or that we can't have our own. It will simply be recognition that there is equivalence.
Over time there will be conflicting forces. The international agreements regulating banks, such as the Basel process, will push the regulations closer together. The domestic market in London, by far the deepest, largest and most sophisticated in Europe, will require abuses to be dealt with locally that might differentiate regulations from those in other EU markets as is the case already to some extent. But as long as they are still regarded as equivalent there will be regulatory alignment.
(1) existing single market rules that make *mutual sense* for both the UK and EU (e.g. agriculture, energy) will be aligned. Same friendly service but with a Union Jack.
(2) existing single market rules that we believe should be *interpreted* differently (but with same objective) will have equivalence. Some product and goods standards
(3) new regulatory rules for new technology, services and systems will have an exclusive UK angle, and be allowed to diverge.
In NI, the assembly and exec will review and decide to maintain alignment with Eire, as required.
Free visas for the under 30s in Europe for 2 years. Freeish movement for high skilled workers.
Brexit is a process. Something for everyone.
Federal Europe can do one.
Is free visas in Europe for us supposed to make us vote Tory? This reminds me of the railcard policy which literally no one cared about. The issue with the Tories for younger voters is cultural values + intergenerational unfairness for younger voters.
Nope. But I think it'll happen all the same.
Lol - most voters, never mind young ones, don't talk about 'intergenerational unfairness' down the pub at the w/e or anywhere else for that matter.
People may not use the word 'intergenerational unfairness' but they certainly do make reference to the issues the term refers to. Most people care about the cost of living, housing, and certainly, young people talk about tuition fees, and wanting to get on in life.
I'm also interested in how Conservatives all of a sudden know all about what young people talk about. Previously many were convinced that we are all going to be too busy playing Playstation to turn up at the polls.
They're multitalented. All the provincial Conservative Leave supporters are very confident that metropolitan Remain voters are ready to move on.
They can demand all they want - but I don't think TM needs a vote on this. She will on the final agreement of course.
But wouldn't Labour (or enough at any rate) vote for this in any case?
Yes, Labour would. But remember that a Tory leader is only ever 24 hours from being deposed (while parliament is sitting).
If Boris and Michael Gove are on side - she surely has enough of the Brexit wing (+presumably all Remainer Tories) to beat a challenge.
Yes and no. The question of a challenge and the question of the Brexit deal are two different things. My gut instinct is that there won't be a serious rebellion over this. However, I do think that if there is a formal challenge - whenever it comes and whatever it's over - May will lose. She'll lose because Tory MPs don't want her to fight the next election and if she's voted back in, that might be hard to avoid.
@tconnellyRTE: Interesting observation by senior EU official: we can’t give the UK a lopsided FTA because under WTO Most Favoured Nation rules, other third countries who’ve done an FTA with the EU could come back to the EU and say “we’d like those concessions too.”
(1) existing single market rules that make *mutual sense* for both the UK and EU (e.g. agriculture, energy) will be aligned. Same friendly service but with a Union Jack.
(2) existing single market rules that we believe should be *interpreted* differently (but with same objective) will have equivalence. Some product and goods standards
(3) new regulatory rules for new technology, services and systems will have an exclusive UK angle, and be allowed to diverge.
In NI, the assembly and exec will review and decide to maintain alignment with Eire, as required.
Free visas for the under 30s in Europe for 2 years. Freeish movement for high skilled workers.
Brexit is a process. Something for everyone.
Federal Europe can do one.
Is free visas in Europe for us supposed to make us vote Tory? This reminds me of the railcard policy which literally no one cared about. The issue with the Tories for younger voters is cultural values + intergenerational unfairness for younger voters.
Nope. But I think it'll happen all the same.
Lol - most voters, never mind young ones, don't talk about 'intergenerational unfairness' down the pub at the w/e or anywhere else for that matter.
People may not use the word 'intergenerational unfairness' but they certainly do make reference to the issues the term refers to. Most people care about the cost of living, housing, and certainly, young people talk about tuition fees, and wanting to get on in life.
I'm also interested in how Conservatives all of a sudden know all about what young people talk about. Previously many were convinced that we are all going to be too busy playing Playstation to turn up at the polls.
Interesting that you make sweeping statements about a large group of people, and then go on to wonder how others can be so confident in their own sweeping statements.
I said 'many' not 'all' or even 'most' Conservatives. Don't think that qualifies as a 'sweeping statement'.
If they are moving towards a Canada-style FTA and nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and TMay wants to show what an amazing deal we are going to get from the EU (or why leave?) then we will be under the ECJ yoke for the next seven years at least.
By which you actually mean we will have to abide by ECJ rulings on very specific and limited areas for the next 7 years instead of abiding by all of their rulings for ever which was the alternative if we stayed in.
I know which one I prefer.
In terms of ex-pat rights, the UK has done quite well out of the talks - though that was always the easiest of the three areas to get agreement in.
Are you not just a bit worried about the implications of what continued regulatory alignment might mean in terms of the ongoing role of the ECJ?
Not really. As I say this will be very strictly limited to those areas where we have to ensure continuity of the GFA. If the Irish or the EU do start to get too funny about it with mission creep then there is always the prospect of reducing the areas where we trade with the Irish. Which would be very much to their detriment.
Bear in mind my ideal Brexit was via EFTA/EEA so this is very much in line with what I wanted. For me the only real downside is that we will not have freedom of movement but I long ago accepted I was not going to get my perfect Brexit and am happy with the compromise.
No one's going to reduce anything. No one will care. It will be one of those things whereby the ROI accepts a new EU reg and before you know it, with no fanfare from anyone, NI and rUK will have accepted it and we will wake up the next morning to see the sun has risen once more and all is well in the world.
You seriously underestimate how much attention people will pay to these things. Mind you you have seriously underestimated the Leave campaign ever since it started.
This is exactly the same rational that said people 'didn't give a toss'* about the EU and would never vote to Leave.
At some point you are going to have stop making the same mistakes over and over again.
(1) existing single market rules that make *mutual sense* for both the UK and EU (e.g. agriculture, energy) will be aligned. Same friendly service but with a Union Jack.
(2) existing single market rules that we believe should be *interpreted* differently (but with same objective) will have equivalence. Some product and goods standards
(3) new regulatory rules for new technology, services and systems will have an exclusive UK angle, and be allowed to diverge.
In NI, the assembly and exec will review and decide to maintain alignment with Eire, as required.
Free visas for the under 30s in Europe for 2 years. Freeish movement for high skilled workers.
Brexit is a process. Something for everyone.
Federal Europe can do one.
Is free visas in Europe for us supposed to make us vote Tory? This reminds me of the railcard policy which literally no one cared about. The issue with the Tories for younger voters is cultural values + intergenerational unfairness for younger voters.
Nope. But I think it'll happen all the same.
Lol - most voters, never mind young ones, don't talk about 'intergenerational unfairness' down the pub at the w/e or anywhere else for that matter.
People may not use the word 'intergenerational unfairness' but they certainly do make reference to the issues the term refers to. Most people care about the cost of living, housing, and certainly, young people talk about tuition fees, and wanting to get on in life.
I'm also interested in how Conservatives all of a sudden know all about what young people talk about. Previously many were convinced that we are all going to be too busy playing Playstation to turn up at the polls.
Interesting that you make sweeping statements about a large group of people, and then go on to wonder how others can be so confident in their own sweeping statements.
I said 'many' not 'all' or even 'most' Conservatives. Don't think that qualifies as a 'sweeping statement'.
Was referring to your statements about young people.
If they are moving towards a Canada-style FTA and nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and TMay wants to show what an amazing deal we are going to get from the EU (or why leave?) then we will be under the ECJ yoke for the next seven years at least.
By which you actually mean we will have to abide by ECJ rulings on very specific and limited areas for the next 7 years instead of abiding by all of their rulings for ever which was the alternative if we stayed in.
I know which one I prefer.
In terms of ex-pat rights, the UK has done quite well out of the talks - though that was always the easiest of the three areas to get agreement in.
Are you not just a bit worried about the implications of what continued regulatory alignment might mean in terms of the ongoing role of the ECJ?
Not really. As I say this will be very strictly limited to those areas where we have to ensure continuity of the GFA. If the Irish or the EU do start to get too funny about it with mission creep then there is always the prospect of reducing the areas where we trade with the Irish. Which would be very much to their detriment.
Bear in mind my ideal Brexit was via EFTA/EEA so this is very much in line with what I wanted. For me the only real downside is that we will not have freedom of movement but I long ago accepted I was not going to get my perfect Brexit and am happy with the compromise.
The number of sectors that are impacted by the GFA is disputed. i saw an (unsourced) tweet from a journalist claiming that whereas the UK believed only four sectors were affected, the EU believed the total was 142. Until we see a final, agreed, list I'll hold fire on how significant the ECJ's role will ultimately be.
@tconnellyRTE: Interesting observation by senior EU official: we can’t give the UK a lopsided FTA because under WTO Most Favoured Nation rules, other third countries who’ve done an FTA with the EU could come back to the EU and say “we’d like those concessions too.”
Are all EU trade deals the same then? Should be easy to negotiate ours.
@tconnellyRTE: Interesting observation by senior EU official: we can’t give the UK a lopsided FTA because under WTO Most Favoured Nation rules, other third countries who’ve done an FTA with the EU could come back to the EU and say “we’d like those concessions too.”
That has always been known. When the idiots were suggesting that (a) we go WTO and (b) we "open the border" to not impose tariffs on EU goods, it was always the case that what we do for one we have to do for all.
Hence the need to do such a massive u-turn away from "no deal would be a great deal" to "we're leaving but continuing to do exactly what we do now as a member". I know that many Tory MPs love the sound of their own voice and seem to think that what they say is magically right, but in the real world little niggly things like treaties and laws get in the way of their masturbatory fantasies.
(1) existing single market rules that make *mutual sense* for both the UK and EU (e.g. agriculture, energy) will be aligned. Same friendly service but with a Union Jack.
(2) existing single market rules that we believe should be *interpreted* differently (but with same objective) will have equivalence. Some product and goods standards
(3) new regulatory rules for new technology, services and systems will have an exclusive UK angle, and be allowed to diverge.
In NI, the assembly and exec will review and decide to maintain alignment with Eire, as required.
Free visas for the under 30s in Europe for 2 years. Freeish movement for high skilled workers.
Brexit is a process. Something for everyone.
Federal Europe can do one.
Is free visas in Europe for us supposed to make us vote Tory? This reminds me of the railcard policy which literally no one cared about. The issue with the Tories for younger voters is cultural values + intergenerational unfairness for younger voters.
Nope. But I think it'll happen all the same.
Lol - most voters, never mind young ones, don't talk about 'intergenerational unfairness' down the pub at the w/e or anywhere else for that matter.
People may not use the word 'intergenerational unfairness' but they certainly do make reference to the issues the term refers to. Most people care about the cost of living, housing, and certainly, young people talk about tuition fees, and wanting to get on in life.
I'm also interested in how Conservatives all of a sudden know all about what young people talk about. Previously many were convinced that we are all going to be too busy playing Playstation to turn up at the polls.
Interesting that you make sweeping statements about a large group of people, and then go on to wonder how others can be so confident in their own sweeping statements.
I said 'many' not 'all' or even 'most' Conservatives. Don't think that qualifies as a 'sweeping statement'.
"I'm also interested in how Conservatives all of a sudden know all about what young people talk about."
(1) existing single market rules that make *mutual sense* for both the UK and EU (e.g. agriculture, energy) will be aligned. Same friendly service but with a Union Jack.
(2) existing single market rules that we believe should be *interpreted* differently (but with same objective) will have equivalence. Some product and goods standards
(3) new regulatory rules for new technology, services and systems will have an exclusive UK angle, and be allowed to diverge.
In NI, the assembly and exec will review and decide to maintain alignment with Eire, as required.
Free visas for the under 30s in Europe for 2 years. Freeish movement for high skilled workers.
Brexit is a process. Something for everyone.
Federal Europe can do one.
Is free visas in Europe for us supposed to make us vote Tory? This reminds me of the railcard policy which literally no one cared about. The issue with the Tories for younger voters is cultural values + intergenerational unfairness for younger voters.
Nope. But I think it'll happen all the same.
Lol - most voters, never mind young ones, don't talk about 'intergenerational unfairness' down the pub at the w/e or anywhere else for that matter.
People may not use the word 'intergenerational unfairness' but they certainly do make reference to the issues the term refers to. Most people care about the cost of living, housing, and certainly, young people talk about tuition fees, and wanting to get on in life.
I'm also interested in how Conservatives all of a sudden know all about what young people talk about. Previously many were convinced that we are all going to be too busy playing Playstation to turn up at the polls.
They're multitalented. All the provincial Conservative Leave supporters are very confident that metropolitan Remain voters are ready to move on.
I think the long-term issue for the Tories is the values gap, and that's a big reason as to why it'll be difficult for the Tories to make hay with Remainers. Most know that we'll be Brexiting and are resigned to it; what people are less likely to entertain is voting for a party whose social and cultural values are very different from theirs.
@faisalislam: European Parliament Verhofstadt: “our recommendation is to go to phase 2” but “5 outstanding issues need to be tackled for consent in Withdrawal Agreement”
(1) existing single market rules that make *mutual sense* for both the UK and EU (e.g. agriculture, energy) will be aligned. Same friendly service but with a Union Jack.
(2) existing single market rules that we believe should be *interpreted* differently (but with same objective) will have equivalence. Some product and goods standards
(3) new regulatory rules for new technology, services and systems will have an exclusive UK angle, and be allowed to diverge.
In NI, the assembly and exec will review and decide to maintain alignment with Eire, as required.
Free visas for the under 30s in Europe for 2 years. Freeish movement for high skilled workers.
Brexit is a process. Something for everyone.
Federal Europe can do one.
Is free visas in Europe for us supposed to make us vote Tory? This reminds me of the railcard policy which literally no one cared about. The issue with the Tories for younger voters is cultural values + intergenerational unfairness for younger voters.
I spent part of yesterday suggesting to the Leavers that they have done sweet FA to persuade Remain voters that they are anything other than malign clowns. Unfortunately, they seem to feel the need for a safe space to protect them against such unkind suggestions rather than find a way to address them.
There's no point addressing them if the people who make such assertions are not open to reason. The outcome will be the outcome - whether its good or bad.
What we won't be, is part of the increasingly integrated EU federal project. The more they integrate, the more the difference will make itself clear.
I had this naïve idea that Leavers wanted a country that in due course could be united. Right now Leavers seem to be putting a crowbar in the nation's political faultline and pushing.
Evidently they want a divided and unhappy country to continue indefinitely.
Alastair, pretty much every leaver on here is pretty happy with a deal that is a prelude to a soft Brexit that the majority of Remainers can also live with. It really is time to move on.
Sadly this won't happen The ultras on both sides yearn for catastophe or cave-in with nothing in between. Best to ignore.
You can certainly see that on Con Home where both Leavers and the much smaller number of Remainers are foaming with anger about this, but leave them to it.
If they are moving towards a Canada-style FTA and nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and TMay wants to show what an amazing deal we are going to get from the EU (or why leave?) then we will be under the ECJ yoke for the next seven years at least.
Who is this "we"? The ongoing ECJ remit is to be very limited.
But entertaining you admit to it having been a yoke.
@OwenPaterson: Big improvement on Monday text @EU_Commission has moved a long way. Still problematic areas inc Clause 49 (full alignment), role of ECJ & money. At last we are moving to free trade discussions. Problem areas must be debated & resolved. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed
See, we haven't really agreed. We can still nuke the deal later...
Which they will when they realise what "full alignment with the rules of the single market" means in practical terms
If they are moving towards a Canada-style FTA and nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and TMay wants to show what an amazing deal we are going to get from the EU (or why leave?) then we will be under the ECJ yoke for the next seven years at least.
By which you actually mean we will have to abide by ECJ rulings on very specific and limited areas for the next 7 years instead of abiding by all of their rulings for ever which was the alternative if we stayed in.
I know which one I prefer.
In terms of ex-pat rights, the UK has done quite well out of the talks - though that was always the easiest of the three areas to get agreement in.
Are you not just a bit worried about the implications of what continued regulatory alignment might mean in terms of the ongoing role of the ECJ?
Not really. As I say this will be very strictly limited to those areas where we have to ensure continuity of the GFA. If the Irish or the EU do start to get too funny about it with mission creep then there is always the prospect of reducing the areas where we trade with the Irish. Which would be very much to their detriment.
Bear in mind my ideal Brexit was via EFTA/EEA so this is very much in line with what I wanted. For me the only real downside is that we will not have freedom of movement but I long ago accepted I was not going to get my perfect Brexit and am happy with the compromise.
The number of sectors that are impacted by the GFA is disputed. i saw an (unsourced) tweet from a journalist claiming that whereas the UK believed only four sectors were affected, the EU believed the total was 142. Until we see a final, agreed, list I'll hold fire on how significant the ECJ's role will ultimately be.
Today's agreement references the mapping exercise which came up with those 142 areas and concludes that "North-South cooperation relies to a significant extent on a common European Union legal and policy framework".
(1) existing single market rules that make *mutual sense* for both the UK and EU (e.g. agriculture, energy) will be aligned. Same friendly service but with a Union Jack.
(2) existing single market rules that we believe should be *interpreted* differently (but with same objective) will have equivalence. Some product and goods standards
(3) new regulatory rules for new technology, services and systems will have an exclusive UK angle, and be allowed to diverge.
In NI, the assembly and exec will review and decide to maintain alignment with Eire, as required.
Free visas for the under 30s in Europe for 2 years. Freeish movement for high skilled workers.
Brexit is a process. Something for everyone.
Federal Europe can do one.
Is free visas in Europe for us supposed to make us vote Tory? This reminds me of the railcard policy which literally no one cared about. The issue with the Tories for younger voters is cultural values + intergenerational unfairness for younger voters.
Nope. But I think it'll happen all the same.
Lol - most voters, never mind young ones, don't talk about 'intergenerational unfairness' down the pub at the w/e or anywhere else for that matter.
People may not use the word 'intergenerational unfairness' but they certainly do make reference to the issues the term refers to. Most people care about the cost of living, housing, and certainly, young people talk about tuition fees, and wanting to get on in life.
I'm also interested in how Conservatives all of a sudden know all about what young people talk about. Previously many were convinced that we are all going to be too busy playing Playstation to turn up at the polls.
Leave supporters seem to think that they can move on from their atrocious behaviour and the nation will unite behind them. It won't.
Ah the huge issue that appears nowhere in polling of the wider public.
Which opinion poll would you think it would turn up in? At the general election, the Conservatives found themselves pummelled wherever Remain supporters gathered together in numbers. That will continue for the foreseeable future.
Which wasn't in many places (and in many of those that it was, the seats were held by someone else anyway). Despite their best efforts to the contrary, Theresa May and her team still managed to just about win the election.
Indeed. The Tory share of the vote went up quite significantly at the election.
There was a truly bizarre program on Today yesterday from Canterbury where the nation was being told in all seriousness it was easier to come out as gay rather than Conservative and that the fact that 6% of University staff supported their policies was their fault for having such bad polices rather than any indication of bias. The fact that the Tory vote went up to a 25 year high and was higher than the vote for any other party was completely ignored. It was an alternative universe.
Coming out as a Tory member doesn't equal voting Tory, though, does it. Neither does the Tory vote share correspond to the Tories having good or even popular policies. Like the nature-film sound-man said to the cameraman as he put on his trainers - "I don't have to be a good runner; I just have to be better than you." The charm of FPTP means that the Tories can get millions of votes thanks to not looking as bad to a big swathe of society as Corbyn, just as Corbyn can get millions of votes against the Tories rather than for socialism (as per this: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/11/no-really-young-people-don-t-vote-labour-because-they-re-communist )
It may indeed be that the Tories gained votes out of sheer popularity and enthusing the populace by their policies, but even if so (and I will admit to profound doubt over it), we can never know either way. The votes to keep out Corbyn, for habit, for least-worst-probably-I'd-rather-vote-someone-else-but-they-can't-win, and so on weigh exactly the same as those for "yay, these policies are great"
(1) existing single market rules that make *mutual sense* for both the UK and EU (e.g. agriculture, energy) will be aligned. Same friendly service but with a Union Jack.
(2) existing single market rules that we believe should be *interpreted* differently (but with same objective) will have equivalence. Some product and goods standards
(3) new regulatory rules for new technology, services and systems will have an exclusive UK angle, and be allowed to diverge.
In NI, the assembly and exec will review and decide to maintain alignment with Eire, as required.
Free visas for the under 30s in Europe for 2 years. Freeish movement for high skilled workers.
Brexit is a process. Something for everyone.
Federal Europe can do one.
Is free visas in Europe for us supposed to make us vote Tory? This reminds me of the railcard policy which literally no one cared about. The issue with the Tories for younger voters is cultural values + intergenerational unfairness for younger voters.
Nope. But I think it'll happen all the same.
Lol - most voters, never mind young ones, don't talk about 'intergenerational unfairness' down the pub at the w/e or anywhere else for that matter.
People may not use the word 'intergenerational unfairness' but they certainly do make reference to the issues the term refers to. Most people care about the cost of living, housing, and certainly, young people talk about tuition fees, and wanting to get on in life.
I'm also interested in how Conservatives all of a sudden know all about what young people talk about. Previously many were convinced that we are all going to be too busy playing Playstation to turn up at the polls.
Interesting that you make sweeping statements about a large group of people, and then go on to wonder how others can be so confident in their own sweeping statements.
I said 'many' not 'all' or even 'most' Conservatives. Don't think that qualifies as a 'sweeping statement'.
"I'm also interested in how Conservatives all of a sudden know all about what young people talk about."
Is the "many" in code somewhere? I don't see it.
It's here: ''Previously many were convinced that we are all going to be too busy playing Playstation to turn up at the polls.''
I thought the Playstation assertion was one people were taking issue with.
@tconnellyRTE: Interesting observation by senior EU official: we can’t give the UK a lopsided FTA because under WTO Most Favoured Nation rules, other third countries who’ve done an FTA with the EU could come back to the EU and say “we’d like those concessions too.”
Simply rubbish. Free Trade Agreements are negotiated between two sides (or more). They are each tailored to the requirements of the sides negotiating and the WTO rules which cover general trade outside of FTAs have nothing to do with it.
If what he said is true then every FTA ever done would be challenged by other countries who wanted the same deals. The CETA agreement could never have happened as the terms are more favourable to Canada than other FTAs.
If they are moving towards a Canada-style FTA and nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and TMay wants to show what an amazing deal we are going to get from the EU (or why leave?) then we will be under the ECJ yoke for the next seven years at least.
By which you actually mean we will ir rulings for ever which was the alternative if we stayed in.
I know which one I prefer.
In terms of ex-pat rights, tECJ?
Not really. As I say this will be very strictly limited to those areas where we have to ensure continuity of the GFA. If the Irish or the EU do start to get too funny about it with mission creep then there is always the prospect of reducing the areas where we trade with the Irish. Which would be very much to their detriment.
Bear in mind my ideal Brethe compromise.
No one's going to reduce anything. No one will care. It will be one of those things whereby the ROI accepts a new EU reg and before you know it, with no fanfare from anyone, NI and rUK will have accepted it and we will wake up the next morning to see the sun has risen once more and all is well in the world.
You seriously underestimate how much attention people will pay to these things. Mind you you have seriously underestimated the Leave campaign ever since it started.
This is exactly the same rational that said people 'didn't give a toss'* about the EU and would never vote to Leave.
At some point you are going to have stop making the same mistakes over and over again.
*Copyright OGH
Should you choose to waste 20 minutes or more of your life you will see that well in advance of the vote I called it for Leave.
It had long been and still is my position that there was simply no answer to the foreigner question while we were in the EU. Far from underestimate it, I realised that the anti-foreigner line was hitting home time after time after time.
As for will people notice? We have a huge and I mean huge piece of EU regulation coming into force in the UK on Jan 3rd next year and I would pay good money if more than 0.000001% of the population had ever heard of it. The only reason you might (might) have heard of it is because it has been discussed on here. Even Michael Gove, arch sovereignty reclaimer only learned of it the other day.
People don't care.
Edit: make that 0.1% !!! There are more than 63 people (0.000001%) in each affected firm trying to implement the damn thing!
Interesting that you make sweeping statements about a large group of people, and then go on to wonder how others can be so confident in their own sweeping statements.
I said 'many' not 'all' or even 'most' Conservatives. Don't think that qualifies as a 'sweeping statement'.
"I'm also interested in how Conservatives all of a sudden know all about what young people talk about."
Is the "many" in code somewhere? I don't see it.
It's here: ''Previously many were convinced that we are all going to be too busy playing Playstation to turn up at the polls.''
I thought the Playstation assertion was one people were taking issue with.
e.g.:
Most people care about the cost of living, housing, and certainly, young people talk about tuition fees, and wanting to get on in life.
I'm also interested in how Conservatives all of a sudden know all about what young people talk about.
(1) existing single market rules that make *mutual sense* for both the UK and EU (e.g. agriculture, energy) will be aligned. Same friendly service but with a Union Jack.
(2) existing single market rules that we believe should be *interpreted* differently (but with same objective) will have equivalence. Some product and goods standards
(3) new regulatory rules for new technology, services and systems will have an exclusive UK angle, and be allowed to diverge.
In NI, the assembly and exec will review and decide to maintain alignment with Eire, as required.
Free visas for the under 30s in Europe for 2 years. Freeish movement for high skilled workers.
Brexit is a process. Something for everyone.
Federal Europe can do one.
Is free visas in Europe for us supposed to make us vote Tory? This reminds me of the railcard policy which literally no one cared about. The issue with the Tories for younger voters is cultural values + intergenerational unfairness for younger voters.
Nope. But I think it'll happen all the same.
Lol - most voters, never mind young ones, don't talk about 'intergenerational unfairness' down the pub at the w/e or anywhere else for that matter.
People may not use the word 'intergenerational unfairness' but they certainly do make reference to the issues the term refers to. Most people care about the cost of living, housing, and certainly, young people talk about tuition fees, and wanting to get on in life.
I'm also interested in how Conservatives all of a sudden know all about what young people talk about. Previously many were convinced that we are all going to be too busy playing Playstation to turn up at the polls.
Interesting that you make sweeping statements about a large group of people, and then go on to wonder how others can be so confident in their own sweeping statements.
I said 'many' not 'all' or even 'most' Conservatives. Don't think that qualifies as a 'sweeping statement'.
Was referring to your statements about young people.
Ah, in that case I don't think it's a sweeping statement (which kind of implies it's a unfair statement) at all, but rather a reflection of the way things are. After all, the Conservatives did poorly with younger voters which doesn't suggest that they know very much about us or what we care about.
I had this naïve idea that Leavers wanted a country that in due course could be united. Right now Leavers seem to be putting a crowbar in the nation's political faultline and pushing.
Evidently they want a divided and unhappy country to continue indefinitely.
If what is reported is correct - then this is surely the best possible deal at this stage from a Remainer perspective (absent the large bill I suppose)?
Leave supporters seem to think that they can move on from their atrocious behaviour and the nation will unite behind them. It won't.
Ah the huge issue that appears nowhere in polling of the wider public.
Which opinion poll would you think it would turn up in? At the general election, the Conservatives found themselves pummelled wherever Remain supporters gathered together in numbers. That will continue for the foreseeable future.
Good to see you acknowledging that the election result was not due to Corbyn, but due to Brexit. But the next election will not be until 2022, and by then Brexit will be done and dusted. Remember too that if Labour had not been led by a Brexiteer who failed to campaign for remain, Brexit would almost certainly not have happened.
You seem to think that Remain supporters are going to forget. This is a defining political experience for many. They feel that their birthright as enlightened Europeans has been stolen from them by malign clowns. They are not going to forgive easily and nothing that the madder Leavers have done since is making it more likely that they will.
You do not represent the mainstream Remainer movement. You represent the extremist wing that has the support of a tiny minority of Remainers. I would say you are the UKIP equivalent of Remain but in fact you are more like the BNP equivalent.
I'd say that Alistair Meeks articulates the view of a majority of people who went to / plan to go to university. A minority, but not an insignificant one.
Ah, in that case I don't think it's a sweeping statement (which kind of implies it's a unfair statement) at all, but rather a reflection of the way things are. After all, the Conservatives did poorly with younger voters which doesn't suggest that they know very much about us or what we care about.
Sweeping statements don't have to be unfair. It was just funny the way you said this is what young people talk about, and what on earth do those Tories think they know about what young people talk about.
(1) existing single market rules that make *mutual sense* for both the UK and EU (e.g. agriculture, energy) will be aligned. Same friendly service but with a Union Jack.
(2) existing single market rules that we believe should be *interpreted* differently (but with same objective) will have equivalence. Some product and goods standards
(3) new regulatory rules for new technology, services and systems will have an exclusive UK angle, and be allowed to diverge.
In NI, the assembly and exec will review and decide to maintain alignment with Eire, as required.
Free visas for the under 30s in Europe for 2 years. Freeish movement for high skilled workers.
Brexit is a process. Something for everyone.
Federal Europe can do one.
Is free visas in Europe for us supposed to make us vote Tory? This reminds me of the railcard policy which literally no one cared about. The issue with the Tories for younger voters is cultural values + intergenerational unfairness for younger voters.
Nope. But I think it'll happen all the same.
Lol - most voters, never mind young ones, don't talk about 'intergenerational unfairness' down the pub at the w/e or anywhere else for that matter.
People may not use the word 'intergenerational unfairness' but they certainly do make reference to the issues the term refers to. Most people care about the cost of living, housing, and certainly, young people talk about tuition fees, and wanting to get on in life.
I'm also interested in how Conservatives all of a sudden know all about what young people talk about. Previously many were convinced that we are all going to be too busy playing Playstation to turn up at the polls.
There is still a considerable differential turnout in voter engagement related to age. My more serious point is that your, eg, experience of young people gives you no more right to talk about it than anyone else. Lots of people of all ages mix on various levels with varieties of people of different ages whatever their political views, races, sexuality, etc. You regularly claim to be able to understand Conservative voters and their thought patterns. You really don't anymore than the rest of us. Younger voters historically have not been strong supporters of the Tory party. Yet generation after generation they drift towards the party and discard the views of their youth as they become more experienced. That is why the party has endured historically longer than any other as a governing party in the democratic world.
Comments
https://www.ft.com/content/4aacdad7-1f5d-3e78-83cd-c51528065432
"The mathematics are simple: if A equals B and B equals C, then C equals A. A is Ireland’s position in the single market and customs union, B is Northern Ireland’s full alignment to that position and C is the UK’s commitment not to differ from Northern Ireland. The commitment to have no barriers to east-west trade means that London is effectively a prisoner of Belfast."
He has noticed exactly the issue that I was pointing out earlier.
In any case - that position means he is only putting off his rebellion against the govt.
If TM is smart - then she will have civil servants working frantically to find areas where regulatory divergence is allowed under the terms of this agreement, and will be commissioning analysis to show how UK regulations can now be changed when they couldn't before.
That stuff Boris wrote about changing bus regulations too keep cyclists safe - that kind of thing ought to be possible perhaps...
https://twitter.com/montie/status/939120034911309824
Possible if this deal unravels fast - but the odds are actually very poor - something like 26/1 on betfair isn't tempting.
I don't see how the Brexiteers can sign up to this really - I think too many of them are too principled to pretend this is what they wanted.
How about this: we would have to continue making payments for ever to the EU if we stayed in. We've actually saved an infinite amount of money therefore!
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/its-a-deal-brexit-phase-one
Jill Rutter was a contemporary of Theresa May's - she was also disgracefully forced out of the Brown Treasury....
She will on the final agreement of course.
But wouldn't Labour (or enough at any rate) vote for this in any case?
I think Labour has serious problems coming up. The Keir and Chuka cunning plan ... We should aim for full access to the market while negotiating about FOM is already unravelling as they emphasise that the market is the crucial aspect. That's the issue they will stick to, and the give point is accepting FoM if forced (and we all know they will be forced).
Things may change if Jezza is wheeled into retirement, and the Starmer master plan to stay in the EU is launched.
My constituency voted 58% Leave and has a 20,000 Labour majority. It takes a lot to change the voting patterns of a lifetime but they may test it to destruction. Are they willing to be wiped out in many parts of the North?
Personally, I quite like the Poles and Lithuanians, they're good Catholic boys and girls. And they work hard. But ...
I know which one I prefer.
Fear not, London will always remain a beacon of enlightenment.
Mind you, I think Boudicca had the right idea.
https://twitter.com/GeorgePeretzQC/status/939054876784513024
Downing Street said only around two or three cases are expected to be referred each year to the European Court of Justice, under provisions which will allow UK courts and tribunals to seek the Luxembourg court's "interpretation" of questions relating to the rights of EU nationals in Britain.
Mrs May's official spokesman stressed that the decision to refer would be "entirely voluntary" for UK courts and the ECJ would not have the power to call in cases.
Sounds reasonable. And only limited to eight years now.
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/939057156636250112?s=17
https://twitter.com/lucidtalk/status/938791111832887296
Are you not just a bit worried about the implications of what continued regulatory alignment might mean in terms of the ongoing role of the ECJ?
There was a truly bizarre program on Today yesterday from Canterbury where the nation was being told in all seriousness it was easier to come out as gay rather than Conservative and that the fact that 6% of University staff supported their policies was their fault for having such bad polices rather than any indication of bias. The fact that the Tory vote went up to a 25 year high and was higher than the vote for any other party was completely ignored. It was an alternative universe.
Is UNS a thing of the past?
Bear in mind my ideal Brexit was via EFTA/EEA so this is very much in line with what I wanted. For me the only real downside is that we will not have freedom of movement but I long ago accepted I was not going to get my perfect Brexit and am happy with the compromise.
To see a big anti-Conservative swing, I think there had to be a big Remain vote plus something else, such as lots of students and university workers (eg Canterbury, Reading East, Portsmouth South, Cardiff North, Bristol NW) or major housing issues (eg Kensington, Enfield North) or lots of younger urban professionals (eg Battersea, Ealing Acton) as opposed to older urban professionals.
re academia, the Tories have a graduates issue more generally speaking.
I'm also interested in how Conservatives all of a sudden know all about what young people talk about. Previously many were convinced that we are all going to be too busy playing Playstation to turn up at the polls.
Of course any government in the future could choose to take us back into some form of ECJ control but that is possible with or without this deal.
@OwenPaterson: Big improvement on Monday text @EU_Commission has moved a long way. Still problematic areas inc Clause 49 (full alignment), role of ECJ & money. At last we are moving to free trade discussions. Problem areas must be debated & resolved. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed
See, we haven't really agreed. We can still nuke the deal later...
Over time there will be conflicting forces. The international agreements regulating banks, such as the Basel process, will push the regulations closer together. The domestic market in London, by far the deepest, largest and most sophisticated in Europe, will require abuses to be dealt with locally that might differentiate regulations from those in other EU markets as is the case already to some extent. But as long as they are still regarded as equivalent there will be regulatory alignment.
https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/939133728214876161?s=17
This is exactly the same rational that said people 'didn't give a toss'* about the EU and would never vote to Leave.
At some point you are going to have stop making the same mistakes over and over again.
*Copyright OGH
Hence the need to do such a massive u-turn away from "no deal would be a great deal" to "we're leaving but continuing to do exactly what we do now as a member". I know that many Tory MPs love the sound of their own voice and seem to think that what they say is magically right, but in the real world little niggly things like treaties and laws get in the way of their masturbatory fantasies.
Is the "many" in code somewhere? I don't see it.
But entertaining you admit to it having been a yoke.
Neither does the Tory vote share correspond to the Tories having good or even popular policies. Like the nature-film sound-man said to the cameraman as he put on his trainers - "I don't have to be a good runner; I just have to be better than you."
The charm of FPTP means that the Tories can get millions of votes thanks to not looking as bad to a big swathe of society as Corbyn, just as Corbyn can get millions of votes against the Tories rather than for socialism (as per this: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/11/no-really-young-people-don-t-vote-labour-because-they-re-communist )
It may indeed be that the Tories gained votes out of sheer popularity and enthusing the populace by their policies, but even if so (and I will admit to profound doubt over it), we can never know either way. The votes to keep out Corbyn, for habit, for least-worst-probably-I'd-rather-vote-someone-else-but-they-can't-win, and so on weigh exactly the same as those for "yay, these policies are great"
''Previously many were convinced that we are all going to be too busy playing Playstation to turn up at the polls.''
I thought the Playstation assertion was one people were taking issue with.
If what he said is true then every FTA ever done would be challenged by other countries who wanted the same deals. The CETA agreement could never have happened as the terms are more favourable to Canada than other FTAs.
It had long been and still is my position that there was simply no answer to the foreigner question while we were in the EU. Far from underestimate it, I realised that the anti-foreigner line was hitting home time after time after time.
As for will people notice? We have a huge and I mean huge piece of EU regulation coming into force in the UK on Jan 3rd next year and I would pay good money if more than 0.000001% of the population had ever heard of it. The only reason you might (might) have heard of it is because it has been discussed on here. Even Michael Gove, arch sovereignty reclaimer only learned of it the other day.
People don't care.
Edit: make that 0.1% !!! There are more than 63 people (0.000001%) in each affected firm trying to implement the damn thing!
Most people care about the cost of living, housing, and certainly, young people talk about tuition fees, and wanting to get on in life.
I'm also interested in how Conservatives all of a sudden know all about what young people talk about.