I don't think May is going to easily yield the helm of the ship of fools to any of the other chancers having waded through shit and blood for Brexit. She'll feel like she's earned it despite the cabinet and party not because of them.
Even a chance that she might recoup some popularity from all this. May to lead Tories in 2022 and win a majority? I'd have probably not bet at any price a few weeks ago. Now though... at extreme odds.. May-be!
Mr. L, how do you think this might affect things in Scotland, particularly regarding the SNP and the highly variable SNP-approved lifespan of a generation?
I personally think that Brexit is a disaster for Independence. The default assumption of the Nats was that an independent Scotland and rUK would be in the single market together making trade much less of an issue. That will no longer be the case. How much it is not the case depends on the outcome of phase 2. A soft Brexit might give the SNP a way forward.
As a result I think that they will wait and see. Indyref 2 will go on the back burner until they have a clearer idea of where we are.
Another interesting side effect of this is that any politician claiming that a separation from rUK is going to be “easy” is going to be laughed at.
Mr. Ace, an interesting possibility. Also possible she'll be so relieved she'll just want to get out.
That's how a normal person would feel. We're dealing with a narcissist control freak of extremely limited intellect and imagination. What's left for her when she quits being PM? Hillwalking and wondering if Arthur Askey's sildenafil has kicked in yet?
Mr. Ace, an interesting possibility. Also possible she'll be so relieved she'll just want to get out.
That's how a normal person would feel. We're dealing with a narcissist control freak of extremely limited intellect and imagination. What's left for her when she quits being PM? Hillwalking and wondering if Arthur Askey's sildenafil has kicked in yet?
Mr. L, cheers. That was similar to my own view but, obviously, I'm not as up on Scottish politics.
The weird line from Sturgeon (and even weirder from that idiot Khan) that solving an Irish border problem means we should invent two new border problems between Scotland and England, and within England itself, was logically challenging.
Mr. Ace, the party should recall how badly she buggered up the GE campaign. It's time for fresh blood.
The other problem that Corbyn Labour will have with regulatory alignment is that it will tie any far left Labour government’s hands. The strategy the party’s leadership had been following of waiting for the Tories to implode on the back of a cliff edge Brexit and for the British people to turn left in response has been blown out of the water.
Mr southam,I may be wrong but weren't you thinking trump wouldn't win and Theresa would have a majority ?
If I am,I apologize.
Wrong about Trump, right about May. I did call the referendum correctly, though, and the 2015 GE.
The regulatory alignment required by art 49 is essentially restricted to the terms of the 1998 GFA. These can be as wide or as narrow as we agree to make them outside the scope of security, policing and common institutions. I therefore do not agree with David that this ties us in as much as he says.
I also don’t agree that it is a free standing unilateral guarantee independent of art 5 which says nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
But I do agree it is highly indicative of the direction of travel. The government has looked over the cliff edge and not fancied the jump. We are heading towards a soft Brexit where we will tip toe away from the EU over time as it itself evolves away from us. That seems perfectly sensible to me.
The areas the GFA undoubtedly covers, including agriculture, rule out any significant FTAs with anyone who will not accept EU regulations in those areas. That means the US and many of the African and Latin American ones. It may not rule out the CANZUK countries, once they have all finalised their EU deals, and India and China, though there’ll be big issues with the latter two. Regulatory alignment does make it a whole lot easier for the UK to inherit all the trade related deals the EU has done, though.
We looked at this yesterday Southam. The GFA does not cover agriculture. It may do if the parties agree. So far as I am aware there is no such agreement, there are no all Ireland bodies regulating agriculture and the law north and south of the border, in so far as it is not EU law, remains distinct. So as things stand the GFA is not relevant to trade agreements with third parties.
As I've been banging on about for ages, the harsh reality was that no deal Brexit would crash the economy. Every time one industry or another stood up and said "we're fucked with no deal and when we say 'we're fucked' we mean 'you're fucked'" I would post it, and be accused of Cassandra behaviour.
And now here we are. The sectoral analyses the Labour Party demanded released and various people insisted was "us showing our hand" was us facing reality. Davis absurdly claimed they didn't exist after banging on and on about them and so didn't release them, but the entire episode forced the government to look again and conclude that they either protect the economy or they are finished.
Para 49 is clear. Unless there is an alternative deal we are in effect staying in both the SM and CU. That is good because the city needs to keep the 4 freedoms, it's also bad because that also means we keep Freedom of Movement. It won't be called FoM, the Tories will insist it's stopping, but like it's insistence that it's getting net migration down nothing practical will change.
Brexit was never about fact or practicality or detail for the nutters. It was at best about "taking control" on which front we've failed, or at worst about "getting rid of foreigners" on which front we've failed. The "we'll win votes" view I keep reading from Tories is absurd. Your vote relies on these nutters, you have by your own definition failed on every measure to avoid "betrayal" and they will destroy you.
You keep saying this, but it's not a true. A textual analysis doesn't support what you wish it did.
The agreement is much broader than you concede. There is a cast iron commitment to have no border infrastructure or related checks, so moving the border checks elsewhere is unacceptable. On top of that there is a commitment to maintain full alignment with the single market and customs union, not only to support the Good Friday Agreement, not only to support formal North-South cooperation, but also to support the all island economy.
The UK's official position might as well now be that if we can't deliver a Brexit unicorn, there will be no Brexit.
Not all anti EU Tories are happy, Charles Moore effectively says the deal is a capitulation in the Telegraph this morning.
Continued regulatory alignment may make it easier to return to the single market but I cannot ever see us returning to the EU now.
The next Tory leader will likely succeed May in late 2019 or early 2020 after Brexit but I would not rule out the favourite or near favourite. In power the Tories tend to pick the favourite of the contenders, May, Eden, arguably Macmillan as often as they pick the non favourites e.g. Home and Major and even the latter tend to have a big job first ie Major was Chancellor and Home Foreign Secretary before they became PM.
Outsiders e.g. Heath, Thatcher, Hague, IDS, Cameron etc tend to be more likely to take over in opposition. That means a Leaver with a big Cabinet job e.g. Boris or Davis is still most likely to succeed her while Rudd will also have a shot from the Remain wing plus any younger challengers who get offered one of the main Cabinet posts by then.
Not all anti EU Tories are happy, Charles Moore effectively says the deal is a capitulation in the Telegraph this morning.
Continued regulatory alignment may make it easier to return to the single market but I cannot ever see us returning to the EU now.
The next Tory leader will likely succeed May in late 2019 or early 2020 after Brexit but I would not rule out the favourite or near favourite. In power the Tories tend to pick the favourite of the contenders, May, Eden, arguably Macmillan as often as they pick the non favourites e.g. Home and Major and even the latter tend to have a big job first ie Major was Chancellor and Home Foreign Secretary before they became PM.
Outsiders e.g. Heath, Thatcher, Hague, IDS, Cameron etc tend to be more likely to take over in opposition. That means a Leaver with a big Cabinet job e.g. Boris or Davis is still most likely to succeed her while Rudd will also likely have a shot from the Remain wing plus any younger challengers who get offered one of the main Cabinet posts by then.
Boris or Davis would be very good news for Labour as it would keep the current voting coalition together.
Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland.In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.
So it is limited, by a natural reading of the words, to a subset of the rules "those rules" which support various aspects of the relationship between NI and RoI.
Free movement of people, for example, does not - that is already dealt with under the CTA, so there is no need for there to be "full alignment" between the UK and the IM/CU to address that concern.
My interpretation would be that - on a sector by sector basis - the UK government can pick and choose.
So, for example, we may chose to maintain "full alignment" in agriculture or in other sectors where there is significant cross border trade.
This is not the same as remaining in or close to the SM as a whole.
I think we will end up with Canada Plus, which would be a good outcome overall, and I think would satisfy most. There will also be a long transition.
All the serious observers are focusing on this section, and IMO it's a deliberate fudge, which probably needs to be clarified in stage 2. The issue is that there's no indication of who decides what are "those rules which...". I don't think the UK will be able to arbitrarily pick and choose as you suggest, but equally I doubt if they can be imposed. They will need to be negotiated, not just with Brussels but with Eire and the DUP.
Yes, there's no reason to think the UK will get to pick and choose. The EU is in the driving set here, and they have both the means (yesterdays' agreement) and the motive (encorager les autres) to set the harshest possible trading terms. All the UK has is the MAD option of a no-deal exit. The next year will be one of utter national humiliation that no government could possibly survive. All Corbyn has to do is keep his head down and wait.
Not all anti EU Tories are happy, Charles Moore effectively says the deal is a capitulation in the Telegraph this morning.
Continued regulatory alignment may make it easier to return to the single market but I cannot ever see us returning to the EU now.
The next Tory leader will likely succeed May in late 2019 or early 2020 after Brexit but I would not rule out the favourite or near favourite. In power the Tories tend to pick the favourite of the contenders, May, Eden, arguably Macmillan as often as they pick the non favourites e.g. Home and Major and even the latter tend to have a big job first ie Major was Chancellor and Home Foreign Secretary before they became PM.
Outsiders e.g. Heath, Thatcher, Hague, IDS, Cameron etc tend to be more likely to take over in opposition. That means a Leaver with a big Cabinet job e.g. Boris or Davis is still most likely to succeed her while Rudd will also have a shot from the Remain wing plus any younger challengers who get offered one of the main Cabinet posts by then.
I have drawn more or less the same conclusions as David Herdson. Para 49 more or less tells us what the government seeks in the final deal. I will also quote the relevant sentences of that paragragh.
Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.
We want to be in the Single Market and the Customs Union in all but name.
I think we will end up with Canada Plus, which would be a good outcome overall, and I think would satisfy most. There will also be a long transition.
Am I right in thinking that Gibraltar is being put in the too difficult box and not really addressed...? Interesting that the Spanish PM was in London meeting with T May this week - but very little media interest into that other EU border that will be created come 2019?
Mr. Jessop, if you encounter the PM, please do give her some good advice
Unfortunately my walking is currently restricted to areas within an hour of Cambridge. People with local knowledge will understand that the sort of 'hills' to be encountered rarely require crampons or ice axes, and oxygen is only required if you've been on an England cricketer-style drinking session.
The regulatory alignment required by art 49 is essentially restricted to the terms of the 1998 GFA. These can be as wide or as narrow as we agree to make them outside the scope of security, policing and common institutions. I therefore do not agree with David that this ties us in as much as he says.
I also don’t agree that it is a free standing unilateral guarantee independent of art 5 which says nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
But I do agree it is highly indicative of the direction of travel. The government has looked over the cliff edge and not fancied the jump. We are heading towards a soft Brexit where we will tip toe away from the EU over time as it itself evolves away from us. That seems perfectly sensible to me.
The areas the GFA undoubtedly covers, including agriculture, rule out any significant FTAs with anyone who will not accept EU regulations in those areas. That means the US and many of the African and Latin American ones. It may not rule out the CANZUK countries, once they have all finalised their EU deals, and India and China, though there’ll be big issues with the latter two. Regulatory alignment does make it a whole lot easier for the UK to inherit all the trade related deals the EU has done, though.
We looked at this yesterday Southam. The GFA does not cover agriculture. It may do if the parties agree. So far as I am aware there is no such agreement, there are no all Ireland bodies regulating agriculture and the law north and south of the border, in so far as it is not EU law, remains distinct. So as things stand the GFA is not relevant to trade agreements with third parties.
It’s not about all-Ireland bodies, it’s about the status of the border created by the GFA. That is, there is no border except an unguarded, purely territorial one. Divergent agriculture-related standards changes that. Thus, either the UK finds a solution to this that the Irish find acceptable or standards have to remain aligned.
I think it would be fair to say they didn't have much of a clue......
It would be fair to say that the Leavers are rewriting history like mad. A year ago 20bn was utterly unacceptable. Today 40bn is a brilliant deal for them.
Not all anti EU Tories are happy, Charles Moore effectively says the deal is a capitulation in the Telegraph this morning.
Continued regulatory alignment may make it easier to return to the single market but I cannot ever see us returning to the EU now.
The next Tory leader will likely succeed May in late 2019 or early 2020 after Brexit but I would not rule out the favourite or near favourite. In power the Tories tend to pick the favourite of the contenders, May, Eden, arguably Macmillan as often as they pick the non favourites e.g. Home and Major and even the latter tend to have a big job first ie Major was Chancellor and Home Foreign Secretary before they became PM.
Outsiders e.g. Heath, Thatcher, Hague, IDS, Cameron etc tend to be more likely to take over in opposition. That means a Leaver with a big Cabinet job e.g. Boris or Davis is still most likely to succeed her while Rudd will also likely have a shot from the Remain wing plus any younger challengers who get offered one of the main Cabinet posts by then.
Boris or Davis would be very good news for Labour as it would keep the current voting coalition together.
The current Labour voting coalition ie students and young people, renters, public sector workers and diehard Remainers still lost in June so I would not be so sure about that.
Tories are unlikely to win many if any who voted for Corbyn at the general election except maybe a few annoyed by the dementia tax, what they need to do is to keep Leavers from going back to UKIP while also keeping more centrist voters who stuck with May on board. In all the polling it tends to be Boris who polls best with the public and with Survation both Boris and Davis got a higher Tory voteshare against Corbyn than Hammond and Rudd did in their July poll. Rees-Mogg tends to poll well with Tories but not as well with the public at large
I think it would be fair to say they didn't have much of a clue......
It would be fair to say that the Leavers are rewriting history like mad. A year ago 20bn was utterly unacceptable. Today 40bn is a brilliant deal for them.
It's a called a negotiation.
It's seems that Leavers got their wish to beat up the EU...
Am I right in thinking that Gibraltar is being put in the too difficult box and not really addressed...? Interesting that the Spanish PM was in London meeting with T May this week - but very little media interest into that other EU border that will be created come 2019?
It appears to require a separate agreement with Spain. Good luck with that.
May be the Spanish will recognise the right of people to determine their own future...?
Not all anti EU Tories are happy, Charles Moore effectively says the deal is a capitulation in the Telegraph this morning.
Continued regulatory alignment may make it easier to return to the single market but I cannot ever see us returning to the EU now.
The next Tory leader will likely succeed May in late 2019 or early 2020 after Brexit but I would not rule out the favourite or near favourite. In power the Tories tend to pick the favourite of the contenders, May, Eden, arguably Macmillan as often as they pick the non favourites e.g. Home and Major and even the latter tend to have a big job first ie Major was Chancellor and Home Foreign Secretary before they became PM.
Outsiders e.g. Heath, Thatcher, Hague, IDS, Cameron etc tend to be more likely to take over in opposition. That means a Leaver with a big Cabinet job e.g. Boris or Davis is still most likely to succeed her while Rudd will also likely have a shot from the Remain wing plus any younger challengers who get offered one of the main Cabinet posts by then.
Boris or Davis would be very good news for Labour as it would keep the current voting coalition together.
The current Labour voting coalition ie students and young people, renters, public sector workers and diehard Remainers still lost in June so I would not be so sure about that.
Tories are unlikely to win many if any who voted for Corbyn at the general election except maybe a few annoyed by the dementia tax, what they need to do is to keep Leavers from going back to UKIP while also keeping more centrist voters who stuck with May on board. In all the polling it tends fo be Boris who polls best with the public and with Survation both Boris and Davis got a higher Tory voteshare against Corbyn than Hammond and Rudd did in their July poll. Rees-Mogg tends to poll well with Tories but not as well with the public at large
I agree pretty much. I can’t see a prominent Brexiteer delivering a Tory majority. I can see a relatively new face doing so. Either way, Corbyn ensures Labour will not get a majority.
Hmm, reports on the interwebs that Roy Moore's main accuser has admitted to changing the document that she says is the smoking gun for her accusation.
Anyone know if it's true, because the race is done and dusted if it is.
Yes, she says she added notes though she maintains that the original document is valid. It makes her look shaky and Trump and Moore have seized on it. Of course, there are lots of other allegations but I agree that it probably gives wavering Republican voters a straw to cling to and Moore is favourite.
Not all anti EU Tories are happy, Charles Moore effectively says the deal is a capitulation in the Telegraph this morning.
Continued regulatory alignment may make it easier to return to the single market but I cannot ever see us returning to the EU now.
The next Tory leader will likely succeed May in late 2019 or early 2020 after Brexit but I would not rule out the favourite or near favourite. In power the Tories tend to pick the favourite of the contenders, May, Eden, arguably Macmillan as often as they pick the non favourites e.g. Home and Major and even the latter tend to have a big job first ie Major was Chancellor and Home Foreign Secretary before they became PM.
Outsiders e.g. Heath, Thatcher, Hague, IDS, Cameron etc tend to be more likely to take over in opposition. That means a Leaver with a big Cabinet job e.g. Boris or Davis is still most likely to succeed her while Rudd will also likely have a shot from the Remain wing plus any younger challengers who get offered one of the main Cabinet posts by then.
Boris or Davis would be very good news for Labour as it would keep the current voting coalition together.
The current Labour voting coalition ie students and young people, renters, public sector workers and diehard Remainers still lost in June so I would not be so sure about that.
Tories are unlikely to win many if any who voted for Corbyn at the general election except maybe a few annoyed by the dementia tax, what they need to do is to keep Leavers from going back to UKIP while also keeping more centrist voters who stuck with May on board. In all the polling it tends to be Boris who polls best with the public and with Survation both Boris and Davis got a higher Tory voteshare against Corbyn than Hammond and Rudd did in their July poll. Rees-Mogg tends to poll well with Tories but not as well with the public at large
I think your analysis limits too much the potential to win. The Tories need to tack to centre if they are to get a working majority. The alternative is hard left labolunenomics.
I think it would be fair to say they didn't have much of a clue......
It would be fair to say that the Leavers are rewriting history like mad. A year ago 20bn was utterly unacceptable. Today 40bn is a brilliant deal for them.
It's a called a negotiation.
The most detailed analysis in the FT estimated the net cost of the divorce bill at anything from 25bn euros to 73 bn.
Am I right in thinking that Gibraltar is being put in the too difficult box and not really addressed...? Interesting that the Spanish PM was in London meeting with T May this week - but very little media interest into that other EU border that will be created come 2019?
Rajoy was very grateful for May's support for Spain over Catalonia at that meeting which May reaffirmed, Rajoy has got enough trouble trying to keep Catalonia in Spain when about 50% want to stay Spanish never mind Gibraltar where only about 10% want to join Spain.
Apologies if this has been mentioned/discussed before as I've been busy for most of the last 24 hours, but am I right in thinking this deal ensures people born in Yorkshire will have fewer rights than people born in Northern Ireland?
That sounds like a recipe for enriching the legal profession.
The regulatory alignment required by art 49 is essentially restricted to the terms of the 1998 GFA. These can be as wide or as narrow as we agree to make them outside the scope of security, policing and common institutions. I therefore do not agree with David that this ties us in as much as he says.
I also don’t agree that it is a free standing unilateral guarantee independent of art 5 which says nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
But I do agree it is highly indicative of the direction of travel. The government has looked over the cliff edge and not fancied the jump. We are heading towards a soft Brexit where we will tip toe away from the EU over time as it itself evolves away from us. That seems perfectly sensible to me.
The areas the GFA undoubtedly covers, including agriculture, rule out any significant FTAs with anyone who will not accept EU regulations in those areas. That means the US and many of the African and Latin American ones. It may not rule out the CANZUK countries, once they have all finalised their EU deals, and India and China, though there’ll be big issues with the latter two. Regulatory alignment does make it a whole lot easier for the UK to inherit all the trade related deals the EU has done, though.
We looked at this yesterday Southam. The GFA does not cover agriculture. It may do if the parties agree. So far as I am aware there is no such agreement, there are no all Ireland bodies regulating agriculture and the law north and south of the border, in so far as it is not EU law, remains distinct. So as things stand the GFA is not relevant to trade agreements with third parties.
It’s not about all-Ireland bodies, it’s about the status of the border created by the GFA. That is, there is no border except an unguarded, purely territorial one. Divergent agriculture-related standards changes that. Thus, either the UK finds a solution to this that the Irish find acceptable or standards have to remain aligned.
I don't think it's quite as simple as that. Divergent standards (in any sector) which don't generate significant cross border arbitrage ought to be quite acceptable under this text, surely ?
There seems to be a fair amount of wiggle room in how this might be implemented, and while it's true that the EU is likely to press for a maximalist interpretation, any agreement is not going to set in stone forever in any event...
The regulatory alignment required by art 49 is essentially restricted to the terms of the 1998 GFA. These can be as wide or as narrow as we agree to make them outside the scope of security, policing and common institutions. I therefore do not agree with David that this ties us in as much as he says.
I also don’t agree that it is a free standing unilateral guarantee independent of art 5 which says nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
But I do agree it is highly indicative of the direction of travel. The government has looked over the cliff edge and not fancied the jump. We are heading towards a soft Brexit where we will tip toe away from the EU over time as it itself evolves away from us. That seems perfectly sensible to me.
The areas the GFA undoubtedly covers, including agriculture, rule out any significant FTAs with anyone who will not accept EU regulations in those areas. That means the US and many of the African and Latin American ones. It may not rule out the CANZUK countries, once they have all finalised their EU deals, and India and China, though there’ll be big issues with the latter two. Regulatory alignment does make it a whole lot easier for the UK to inherit all the trade related deals the EU has done, though.
We looked at this yesterday Southam. The GFA does not cover agriculture. It may do if the parties agree. So far as I am aware there is no such agreement, there are no all Ireland bodies regulating agriculture and the law north and south of the border, in so far as it is not EU law, remains distinct. So as things stand the GFA is not relevant to trade agreements with third parties.
It’s not about all-Ireland bodies, it’s about the status of the border created by the GFA. That is, there is no border except an unguarded, purely territorial one. Divergent agriculture-related standards changes that. Thus, either the UK finds a solution to this that the Irish find acceptable or standards have to remain aligned.
Until we decide that the import of Irish agricultural products is not worth the hassle and look elsewhere for our sources. There are ways of making the Irish find things acceptable that, once we are formally out of the EU, they may find compelling.
Hmm, reports on the interwebs that Roy Moore's main accuser has admitted to changing the document that she says is the smoking gun for her accusation.
Anyone know if it's true, because the race is done and dusted if it is.
Yes, she says she added notes though she maintains that the original document is valid. It makes her look shaky and Trump and Moore have seized on it. Of course, there are lots of other allegations but I agree that it probably gives wavering Republican voters a straw to cling to and Moore is favourite.
I doubt any minds will be changed at all either way, there have been enough allegations about Moore from multiple sources anyway. As the SurveyMonkey poll posted earlier shows Jones is ahead with all registered Alabama voters, Moore ahead with turnout based on normal non Presidential election year Senatorial elections. So it all depends on turnout, particularly a high black turnout which could be crucial for Jones and that is not impossible given a high number of reported absentee ballot requests
Apologies if this has been mentioned/discussed before as I've been busy for most of the 24 hours, but am I right in thinking this deal ensures people born in Yorkshire will have fewer rights than people born in Northern Ireland?
That sounds like a recipe for enriching the legal profession.
Impossible, we've been told unity of this great nation has been guaranteed with no divergence between different nations & regions.
I wonder how many DUP pols will be holding onto or applying for EU/Irish passports?
The paragraph highlighted is a classic negotiating fudge, storing up lots of problems for the future. But it was probably the best that could be achieved under the circumstances. We'll have to see how it is interpreted in the future. The EU is extremely skilled at using back doors like this as a pretext for increasing its competence, and our government is extremely experienced at giving in to them. The mentality of civil servants is generally to want a quiet life, and the quietest life has almost always been found in giving in to whatever idiocies come out of Brussels, and letting somebody else take the pain. (I know, I've done it).
Will this continue after we leave the EU? Not sure, but probably, at least in parts. I imagine most civil servants are remainers, as were most politicians. A vigilant public opinion will be necessary to minimise regulatory creep, but many regulatory issues are so boring, and don't touch people's lives directly, so it is difficult to mobilise opinion on these matters.
I have drawn more or less the same conclusions as David Herdson. Para 49 more or less tells us what the government seeks in the final deal. I will also quote the relevant sentences of that paragragh.
Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.
We want to be in the Single Market and the Customs Union in all but name.
I think we will end up with Canada Plus, which would be a good outcome overall, and I think would satisfy most. There will also be a long transition.
Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.
We want to be in the Single Market and the Customs Union in all but name.
I think you are misinterpreting the key paragraph, guilty of seeing what you want to see. (Equally, I could be suffering from the same condition).
My focus would be as follows:
Should this not be possible, .........the 1998 Agreement.
So it is limited, by a natural reading of the words, to a subset of the rules "those rules" which support various aspects of the relationship between NI and RoI.
Free movement of people, for example, does not - that is already dealt with under the CTA, so there is no need for there to be "full alignment" between the UK and the IM/CU to address that concern.
My interpretation would be that - on a sector by sector basis - the UK government can pick and choose.
So, for example, we may chose to maintain "full alignment" in agriculture or in other sectors where there is significant cross border trade.
This is not the same as remaining in or close to the SM as a whole.
I think we will end up with Canada Plus, which would be a good outcome overall, and I think would satisfy most. There will also be a long transition.
Sorry ! I cannot agree with you. I will use David Herdson's words as he is more eloquent.
"It is true that a narrow interpretation of the provision would mean that only a few areas would be affected by the need for alignment. The history of the EU suggests that a narrow interpretation will not be their favoured one. Just about anything could be considered to “support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement”. I strongly suspect that across large sectors of the economy and beyond, the UK will continue to be a rule-taker from the EU".
That is why I laid emphasis on DUP insistence [ that all areas of the UK is covered ] and May's tacit acceptance. In the end, May realised that by agreeing to the DUP, she effectively also gets Single Market lite and Customs Union lite. Of course, if everything else falls into place. There is no doubt in my mind that that is where May is heading. Business leaders have let her know about the real world.
I'm sure that the EU will want a wide definition. But they compromised on their demands in stage 1 and they will compromise in stage 2.
Firstly, the whole agreement needs to be read in the context of clause 5:
"This (agreement) does not prejudge any adaptations that might be appropriate in case transitional arrangements were to be agreed in the second phase of the negotiations, and is without prejudice to discussions on the framework of the future relationship."
This is further reiterated in clause 46: "The commitments and principles outlined in this joint report will not pre-determine the outcome of wider discussions on the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom and are, as necessary, specific to the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland. They are made and must be upheld in all circumstances, irrespective of the nature of any future agreement between the European Union and United Kingdom."
On clause 49, in the case of no deal: "Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement."
In other words, in the case of no deal, it will be the UK and the UK alone that decides to what extent full alignment is required with the internal market/customs union to support those Irish agreements.
Inevitably, in such circumstances, the UK would be pragmatic and fair but decide far less do alignment than the EU would like it to do in a formal deal.
On clause 50, in the case of no deal: "In the absence of agreed solutions, as set out in the previous paragraph, the United Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, unless, consistent with the 1998 Agreement, the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland."
In the case of no deal, the UK would have no borders in the Irish sea - remember it would still decide what that means - unless NI decide otherwise, and in any event the UK would align itself in only a small number of areas.
An excellent article. Whether by accident or design, May has got the Brexiteers to a point where they largely understand this is as good as it gets. My guess is that if yesterday’s agreement had been signed six months ago the howling from Brexiteers would have been much, much louder. Obviously, the loons will never be satisfied, and the usual mob will emerge over the coming months to scream betrayal, but it turns out that for most the cliff edge was not a tantalising prospect. Thus, Liam Fox will not get to agree a trade deal dictated by Donald Trump, the CANZUK Empire 2.0 brigade will have to carry on doing nothing but dream and there’ll be no bucaneering for Boris. A tragedy, of course, but one we’ll all learn to live with.
The big loser in all of this, it seems to me, is Corbyn Labour. A soft Brexit removes the fears of many about leaving the EU. It’s not ideal for Remainers, but it’s so much better than it could have been. Is the incentive to hold their noses and vote for Labour among middle class, pro-Remain electorates in places like Leamington Spa, Canterbury and some of the London constituencies still as strong now that there’ll be no cliff edge or Hard Brexit? I wonder. I guess it depends on who the next Tory leader is. If they can tack back to the centre and avoid anyone too closely associated with Brexit I’d say they now have a big chance to win in 2021/22
Buy Hammond. He is the voice of Soft Brexit. I rather like his kind side too. Despite all the bile against him, and rumours that May wanted to sack him, he has not retaliated in kind. Indeed his response to May's coughing fit showed real personal compassion.
Corbyn has never banged on about Europe, he bangs on about austerity. His unexpected success in this years election was to not accept that it was a Brexit election. The next one will not be either, it will be on the subject of austerity, falling living standards, emaciated public services and generational inequality.
This does look like a huge victory for Hammond. It’s pretty much everything he wanted.
I agree about the terms of the next election. It all depends on who leads the Tories into it. But a soft Brexit takes away one very big reason for voting against the Tories - if their next leader is not a high profile Brexiteer.
(1) The UK will argue that to protect north/south and east/west cooperation, UK wide alignment will only take place in certain areas, like agriculture, environmental, energy etc. (2) There is a clue here when the UK says in clause 48: "political, economic, security, societal and agricultural contexts and frameworks of cooperation". The north/south ministerial council scope is instructive in this (Agriculture, Education, Environment, Health, Tourism and Transport) much of which is different to/ devolved from the mainland UK anyway, and Irish based. So there is a baseline. (3) The EU will obviously argue that a lot more applies to the scope of the all-Ireland agreements, and therefore for UK-wide compliance, than the UK does (4) There will be a negotiation (5) The deal stuck will cascade regulations into three buckets (or two, because what's not in will be by definition outwith and in the third): alignment, equivalence and divergence (6) The UK will want to shadow only 20-30% of EU regulations, most of which are "common sense" laws, or global level, or make huge sense for easy pan-European trade. (7) The EU will want the UK to shadow 80-90% and follow the CJEU. (8) The deal struck will be for around 50-60%, and the UK will have its own court (like the EFTA court) that is not the CJEU to administer, but may refer back to it. (9) In the long-term I'd expect the UK (even outwith the EU) to have a level of soft, informal influence over that 50-60%, simply due to its relative economic and political weight within the continent of Europe. (10) At the same time, the regulatory and trade environment within the UK will develop, particularly in services, to those areas that lie clearly outwith the scope of the UK-EU agreement.
Not all anti EU Tories are happy, Charles Moore effectively says the deal is a capitulation in the Telegraph this morning.
Continued regulatory alignment may make it easier to return to the single market but I cannot ever see us returning to the EU now.
The next Tory leader will likely succeed May in late 2019 or early 2020 after Brexit but I would not rule out the favourite or near favourite. In power the Tories tend to pick the favourite of the contenders, May, Eden, arguably Macmillan as often as they pick the non favourites e.g. Home and Major and even the latter tend to have a big job first ie Major was Chancellor and Home Foreign Secretary before they became PM.
Outsiders e.g. Heath, Thatcher, Hague, IDS, Cameron etc tend to be more likely to take over in opposition. That means a Leaver with a big Cabinet job e.g. Boris or Davis is still most likely to succeed her while Rudd will also likely have a shot from the Remain wing plus any younger challengers who get offered one of the main Cabinet posts by then.
Boris or Davis would be very good news for Labour as it would keep the current voting coalition together.
The current Labour voting coalition ie students and young people, renters, public sector workers and diehard Remainers still lost in June so I would not be so sure about that.
Tories are unlikely to win many if any who voted for Corbyn at the general election except maybe a few annoyed by the dementia tax, what they need to do is to keep Leavers from going back to UKIP while also keeping more centrist voters who stuck with May on board. In all the polling it tends fo be Boris who polls best with the public and with Survation both Boris and Davis got a higher Tory voteshare against Corbyn than Hammond and Rudd did in their July poll. Rees-Mogg tends to poll well with Tories but not as well with the public at large
I agree pretty much. I can’t see a prominent Brexiteer delivering a Tory majority. I can see a relatively new face doing so. Either way, Corbyn ensures Labour will not get a majority.
Yes, all the signs are for another hung parliament or at most a tiny majority for either Labour or the Tories
Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland.In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.
So it is limited, by a natural reading of the words, to a subset of the rules "those rules" which support various aspects of the relationship between NI and RoI.
Free movement of people, for example, does not - that is already dealt with under the CTA, so there is no need for there to be "full alignment" between the UK and the IM/CU to address that concern.
My interpretation would be that - on a sector by sector basis - the UK government can pick and choose.
So, for example, we may chose to maintain "full alignment" in agriculture or in other sectors where there is significant cross border trade.
This is not the same as remaining in or close to the SM as a whole.
I think we will end up with Canada Plus, which would be a good outcome overall, and I think would satisfy most. There will also be a long transition.
All the serious observers are focusing on this section, and IMO it's a deliberate fudge, which probably needs to be clarified in stage 2. The issue is that there's no indication of who decides what are "those rules which...". I don't think the UK will be able to arbitrarily pick and choose as you suggest, but equally I doubt if they can be imposed. They will need to be negotiated, not just with Brussels but with Eire and the DUP.
Agree. I wasn't meaning to imply the UK could choose, but that it will apply to the sectors where there is significant ROI / NI integration.
I think it would be fair to say they didn't have much of a clue......
It would be fair to say that the Leavers are rewriting history like mad. A year ago 20bn was utterly unacceptable. Today 40bn is a brilliant deal for them.
It's a called a negotiation.
The most detailed analysis in the FT estimated the net cost of the divorce bill at anything from 25bn euros to 73 bn.
I wonder how much the EU will be charging us for access to the Single Market? Norway pays about £400m / year for a population of about 5 million, so I guess we're looking at at least 5 billion / year.
Not all anti EU Tories are happy, Charles Moore effectively says the deal is a capitulation in the Telegraph this morning.
Continued regulatory alignment may make it easier to return to the single market but I cannot ever see us returning to the EU now.
The next Tory leader will likely succeed May in late 2019 or early 2020 after Brexit but I would not rule out the favourite or near favourite. In power the Tories tend to pick the favourite of the contenders, May, Eden, arguably Macmillan as often as they pick the non favourites e.g. Home and Major and even the latter tend to have a big job first ie Major was Chancellor and Home Foreign Secretary before they became PM.
Outsiders e.g. Heath, Thatcher, Hague, IDS, Cameron etc tend to be more likely to take over in opposition. That means a Leaver with a big Cabinet job e.g. Boris or Davis is still most likely to succeed her while Rudd will also likely have a shot from the Remain wing plus any younger challengers who get offered one of the main Cabinet posts by then.
Boris or Davis would be very good news for Labour as it would keep the current voting coalition together.
The current Labour voting coalition ie students and young people, renters, public sector workers and diehard Remainers still lost in June so I would not be so sure about that.
Tories are unlikely to win many if any who voted for Corbyn at the general election except maybe a few annoyed by the dementia tax, what they need to do is to keep Leavers from going back to UKIP while also keeping more centrist voters who stuck with May on board. In all the polling it tends to be Boris who polls best with the public and with Survation both Boris and Davis got a higher Tory voteshare against Corbyn than Hammond and Rudd did in their July poll. Rees-Mogg tends to poll well with Tories but not as well with the public at large
I think your analysis limits too much the potential to win. The Tories need to tack to centre if they are to get a working majority. The alternative is hard left labolunenomics.
Tack to the centre on domestic issues yes but not so far they lose the voters they won from UKIP in June, a Leaver as leader like Boris or Davis may be needed to reassure them .
Corbyn of course needs a working majority himself for hard left labolunenomics
I think it would be fair to say they didn't have much of a clue......
It would be fair to say that the Leavers are rewriting history like mad. A year ago 20bn was utterly unacceptable. Today 40bn is a brilliant deal for them.
It's a called a negotiation.
The most detailed analysis in the FT estimated the net cost of the divorce bill at anything from 25bn euros to 73 bn.
In the absence of anything else, continuity Remain are reducing to trolling Leavers that we're full of hot air, are staying in the EU by the back door anyway, and haven't got any bollocks.
(1) The UK will argue that to protect north/south and east/west cooperation, UK wide alignment will only take place in certain areas, like agriculture, environmental, energy etc. (2) There is a clue here when the UK says in clause 48: "political, economic, security, societal and agricultural contexts and frameworks of cooperation". The north/south ministerial council scope is instructive in this (Agriculture, Education, Environment, Health, Tourism and Transport) much of which is different to/ devolved from the mainland UK anyway, and Irish based. So there is a baseline. (3) The EU will obviously argue that a lot more applies to the scope of the all-Ireland agreements, and therefore for UK-wide compliance, than the UK does (4) There will be a negotiation (5) The deal stuck will cascade regulations into three buckets (or two, because what's not in will be by definition outwith and in the third): alignment, equivalence and divergence (6) The UK will want to shadow only 20-30% of EU regulations, most of which are "common sense" laws, or global level, or make huge sense for easy pan-European trade. (7) The EU will want the UK to shadow 80-90% and follow the CJEU. (8) The deal struck will be for around 50-60%, and the UK will have its own court (like the EFTA court) that is not the CJEU to administer, but may refer back to it. (9) In the long-term I'd expect the UK (even outwith the EU) to have a level of soft, informal influence over that 50-60%, simply due to its relative economic and political weight within the continent of Europe. (10) At the same time, the regulatory and trade environment within the UK will develop, particularly in services, to those areas that lie clearly outwith the scope of the UK-EU agreement.
Your point 2 is important and David seems to have missed this completely.
The DUP have made much play of the 'no divergence from the rest of the UK' but of course in many if not most of the areas we are talking about these issues are already diverged because they are devolved matters. So on every one of those areas you just mentioned - Agriculture, Education, Environment, Health, Tourism and Transport - Northern Ireland can make their own arrangements with the Republic without it affecting the rest of the UK.
I think it would be fair to say they didn't have much of a clue......
It would be fair to say that the Leavers are rewriting history like mad. A year ago 20bn was utterly unacceptable. Today 40bn is a brilliant deal for them.
It's a called a negotiation.
The most detailed analysis in the FT estimated the net cost of the divorce bill at anything from 25bn euros to 73 bn.
In the absence of anything else, continuity Remain are reducing to trolling Leavers that we're full of hot air, are staying in the EU by the back door anyway, and haven't got any bollocks.
It's to be expected.
The first and the third are trite statements of fact. After all that daubing of woad, the Leave bravehearts have meekly paid up and signed essentially on the EU's terms. Boudicca and her followers have conditionally surrendered.
The regulatory alignment required by art 49 is essentially restricted to the terms of the 1998 GFA. These can be as wide or as narrow as we agree to make them outside the scope of security, policing and common institutions. I therefore do not agree with David that this ties us in as much as he says.
I also don’t agree that it is a free standing unilateral guarantee independent of art 5 which says nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
But I do agree it is highly indicative of the direction of travel. The government has looked over the cliff edge and not fancied the jump. We are heading towards a soft Brexit where we will tip toe away from the EU over time as it itself evolves away from us. That seems perfectly sensible to me.
The areas the GFA undoubtedly covers, including agriculture, rule out any significant FTAs with anyone who will not accept EU regulations in those areas. That means the US and many of the African and Latin American ones. It may not rule out the CANZUK countries, once they have all finalised their EU deals, and India and China, though there’ll be big issues with the latter two. Regulatory alignment does make it a whole lot easier for the UK to inherit all the trade related deals the EU has done, though.
We looked at this yesterday Southam. The GFA does not cover agriculture. It may do if the parties agree. So far as I am aware there is no such agreement, there are no all Ireland bodies regulating agriculture and the law north and south of the border, in so far as it is not EU law, remains distinct. So as things stand the GFA is not relevant to trade agreements with third parties.
It’s not about all-Ireland bodies, it’s about the status of the border created by the GFA. That is, there is no border except an unguarded, purely territorial one. Divergent agriculture-related standards changes that. Thus, either the UK finds a solution to this that the Irish find acceptable or standards have to remain aligned.
Until we decide that the import of Irish agricultural products is not worth the hassle and look elsewhere for our sources. There are ways of making the Irish find things acceptable that, once we are formally out of the EU, they may find compelling.
The regulation end game should be the UK deciding what regulations apply here. As now, if a company wants to export to a different market, their good have to meet the requirements of that market.if UK companies want to export to the EU their products must comply.
Take kettles as an example. We are significantly the largest kettle users in Europe. The EU wants to introduce under energy saving directives, effectively a ban on usable kettle's. In the future, they can be them, our exporters won't export any, but us Brits can still drink our tea. Simple really.
I think it would be fair to say they didn't have much of a clue......
It would be fair to say that the Leavers are rewriting history like mad. A year ago 20bn was utterly unacceptable. Today 40bn is a brilliant deal for them.
It's a called a negotiation.
The most detailed analysis in the FT estimated the net cost of the divorce bill at anything from 25bn euros to 73 bn.
Also, one tiny (but very important point) this isn't a one-off large "divorce bill" payment, but honouring commitments as if we were still a member state to c.2020, plus some future long-term liabilities, some of which are highly circumstantial and conditional, and *both of which* will be less in annual net cash terms than had we remained a member.
So (1) it will barely restrict the amount of cash the HMT has to set its Budgets, and public spending priorities, and, (2) even if it's an extra £20bn, that spread over 20 years into the future is far less than an unfront payment, even with a low discount rate of 2-2.5%.
I don't expect the public to necessarily understand NPV, but I'd like to think some journalists did.
And... what did I post literally only one minute ago, before refreshing the page and reading this?
I am brilliant, and amazing.
Alignment on agriculture rules out an FTA with the US.
Who says?
You really are a crusty, depressive, miserable old souk. You'd look for something to complain about if your wife took you on a romantic weekend to Venice to celebrate your anniversary, or your family on a once-in-a-lifetime trip to Disneyworld.
"Food's shit". "Mickey mouse has BO". "Queues are too long". "Gondolas are crap". "The lagoon smells".
Then, you'd be left on your own to wallow in your own misery, whilst everyone else went off to have fun.
I think it would be fair to say they didn't have much of a clue......
It would be fair to say that the Leavers are rewriting history like mad. A year ago 20bn was utterly unacceptable. Today 40bn is a brilliant deal for them.
It's a called a negotiation.
The most detailed analysis in the FT estimated the net cost of the divorce bill at anything from 25bn euros to 73 bn.
In the absence of anything else, continuity Remain are reducing to trolling Leavers that we're full of hot air, are staying in the EU by the back door anyway, and haven't got any bollocks.
It's to be expected.
The first and the third are trite statements of fact. After all that daubing of woad, the Leave bravehearts have meekly paid up and signed essentially on the EU's terms. Boudicca and her followers have conditionally surrendered.
I think it would be fair to say they didn't have much of a clue......
It would be fair to say that the Leavers are rewriting history like mad. A year ago 20bn was utterly unacceptable. Today 40bn is a brilliant deal for them.
It's a called a negotiation.
The most detailed analysis in the FT estimated the net cost of the divorce bill at anything from 25bn euros to 73 bn.
In the absence of anything else, continuity Remain are reducing to trolling Leavers that we're full of hot air, are staying in the EU by the back door anyway, and haven't got any bollocks.
It's to be expected.
The first and the third are trite statements of fact. After all that daubing of woad, the Leave bravehearts have meekly paid up and signed essentially on the EU's terms. Boudicca and her followers have conditionally surrendered.
Not on free movement though which is really the only reason why we are not staying in the single market for most voters beyond ECJ obsessed hard Brexiteers.
We are still replacing free movement with a work permits system
So, I'd make the following points: snip (3) The EU will obviously argue that a lot more applies to the scope of the all-Ireland agreements, and therefore for UK-wide compliance, than the UK does (4) There will be a negotiation (5) The deal stuck will cascade regulations into three buckets (or two, because what's not in will be by definition outwith and in the third): alignment, equivalence and divergence (6) The UK will want to shadow only 20-30% of EU regulations, most of which are "common sense" laws, or global level, or make huge sense for easy pan-European trade. (7) The EU will want the UK to shadow 80-90% and follow the CJEU. (8) The deal struck will be for around 50-60%, and the UK will have its own court (like the EFTA court) that is not the CJEU to administer, but may refer back to it. (9) In the long-term I'd expect the UK (even outwith the EU) to have a level of soft, informal influence over that 50-60%, simply due to its relative economic and political weight within the continent of Europe. (10) At the same time, the regulatory and trade environment within the UK will develop, particularly in services, to those areas that lie clearly outwith the scope of the UK-EU agreement.
Your point 2 is important and David seems to have missed this completely.
The DUP have made much play of the 'no divergence from the rest of the UK' but of course in many if not most of the areas we are talking about these issues are already diverged because they are devolved matters. So on every one of those areas you just mentioned - Agriculture, Education, Environment, Health, Tourism and Transport - Northern Ireland can make their own arrangements with the Republic without it affecting the rest of the UK.
Exactly. Therein lies the negotiation.
You've got to bear in mind that so much debate, commentary and analysis in the UK on Brexit isn't actually objective, but driven by UK Remainers hatred of UK Leavers and their desire to annoy, irritate and humiliate them, with the ultimate political objective - always - to overturning the result.
To be fair, this absolutely isn't what David is like (he's an absolute brick, and as genuine as they come) but many of the others are.
So the vast majority of their "insight" isn't worth the paper it's printed on, and can be ignored.
So, I'd make the following points: snip (3) The EU will obviously argue that a lot more applies to the scope of the all-Ireland agreements, and therefore for UK-wide compliance, than the UK does (4) There will be a negotiation (5) The deal stuck will cascade regulations into three buckets (or two, because what's not in will be by definition outwith and in the third): alignment, equivalence and divergence (6) The UK will want to shadow only 20-30% of EU regulations, most of which are "common sense" laws, or global level, or make huge sense for easy pan-European trade. (7) The EU will want the UK to shadow 80-90% and follow the CJEU. (8) The deal struck will be for around 50-60%, and the UK will have its own court (like the EFTA court) that is not the CJEU to administer, but may refer back to it. (9) In the long-term I'd expect the UK (even outwith the EU) to have a level of soft, informal influence over that 50-60%, simply due to its relative economic and political weight within the continent of Europe. (10) At the same time, the regulatory and trade environment within the UK will develop, particularly in services, to those areas that lie clearly outwith the scope of the UK-EU agreement.
Your point 2 is important and David seems to have missed this completely.
The DUP have made much play of the 'no divergence from the rest of the UK' but of course in many if not most of the areas we are talking about these issues are already diverged because they are devolved matters. So on every one of those areas you just mentioned - Agriculture, Education, Environment, Health, Tourism and Transport - Northern Ireland can make their own arrangements with the Republic without it affecting the rest of the UK.
Exactly. Therein lies the negotiation.
You've got to bear in mind that so much debate, commentary and analysis in the UK on Brexit isn't actually objective, but driven by UK Remainers hatred of UK Leavers and their desire to annoy, irritate and humiliate them, with the ultimate political objective - always - to overturning the result.
To be fair, this absolutely isn't what David is like (he's an absolute brick, and as genuine as they come) but many of the others are.
So the vast majority of their "insight" isn't worth the paper it's printed on, and can be ignored.
If only everyone could be as objective, unbiased and disinterested as you :-D
I think it would be fair to say they didn't have much of a clue......
It would be fair to say that the Leavers are rewriting history like mad. A year ago 20bn was utterly unacceptable. Today 40bn is a brilliant deal for them.
It's a called a negotiation.
The most detailed analysis in the FT estimated the net cost of the divorce bill at anything from 25bn euros to 73 bn.
In the absence of anything else, continuity Remain are reducing to trolling Leavers that we're full of hot air, are staying in the EU by the back door anyway, and haven't got any bollocks.
It's to be expected.
The first and the third are trite statements of fact. After all that daubing of woad, the Leave bravehearts have meekly paid up and signed essentially on the EU's terms. Boudicca and her followers have conditionally surrendered.
Nah, not one of your best.
You'll have to do better than that.
Plus Boudicca's rebellion was soaked by Europeans attacking her, stealing her lands (in defiance of her husband's legal will) and raping her daughters.
Is that really what @AlastairMeeks thinks of our relationship with the EU?
I think it would be fair to say they didn't have much of a clue......
It would be fair to say that the Leavers are rewriting history like mad. A year ago 20bn was utterly unacceptable. Today 40bn is a brilliant deal for them.
It's a called a negotiation.
The most detailed analysis in the FT estimated the net cost of the divorce bill at anything from 25bn euros to 73 bn.
I wonder how much the EU will be charging us for access to the Single Market? Norway pays about £400m / year for a population of about 5 million, so I guess we're looking at at least 5 billion / year.
My rough and ready reckoning is that we're on the hook for £0.5-£1.0bn per year in the long-term re: divorce settlement, and probably a further £3-3.5bn pa on top for market access and participation in EU programmes.
So, a saving of around £5bn on the annual net payments we were previously paying, as well as the repatriation of all the money we were previously paying to the EU (another £5-6bn pa) for it to have the luxury of deciding how it should be spent within the UK.
That £5bn pa is enough to give the NHS an extra £100m per week, which is why Gove pledged that amount in the first place - he knows his stuff.
So what? The same basic principle applies. It is the UK who will propose solutions and the Irish who are the ones who will decide whether or not the solution is acceptable.
Anyway as I mentioned earlier, agriculture (and the other 5 areas listed) is a devolved power as part of the GFA. Unless you are suggesting there should be an amendment to the GFA forced by the EU?
And... what did I post literally only one minute ago, before refreshing the page and reading this?
I am brilliant, and amazing.
Alignment on agriculture rules out an FTA with the US.
Who says?
You really are a crusty, depressive, miserable old souk. You'd look for something to complain about if your wife took you on a romantic weekend to Venice to celebrate your anniversary, or your family on a once-in-a-lifetime trip to Disneyworld.
"Food's shit". "Mickey mouse has BO". "Queues are too long". "Gondolas are crap". "The lagoon smells".
Then, you'd be left on your own to wallow in your own misery, whilst everyone else went off to have fun.
UK alignment with EU regulations on agriculture says.
Don’t get me wrong: as an FTA with the US would be an exercise in American dictation, I am absolutely delighted that Liam Fox will not get a chance to do one. More broadly, I am very pleased with the deal agreed yesterday. It’s very good news.
So, I'd make the following points: snip (3) The EU will obviously argue that a lot more applies to the scope of the all-Ireland agreements, and therefore for UK-wide compliance, than the UK does (4) There will be a negotiation (5) The deal stuck will cascade regulations into three buckets (or two, because what's not in will be by definition outwith and in the third): alignment, equivalence and divergence (6) The UK will want to shadow only 20-30% of EU regulations, most of which are "common sense" laws, or global level, or make huge sense for easy pan-European trade. (7) The EU will want the UK to shadow 80-90% and follow the CJEU. (8) The deal struck will be for around 50-60%, and the UK will have its own court (like the EFTA court) that is not the CJEU to administer, but may refer back to it. (9) In the long-term I'd expect the UK (even outwith the EU) to have a level of soft, informal influence over that 50-60%, simply due to its relative economic and political weight within the continent of Europe. (10) At the same time, the regulatory and trade environment within the UK will develop, particularly in services, to those areas that lie clearly outwith the scope of the UK-EU agreement.
Your point 2 is important and David seems to have missed this completely.
Exactly. Therein lies the negotiation.
You've got to bear in mind that so much debate, commentary and analysis in the UK on Brexit isn't actually objective, but driven by UK Remainers hatred of UK Leavers and their desire to annoy, irritate and humiliate them, with the ultimate political objective - always - to overturning the result.
To be fair, this absolutely isn't what David is like (he's an absolute brick, and as genuine as they come) but many of the others are.
So the vast majority of their "insight" isn't worth the paper it's printed on, and can be ignored.
If only everyone could be as objective, unbiased and disinterested as you :-D
Indeed. I look at the evidence, listen to those who disagree with me (with a view to understanding their point of view) and then make an informed, rational decision off the back of it. If the evidence changes, I look to revise my opinion of it.
And... what did I post literally only one minute ago, before refreshing the page and reading this?
I am brilliant, and amazing.
Alignment on agriculture rules out an FTA with the US.
Who says?
You really are a crusty, depressive, miserable old souk. You'd look for something to complain about if your wife took you on a romantic weekend to Venice to celebrate your anniversary, or your family on a once-in-a-lifetime trip to Disneyworld.
"Food's shit". "Mickey mouse has BO". "Queues are too long". "Gondolas are crap". "The lagoon smells".
Then, you'd be left on your own to wallow in your own misery, whilst everyone else went off to have fun.
To be fair SO has just come back from Venice and had nothing but praise for the place.
The regulation end game should be the UK deciding what regulations apply here. As now, if a company wants to export to a different market, their good have to meet the requirements of that market.if UK companies want to export to the EU their products must comply.
Take kettles as an example. We are significantly the largest kettle users in Europe. The EU wants to introduce under energy saving directives, effectively a ban on usable kettle's. In the future, they can be them, our exporters won't export any, but us Brits can still drink our tea. Simple really.
A ban on useable kettles? Back to heating the water over a log fire?
So what? The same basic principle applies. It is the UK who will propose solutions and the Irish who are the ones who will decide whether or not the solution is acceptable.
Anyway as I mentioned earlier, agriculture (and the other 5 areas listed) is a devolved power as part of the GFA. Unless you are suggesting there should be an amendment to the GFA forced by the EU?
No, I am suggesting that unless the Northern Irish agree to create an internal UK border to ensure the Irish border retains its current status, the UK will have to align its agricultural regulatory regime with the EU’s.
I think it would be fair to say they didn't have much of a clue......
It would be fair to say that the Leavers are rewriting history like mad. A year ago 20bn was utterly unacceptable. Today 40bn is a brilliant deal for them.
It's a called a negotiation.
The most detailed analysis in the FT estimated the net cost of the divorce bill at anything from 25bn euros to 73 bn.
I wonder how much the EU will be charging us for access to the Single Market? Norway pays about £400m / year for a population of about 5 million, so I guess we're looking at at least 5 billion / year.
My rough and ready reckoning is that we're on the hook for £0.5-£1.0bn per year in the long-term re: divorce settlement, and probably a further £3-3.5bn pa on top for market access and participation in EU programmes.
So, a saving of around £5bn on the annual net payments we were previously paying, as well as the repatriation of all the money we were previously paying to the EU (another £5-6bn pa) for it to have the luxury of deciding how it should be spent within the UK.
That £5bn pa is enough to give the NHS an extra £100m per week, which is why Gove pledged that amount in the first place - he knows his stuff.
Robert Smithson and I both did an analysis of how much we would have to pay under the EEA agreement last year. FeersumEnjineeya is wrong because it is not based upon population but upon GDP.
Our calculations - both done independently - were that the UK would have to pay just over £2 billion a year if it wanted to be in the EEA via EFTA. But of course that is not, unfortunately, what is on offer or what will be the final arrangement. So in fact for an FTA there is no set amount that will need to be paid. That is not how FTA's work.
I think right now it’ll be difficult for any party to tack to the centre if they want to keep their voting coalition together. The political polarisation that Brexit has produced (or revealed) has meant that political parties are limited by the range of groups they can carry. To carry both metropolitan liberals angered by Brexit and WWC Brexiteers motivated by the immigration issue is pretty difficult task for either party. This means that it is doubtful that any political party is going to be able to secure a majority for the foreseeable future.
On one hand, the impending economic disaster that many thought would happen as a result of Brexit is unlikely to happen now, which is means Corbyn can’t rely that, which looked to be key to Labour’s strategy. On the other hand, an impending economic crisis as a result of Brexit may not be needed - wage depression, the costs of living, and the housing crisis will be still be factors at play by 2022. Many of the under 55s - the group Labour made gains with - will still be struggling as a result of these factors even without any recession occurring. Of course, Labour will either need to make further gains among the 35 - 55 crowd specifically, or do better among the strongly Conservative 65+ crowd. Given that Labour haven’t got a hope in hell of going well among the latter, their only choice is to make further gains among the former crowd.
The big question mark of course is Conservative Remainers. If they are simply opposed to Brexit on principle, then this deal is unlikely to assuage their concerns. If they are looking for a Soft Brexit, then this deal is one which points in the right direction. That said, a significant reason as to why Conservative Remainer switches was because of a belief that Brexit was assault on their socially liberal values - and this deal doesn’t really address that matter. Perhaps the Conservative party will elect a liberal Remainer who will attract these voters back, but it seems doubtful. Those who are talked up for big things in the party - with the exception of Ruth Davidson, seem to be mainly Leavers - Dominic Raab, James Cleverly, Kemi Badenoch, JRM. I have no idea why some think Jeremy Hunt would be a good choice. He is deeply uninspiring and dull as dishwater. He is the Owen Smith choice in any Conservative Party leadership contest.
I think it would be fair to say they didn't have much of a clue......
It would be fair to say that the Leavers are rewriting history like mad. A year ago 20bn was utterly unacceptable. Today 40bn is a brilliant deal for them.
It's a called a negotiation.
The most detailed analysis in the FT estimated the net cost of the divorce bill at anything from 25bn euros to 73 bn.
In the absence of anything else, continuity Remain are reducing to trolling Leavers that we're full of hot air, are staying in the EU by the back door anyway, and haven't got any bollocks.
It's to be expected.
The first and the third are trite statements of fact. After all that daubing of woad, the Leave bravehearts have meekly paid up and signed essentially on the EU's terms. Boudicca and her followers have conditionally surrendered.
Nah, not one of your best.
You'll have to do better than that.
Plus Boudicca's rebellion was soaked by Europeans attacking her, stealing her lands (in defiance of her husband's legal will) and raping her daughters.
Is that really what @AlastairMeeks thinks of our relationship with the EU?
So what? The same basic principle applies. It is the UK who will propose solutions and the Irish who are the ones who will decide whether or not the solution is acceptable.
Anyway as I mentioned earlier, agriculture (and the other 5 areas listed) is a devolved power as part of the GFA. Unless you are suggesting there should be an amendment to the GFA forced by the EU?
No, I am suggesting that unless the Northern Irish agree to create an internal UK border to ensure the Irish border retains its current status, the UK will have to align its agricultural regulatory regime with the EU’s.
Given that, under the devolution agreement, we don't have to align our agricultural regulatory regime with NI right now (except so far as we are in the EU) then there is absolutely no reason for us to have to align it after we leave. Agriculture is a devolved power and, like education or health, there is no specific alignment necessary.
Unless of course you are suggesting we should strip the Assembly of its powers and permanently return them to Westminster?
We looked at this yesterday Southam. The GFA does not cover agriculture. It may do if the parties agree. So far as I am aware there is no such agreement, there are no all Ireland bodies regulating agriculture and the law north and south of the border, in so far as it is not EU law, remains distinct. So as things stand the GFA is not relevant to trade agreements with third parties.
It’s not about all-Ireland bodies, it’s about the status of the border created by the GFA. That is, there is no border except an unguarded, purely territorial one. Divergent agriculture-related standards changes that. Thus, either the UK finds a solution to this that the Irish find acceptable or standards have to remain aligned.
Why do you say divergent agricultural standards changes the border? If we, as part of a trade deal with the US, decide that chlorinated chicken can be imported to the UK the border is not a problem for us. It is a problem for the EU if they want to maintain the integrity of their blessed single market (ignoring all the disgusting things the Dutch and others get up to natch) but not for us. They are then left with either turning a blind eye to our chicken or seeking to enforce their standards south of the border just as they would if someone sought to chlorinate a chicken there.
There is another, more important, consequence of being out. At the moment EU law is in the most important cases directly applicable in the UK and superior to our domestic law. A court faced with a conflict between domestic law and EU law has to apply the latter. Once we are out that will no longer be the case with any exceptions or temporary provisions (such as the citizens rights clause) that we agree to. This has 2 major impacts.
Firstly, a UK court will not normally take cognizance of an international treaty in determining what the domestic law is unless and to the extent that our domestic law says it should. That is why there are agreements that the citizens rights, for example, will be put into domestic law by Act of Parliament.
Secondly, and following from that, whether we continue to comply with such a treaty going forward is a matter for us alone. To that extent I think David is wrong to say that the EU broader interpretation will apply. It will only apply if we let it. It is not otherwise legally enforceable. Of course the same applies the other way. If the EU changes its regulations in a way which harms our financial sector, for example, contrary to the phase 2 agreement, we may find that there is little we can do about it.
I think it would be fair to say they didn't have much of a clue......
It would be fair to say that the Leavers are rewriting history like mad. A year ago 20bn was utterly unacceptable. Today 40bn is a brilliant deal for them.
It's a called a negotiation.
The most detailed analysis in the FT estimated the net cost of the divorce bill at anything from 25bn euros to 73 bn.
I wonder how much the EU will be charging us for access to the Single Market? Norway pays about £400m / year for a population of about 5 million, so I guess we're looking at at least 5 billion / year.
My rough and ready reckoning is that we're on the hook for £0.5-£1.0bn per year in the long-term re: divorce settlement, and probably a further £3-3.5bn pa on top for market access and participation in EU programmes.
So, a saving of around £5bn on the annual net payments we were previously paying, as well as the repatriation of all the money we were previously paying to the EU (another £5-6bn pa) for it to have the luxury of deciding how it should be spent within the UK.
That £5bn pa is enough to give the NHS an extra £100m per week, which is why Gove pledged that amount in the first place - he knows his stuff.
Then, of course, there's the fax machine that we'll need in order to receive whatever new directives the EU has decided upon in our absence. So that we can maintain alignment.
It's possible the EU will be shockingly irrelevant to the next election campaign. If everything's signed through, people may be looking more to the future. I also think, if Corbyn remains, the socialists and anti-socialists will remain locked for the two major parties, which will make a triumphant returns for the yellows more difficult.
The regulation end game should be the UK deciding what regulations apply here. As now, if a company wants to export to a different market, their good have to meet the requirements of that market.if UK companies want to export to the EU their products must comply.
Take kettles as an example. We are significantly the largest kettle users in Europe. The EU wants to introduce under energy saving directives, effectively a ban on usable kettle's. In the future, they can be them, our exporters won't export any, but us Brits can still drink our tea. Simple really.
A good example. And if the people of Eire come north and buy kettles that actually work and sneak them home again across an unmanned border that really isn't our problem.
Scanning the thread, there seems to be a lot of disagreement over what was actually agreed. Probably best to see what comes out in the wash.
May I refer you to article 5? Nothing is agreed as yet because everything has to be agreed. This agreement will now be parked while we deal with the more important stuff. The extent to which it is reflected in the final agreement really depends on how that more important stuff shakes out.
Just a question about "regulatory alignment". Is it actually about the regulatory environment being effectively the same, or is it about "minimum standards". Is it designed for a scenario where (presumably) the UK aggressively seeks to deregulate and make itself more attractive viz the EU, or does it work both ways ie. is the UK prevented from introducing new regulations where they are absent from the EU?
It's possible the EU will be shockingly irrelevant to the next election campaign. If everything's signed through, people may be looking more to the future. I also think, if Corbyn remains, the socialists and anti-socialists will remain locked for the two major parties, which will make a triumphant returns for the yellows more difficult.
I think that while the EU itself could be very well irrelevant (depending on how negotiations go as you say) I think that the values gap that is has revealed is unlikely to be irrelevant. Indeed when it comes to a future Britain each of these groups are likely going to want to shape Britain in their image, IMHO.
Yes, I don’t see a LD revival. I voted for them last time, and while things can change I think I’ll be voting Green next time. I’m not as to left as Lucas is, but they seem more inspiring that the LDs who just leave me feeling a bit ‘meh’. I’m not impressed by Cable at all.
I think it would be fair to say they didn't have much of a clue......
It would be fair to say that the Leavers are rewriting history like mad. A year ago 20bn was utterly unacceptable. Today 40bn is a brilliant deal for them.
It's a called a negotiation.
The most detailed analysis in the FT estimated the net cost of the divorce bill at anything from 25bn euros to 73 bn.
I wonder how much the EU will be charging us for access to the Single Market? Norway pays about £400m / year for a population of about 5 million, so I guess we're looking at at least 5 billion / year.
My rough and ready reckoning is that we're on the hook for £0.5-£1.0bn per year in the long-term re: divorce settlement, and probably a further £3-3.5bn pa on top for market access and participation in EU programmes.
So, a saving of around £5bn on the annual net payments we were previously paying, as well as the repatriation of all the money we were previously paying to the EU (another £5-6bn pa) for it to have the luxury of deciding how it should be spent within the UK.
That £5bn pa is enough to give the NHS an extra £100m per week, which is why Gove pledged that amount in the first place - he knows his stuff.
It is utterly, utterly insane to pay to get market access to a market where you have a huge trade deficit. It just shows the degree to which remainer logic is overwhelming economic reality.
Why do you say divergent agricultural standards changes the border? If we, as part of a trade deal with the US, decide that chlorinated chicken can be imported to the UK the border is not a problem for us. It is a problem for the EU if they want to maintain the integrity of their blessed single market (ignoring all the disgusting things the Dutch and others get up to natch) but not for us. They are then left with either turning a blind eye to our chicken or seeking to enforce their standards south of the border just as they would if someone sought to chlorinate a chicken there.
There is another, more important, consequence of being out. At the moment EU law is in the most important cases directly applicable in the UK and superior to our domestic law. A court faced with a conflict between domestic law and EU law has to apply the latter. Once we are out that will no longer be the case with any exceptions or temporary provisions (such as the citizens rights clause) that we agree to. This has 2 major impacts.
Firstly, a UK court will not normally take cognizance of an international treaty in determining what the domestic law is unless and to the extent that our domestic law says it should. That is why there are agreements that the citizens rights, for example, will be put into domestic law by Act of Parliament.
Secondly, and following from that, whether we continue to comply with such a treaty going forward is a matter for us alone. To that extent I think David is wrong to say that the EU broader interpretation will apply. It will only apply if we let it. It is not otherwise legally enforceable. Of course the same applies the other way. If the EU changes its regulations in a way which harms our financial sector, for example, contrary to the phase 2 agreement, we may find that there is little we can do about it.
We do, of course, have the option of doing no deal with the EU and creating a hard border with it; or of tearing up a deal with the EU to ensure we can import chlorinated chicken from the US. That is a freedom we will undoubtedly have. The practical consideration is what best serves our overall interests - and the EU market is far more important to us than the US one. In addition, I think you may be forgetting the power of the Irish American lobby and its ability to block any trade deal with the US perceived to run against Irish interests. I guess we will have to see how things pan out. My reading of yesterday is that Mrs May, at leadt, has decided a close trading relationship with the EU should be the UK’s priority.
The regulation end game should be the UK deciding what regulations apply here. As now, if a company wants to export to a different market, their good have to meet the requirements of that market.if UK companies want to export to the EU their products must comply.
Take kettles as an example. We are significantly the largest kettle users in Europe. The EU wants to introduce under energy saving directives, effectively a ban on usable kettle's. In the future, they can be them, our exporters won't export any, but us Brits can still drink our tea. Simple really.
A good example. And if the people of Eire come north and buy kettles that actually work and sneak them home again across an unmanned border that really isn't our problem.
More likely the other way round. The most energy-efficient way to boil enough water for a pot of tea is to use a powerful, well-insulated kettle. In this instance, efficent ≠ low power.
Ms. Apocalypse, Cable feels like a placeholder, whereas the Lib Dems, as you imply, need someone who's more of a draw.
When deciding how to vote, how much, or little, does your particular constituency's standings (ie marginal, safe seat etc) affect your decision? I'm acutely aware that this once safe Labour seat is now a Con-Lab marginal, which does deter me (certainly whilst Corbyn is around) from shifting from the blues.
So what? The same basic principle applies. It is the UK who will propose solutions and the Irish who are the ones who will decide whether or not the solution is acceptable.
Anyway as I mentioned earlier, agriculture (and the other 5 areas listed) is a devolved power as part of the GFA. Unless you are suggesting there should be an amendment to the GFA forced by the EU?
No, I am suggesting that unless the Northern Irish agree to create an internal UK border to ensure the Irish border retains its current status, the UK will have to align its agricultural regulatory regime with the EU’s.
Given that, under the devolution agreement, we don't have to align our agricultural regulatory regime with NI right now (except so far as we are in the EU) then there is absolutely no reason for us to have to align it after we leave. Agriculture is a devolved power and, like education or health, there is no specific alignment necessary.
Unless of course you are suggesting we should strip the Assembly of its powers and permanently return them to Westminster?
Yep, it is possible that the Unionists in Belfast could choose to align the province’s agricultural regulations with the EU’s if the rest of the UK seeks to diverge. That would then create an internal customs border in the UK and have a significant impact in the NI economy. I’d be surprised if they’d go for that.
Scanning the thread, there seems to be a lot of disagreement over what was actually agreed. Probably best to see what comes out in the wash.
For me the most interesting question is how you ensure regulatory convergence in a system that is already set up specifically to allow regulatory divergence.
Membership of the EU has of course meant that convergence/alignment has existed between the 3 separate bodies involved.
The draft agreement released yesterday says:
"In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement."
But in all the areas concerned with the 1998 agreement the powers are already devolved. After Brexit there is nothing in the document which says that the NI assembly must maintain alignment. It says the UK Government must do that. If the NI assembly decides to pass a law that does not align with the Single Market (and nothing in the deal says they can't do so) then are we saying that the UK Government is obliged by law to collapse the Assembly and return powers to Westminster to prevent that happening?
We do, of course, have the option of doing no deal with the EU and creating a hard border with it; or of tearing up a deal with the EU to ensure we can import chlorinated chicken from the US. That is a freedom we will undoubtedly have. The practical consideration is what best serves our overall interests - and the EU market is far more important to us than the US one. In addition, I think you may be forgetting the power of the Irish American lobby and its ability to block any trade deal with the US perceived to run against Irish interests. I guess we will have to see how things pan out. My reading of yesterday is that Mrs May, at leadt, has decided a close trading relationship with the EU should be the UK’s priority.
I am certainly not arguing for no deal. I agree that a close trading relationship with the EU should be a priority, at least in the short term. The proportion of our trade with the EU has been falling steadily, despite the expansion of the EU. I expect that it will now fall more sharply even with a FTA, because competitors who have had restricted access to our market will be on more even terms. In, say, 10-20 years, when the share of our trade with the EU is down to 20% or so, other considerations may be more important. But right now avoiding a cliff edge is important and May has correctly identified that as her priority.
So, I'd make the following points: snip (3) The EU will obviously argue that a lot more applies to the scope of the all-Ireland agreements, and therefore for UK-wide compliance, than the UK does (4) There will be a negotiation (5) The deal stuck will cascade regulations into three buckets (or two, because what's not in will be by definition outwith and in the third): alignment, equivalence and divergence (6) The UK will want to shadow only 20-30% of EU regulations, most of which are "common sense" laws, or global level, or make huge sense for easy pan-European trade. (7) The EU will want the UK to shadow 80-90% and follow the CJEU. (8) The deal struck will be for around 50-60%, and the UK will have its own court (like the EFTA court) that is not the CJEU to administer, but may refer back to it. (9) In the long-term I'd expect the UK (even outwith the EU) to have a level of soft, informal influence over that 50-60%, simply due to its relative economic and political weight within the continent of Europe. (10) At the same time, the regulatory and trade environment within the UK will develop, particularly in services, to those areas that lie clearly outwith the scope of the UK-EU agreement.
Your point 2 is important and David seems to have missed this completely.
Exactly. Therein lies the negotiation.
You've got to bear in mind that so much debate, commentary and analysis in the UK on Brexit isn't actually objective, but driven by UK Remainers hatred of UK Leavers and their desire to annoy, irritate and humiliate them, with the ultimate political objective - always - to overturning the result.
To be fair, this absolutely isn't what David is like (he's an absolute brick, and as genuine as they come) but many of the others are.
So the vast majority of their "insight" isn't worth the paper it's printed on, and can be ignored.
If only everyone could be as objective, unbiased and disinterested as you :-D
Indeed. I look at the evidence, listen to those who disagree with me (with a view to understanding their point of view) and then make an informed, rational decision off the back of it. If the evidence changes, I look to revise my opinion of it.
It's the way forward.
Of course :-D
And those who disagree with you are Remainers seeking to annoy, irritate and humiliate Leavers because they hate them.
Comments
As a result I think that they will wait and see. Indyref 2 will go on the back burner until they have a clearer idea of where we are.
Another interesting side effect of this is that any politician claiming that a separation from rUK is going to be “easy” is going to be laughed at.
Anyone know if it's true, because the race is done and dusted if it is.
The weird line from Sturgeon (and even weirder from that idiot Khan) that solving an Irish border problem means we should invent two new border problems between Scotland and England, and within England itself, was logically challenging.
Mr. Ace, the party should recall how badly she buggered up the GE campaign. It's time for fresh blood.
The UK's official position might as well now be that if we can't deliver a Brexit unicorn, there will be no Brexit.
Continued regulatory alignment may make it easier to return to the single market but I cannot ever see us returning to the EU now.
The next Tory leader will likely succeed May in late 2019 or early 2020 after Brexit but I would not rule out the favourite or near favourite. In power the Tories tend to pick the favourite of the contenders, May, Eden, arguably Macmillan as often as they pick the non favourites e.g. Home and Major and even the latter tend to have a big job first ie Major was Chancellor and Home Foreign Secretary before they became PM.
Outsiders e.g. Heath, Thatcher, Hague, IDS, Cameron etc tend to be more likely to take over in opposition. That means a Leaver with a big Cabinet job e.g. Boris or Davis is still most likely to succeed her while Rudd will also have a shot from the Remain wing plus any younger challengers who get offered one of the main Cabinet posts by then.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/08/brexit-deal-no-breakthrough-complete-capitulation/
Or have the Tories made the necessary psychological transition from dictator of terms to supplicant?
Tories are unlikely to win many if any who voted for Corbyn at the general election except maybe a few annoyed by the dementia tax, what they need to do is to keep Leavers from going back to UKIP while also keeping more centrist voters who stuck with May on board. In all the polling it tends to be Boris who polls best with the public and with Survation both Boris and Davis got a higher Tory voteshare against Corbyn than Hammond and Rudd did in their July poll. Rees-Mogg tends to poll well with Tories but not as well with the public at large
https://twitter.com/DMReporter/status/939428837598916608
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/939288494165422082
That sounds like a recipe for enriching the legal profession.
There seems to be a fair amount of wiggle room in how this might be implemented, and while it's true that the EU is likely to press for a maximalist interpretation, any agreement is not going to set in stone forever in any event...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/08/british-people-will-control-dislike-brexit-deal/
A general election to change the deal?
I wonder how many DUP pols will be holding onto or applying for EU/Irish passports?
The paragraph highlighted is a classic negotiating fudge, storing up lots of problems for the future. But it was probably the best that could be achieved under the circumstances. We'll have to see how it is interpreted in the future. The EU is extremely skilled at using back doors like this as a pretext for increasing its competence, and our government is extremely experienced at giving in to them. The mentality of civil servants is generally to want a quiet life, and the quietest life has almost always been found in giving in to whatever idiocies come out of Brussels, and letting somebody else take the pain. (I know, I've done it).
Will this continue after we leave the EU? Not sure, but probably, at least in parts. I imagine most civil servants are remainers, as were most politicians. A vigilant public opinion will be necessary to minimise regulatory creep, but many regulatory issues are so boring, and don't touch people's lives directly, so it is difficult to mobilise opinion on these matters.
Let's see
Firstly, the whole agreement needs to be read in the context of clause 5:
"This (agreement) does not prejudge any adaptations that might be appropriate in case transitional arrangements were to be agreed in the second phase of the negotiations, and is without prejudice to discussions on the framework of the future relationship."
This is further reiterated in clause 46: "The commitments and principles outlined in this joint report will not pre-determine the outcome of wider discussions on the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom and are, as necessary, specific to the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland. They are made and must be upheld in all circumstances, irrespective of the nature of any future agreement between the European Union and United Kingdom."
On clause 49, in the case of no deal: "Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement."
In other words, in the case of no deal, it will be the UK and the UK alone that decides to what extent full alignment is required with the internal market/customs union to support those Irish agreements.
Inevitably, in such circumstances, the UK would be pragmatic and fair but decide far less do alignment than the EU would like it to do in a formal deal.
On clause 50, in the case of no deal: "In the absence of agreed solutions, as set out in the previous paragraph, the United Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, unless, consistent with the 1998 Agreement, the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland."
In the case of no deal, the UK would have no borders in the Irish sea - remember it would still decide what that means - unless NI decide otherwise, and in any event the UK would align itself in only a small number of areas.
So, I'd make the following points:
(1) The UK will argue that to protect north/south and east/west cooperation, UK wide alignment will only take place in certain areas, like agriculture, environmental, energy etc.
(2) There is a clue here when the UK says in clause 48: "political, economic, security, societal and agricultural contexts and frameworks of cooperation". The north/south ministerial council scope is instructive in this (Agriculture, Education, Environment, Health, Tourism and Transport) much of which is different to/ devolved from the mainland UK anyway, and Irish based. So there is a baseline.
(3) The EU will obviously argue that a lot more applies to the scope of the all-Ireland agreements, and therefore for UK-wide compliance, than the UK does
(4) There will be a negotiation
(5) The deal stuck will cascade regulations into three buckets (or two, because what's not in will be by definition outwith and in the third): alignment, equivalence and divergence
(6) The UK will want to shadow only 20-30% of EU regulations, most of which are "common sense" laws, or global level, or make huge sense for easy pan-European trade.
(7) The EU will want the UK to shadow 80-90% and follow the CJEU.
(8) The deal struck will be for around 50-60%, and the UK will have its own court (like the EFTA court) that is not the CJEU to administer, but may refer back to it.
(9) In the long-term I'd expect the UK (even outwith the EU) to have a level of soft, informal influence over that 50-60%, simply due to its relative economic and political weight within the continent of Europe.
(10) At the same time, the regulatory and trade environment within the UK will develop, particularly in services, to those areas that lie clearly outwith the scope of the UK-EU agreement.
So that's why most mainstream Leavers are happy. Oh, and this, which shows the gradual cabinet convergence around that: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/12/carry-on-brexit/
I am brilliant, and amazing.
Corbyn of course needs a working majority himself for hard left labolunenomics
It's to be expected.
The DUP have made much play of the 'no divergence from the rest of the UK' but of course in many if not most of the areas we are talking about these issues are already diverged because they are devolved matters. So on every one of those areas you just mentioned - Agriculture, Education, Environment, Health, Tourism and Transport - Northern Ireland can make their own arrangements with the Republic without it affecting the rest of the UK.
Take kettles as an example. We are significantly the largest kettle users in Europe. The EU wants to introduce under energy saving directives, effectively a ban on usable kettle's. In the future, they can be them, our exporters won't export any, but us Brits can still drink our tea. Simple really.
So (1) it will barely restrict the amount of cash the HMT has to set its Budgets, and public spending priorities, and, (2) even if it's an extra £20bn, that spread over 20 years into the future is far less than an unfront payment, even with a low discount rate of 2-2.5%.
I don't expect the public to necessarily understand NPV, but I'd like to think some journalists did.
https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/939408026179645440
You really are a crusty, depressive, miserable old souk. You'd look for something to complain about if your wife took you on a romantic weekend to Venice to celebrate your anniversary, or your family on a once-in-a-lifetime trip to Disneyworld.
"Food's shit". "Mickey mouse has BO". "Queues are too long". "Gondolas are crap". "The lagoon smells".
Then, you'd be left on your own to wallow in your own misery, whilst everyone else went off to have fun.
You'll have to do better than that.
We are still replacing free movement with a work permits system
You've got to bear in mind that so much debate, commentary and analysis in the UK on Brexit isn't actually objective, but driven by UK Remainers hatred of UK Leavers and their desire to annoy, irritate and humiliate them, with the ultimate political objective - always - to overturning the result.
To be fair, this absolutely isn't what David is like (he's an absolute brick, and as genuine as they come) but many of the others are.
So the vast majority of their "insight" isn't worth the paper it's printed on, and can be ignored.
Is that really what @AlastairMeeks thinks of our relationship with the EU?
So, a saving of around £5bn on the annual net payments we were previously paying, as well as the repatriation of all the money we were previously paying to the EU (another £5-6bn pa) for it to have the luxury of deciding how it should be spent within the UK.
That £5bn pa is enough to give the NHS an extra £100m per week, which is why Gove pledged that amount in the first place - he knows his stuff.
Anyway as I mentioned earlier, agriculture (and the other 5 areas listed) is a devolved power as part of the GFA. Unless you are suggesting there should be an amendment to the GFA forced by the EU?
Don’t get me wrong: as an FTA with the US would be an exercise in American dictation, I am absolutely delighted that Liam Fox will not get a chance to do one. More broadly, I am very pleased with the deal agreed yesterday. It’s very good news.
It's the way forward.
Our calculations - both done independently - were that the UK would have to pay just over £2 billion a year if it wanted to be in the EEA via EFTA. But of course that is not, unfortunately, what is on offer or what will be the final arrangement. So in fact for an FTA there is no set amount that will need to be paid. That is not how FTA's work.
I think right now it’ll be difficult for any party to tack to the centre if they want to keep their voting coalition together. The political polarisation that Brexit has produced (or revealed) has meant that political parties are limited by the range of groups they can carry. To carry both metropolitan liberals angered by Brexit and WWC Brexiteers motivated by the immigration issue is pretty difficult task for either party. This means that it is doubtful that any political party is going to be able to secure a majority for the foreseeable future.
On one hand, the impending economic disaster that many thought would happen as a result of Brexit is unlikely to happen now, which is means Corbyn can’t rely that, which looked to be key to Labour’s strategy. On the other hand, an impending economic crisis as a result of Brexit may not be needed - wage depression, the costs of living, and the housing crisis will be still be factors at play by 2022. Many of the under 55s - the group Labour made gains with - will still be struggling as a result of these factors even without any recession occurring. Of course, Labour will either need to make further gains among the 35 - 55 crowd specifically, or do better among the strongly Conservative 65+ crowd. Given that Labour haven’t got a hope in hell of going well among the latter, their only choice is to make further gains among the former crowd.
The big question mark of course is Conservative Remainers. If they are simply opposed to Brexit on principle, then this deal is unlikely to assuage their concerns. If they are looking for a Soft Brexit, then this deal is one which points in the right direction. That said, a significant reason as to why Conservative Remainer switches was because of a belief that Brexit was assault on their socially liberal values - and this deal doesn’t really address that matter. Perhaps the Conservative party will elect a liberal Remainer who will attract these voters back, but it seems doubtful. Those who are talked up for big things in the party - with the exception of Ruth Davidson, seem to be mainly Leavers - Dominic Raab, James Cleverly, Kemi Badenoch, JRM. I have no idea why some think Jeremy Hunt would be a good choice. He is deeply uninspiring and dull as dishwater. He is the Owen Smith choice in any Conservative Party leadership contest.
One graph that I saw some weeks ago that interested me was this:
https://twitter.com/marwood_lennox/status/935230207128227842
I did not think Labour would have those numbers among C1s and C2s prior to the GE - I thought they’d do much worse among those groups.
Unless of course you are suggesting we should strip the Assembly of its powers and permanently return them to Westminster?
1) No such thing as British laws. We have laws for England & Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.
2) It is judgment not judgements
3) Paging inappropriate gavels, as we don’t use gavels in the courts in this country
https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/939169960257081344
There is another, more important, consequence of being out. At the moment EU law is in the most important cases directly applicable in the UK and superior to our domestic law. A court faced with a conflict between domestic law and EU law has to apply the latter. Once we are out that will no longer be the case with any exceptions or temporary provisions (such as the citizens rights clause) that we agree to. This has 2 major impacts.
Firstly, a UK court will not normally take cognizance of an international treaty in determining what the domestic law is unless and to the extent that our domestic law says it should. That is why there are agreements that the citizens rights, for example, will be put into domestic law by Act of Parliament.
Secondly, and following from that, whether we continue to comply with such a treaty going forward is a matter for us alone. To that extent I think David is wrong to say that the EU broader interpretation will apply. It will only apply if we let it. It is not otherwise legally enforceable. Of course the same applies the other way. If the EU changes its regulations in a way which harms our financial sector, for example, contrary to the phase 2 agreement, we may find that there is little we can do about it.
White Evangelicals are quite tolerant of these peccadillos.
It's possible the EU will be shockingly irrelevant to the next election campaign. If everything's signed through, people may be looking more to the future. I also think, if Corbyn remains, the socialists and anti-socialists will remain locked for the two major parties, which will make a triumphant returns for the yellows more difficult.
Yes, I don’t see a LD revival. I voted for them last time, and while things can change I think I’ll be voting Green next time. I’m not as to left as Lucas is, but they seem more inspiring that the LDs who just leave me feeling a bit ‘meh’. I’m not impressed by Cable at all.
When deciding how to vote, how much, or little, does your particular constituency's standings (ie marginal, safe seat etc) affect your decision? I'm acutely aware that this once safe Labour seat is now a Con-Lab marginal, which does deter me (certainly whilst Corbyn is around) from shifting from the blues.
Membership of the EU has of course meant that convergence/alignment has existed between the 3 separate bodies involved.
The draft agreement released yesterday says:
"In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement."
But in all the areas concerned with the 1998 agreement the powers are already devolved. After Brexit there is nothing in the document which says that the NI assembly must maintain alignment. It says the UK Government must do that. If the NI assembly decides to pass a law that does not align with the Single Market (and nothing in the deal says they can't do so) then are we saying that the UK Government is obliged by law to collapse the Assembly and return powers to Westminster to prevent that happening?
But overall May and Davis have done better at negotiating than any British government since perhaps Thatcher at Fontainebleau.
If either Blair and Brown or Cameron and Osborne had done as well we would not be now leaving the EU.
And those who disagree with you are Remainers seeking to annoy, irritate and humiliate Leavers because they hate them.