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.
I was actually thinking the other way round as I mention in my following post to yours. What if the NI Assembly passes a law which causes divergence from EU regulations. I have had a very careful look through the agreement and there seems to be nothing there which says the Assembly cannot do that. All the emphasis is on the UK Government not the NI Assembly.
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.
The EU/EEA is a continental scale *internal* market so the concept of paying to get access is simply a nonsense.
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.
But if light bulbs and toasting machines are examples the EU seem to believe that reducing the power somehow helps the planet (if not the pressure on A&E departments in the former case). I agree that more powerful is not the sole determinant but all other things being equal (such as insulation) it is better. Do you really believe people would not buy traditional light bulbs again if we repealed that law after leaving?
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.
Tbh, my constituency’s standings didn’t really influence my vote in 2017 (whereas it did in 2015).
My constituency is a Conservative seat right now, it’s semi-marginal IIRC (its been Conservative since 2010, before it was held by Labour). I have issues with both Labour and the Tories, and I want to vote for a left of centre party. I’m concerned about the universal credit, the impact of austerity and I am looking to a party which promotes socially liberal values. Those are the main things influencing my decision right now.
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?
Regulatory alignment as it currently exists in the EU means both minimum and maximum standards in theory at least. The fear being that one country can put in much higher standards which effectively exclude manufacturers from other countries from selling their goods there. I am not sure if it has happened in the past but if an EU country did try to impose higher standards that restricted trade then a manufacturer would have recourse to the ECJ on the grounds of restriction of trade,
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) https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/12/carry-on-brexit/
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.
One gets the feeling that SO is being used as a proxy for another poster who is perhaps less reconciled to the direction of travel than he is.
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.
Eliminating our trade deficit with the EU is surely going to be a priority for a UK government of whatever stripe going forward. It is simply unsustainable and impoverishing us. Of course it should have been our priority inside the EU as well but we considered ourselves so hamstrung by EU regulation that we never made any serious attempt to do so simply moaning ineffectually that other countries did not seem to play by the same rules.
One gets the feeling that SO is being used as a proxy for another poster who is perhaps less reconciled to the direction of travel than he is.
SO has always done his damndest on here to be reasonable when looking at things he clearly cares a great deal about and, like many of us, has a lot of emotional involvement with. It is one of the reasons I like arguing with him so much. You actually feel like you might learn something but also get a considered response to your comments.
He can still be a pain in the arse sometimes of course.
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?
Regulatory alignment as it currently exists in the EU means both minimum and maximum standards in theory at least. The fear being that one country can put in much higher standards which effectively exclude manufacturers from other countries from selling their goods there. I am not sure if it has happened in the past but if an EU country did try to impose higher standards that restricted trade then a manufacturer would have recourse to the ECJ on the grounds of restriction of trade,
Didn't the Danes take us to court over the higher standards of pig welfare we demanded?
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?
Regulatory alignment as it currently exists in the EU means both minimum and maximum standards in theory at least. The fear being that one country can put in much higher standards which effectively exclude manufacturers from other countries from selling their goods there. I am not sure if it has happened in the past but if an EU country did try to impose higher standards that restricted trade then a manufacturer would have recourse to the ECJ on the grounds of restriction of trade,
Didn't the Danes take us to court over the higher standards of pig welfare we demanded?
I think it was threatened but don't know if it ever actually happened.
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?
Regulatory alignment as it currently exists in the EU means both minimum and maximum standards in theory at least. The fear being that one country can put in much higher standards which effectively exclude manufacturers from other countries from selling their goods there. I am not sure if it has happened in the past but if an EU country did try to impose higher standards that restricted trade then a manufacturer would have recourse to the ECJ on the grounds of restriction of trade,
The German beer purity cases were classic decisions of the ECJ on that point before we even joined the EEC, as it was then. German law prevented beer from having anything other than the 4 classic ingredients. Manufacturers in other EEC countries challenged this as an unfair barrier and won.
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.
I was actually thinking the other way round as I mention in my following post to yours. What if the NI Assembly passes a law which causes divergence from EU regulations. I have had a very careful look through the agreement and there seems to be nothing there which says the Assembly cannot do that. All the emphasis is on the UK Government not the NI Assembly.
That’s an intetesting one: the NI assembly essentially voting to create a hard border with the EU! That would have to be worked through. Presumably, that would not affect Irish transit moving through the mainland from Wales to the channel ports, and Irish imports to the mainland, which I think was also a major Irish concern. Given that, specific NI divergence might hurt NI more than the RoI. That said, it could be argued that a divergence vote taken by the NI assembly might have UK-wide implications and so could not be taken by the NI assembly. As I say, an interesting one. It’s one of the reasons lawyers are going to do very well out of Brexit!!
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.
I was actually thinking the other way round as I mention in my following post to yours. What if the NI Assembly passes a law which causes divergence from EU regulations. I have had a very careful look through the agreement and there seems to be nothing there which says the Assembly cannot do that. All the emphasis is on the UK Government not the NI Assembly.
That’s an intetesting one: the NI assembly essentially voting to create a hard border with the EU! That would have to be worked through. Presumably, that would not affect Irish transit moving through the mainland from Wales to the channel ports, and Irish imports to the mainland, which I think was also a major Irish concern. Given that, specific NI divergence might hurt NI more than the RoI. That said, it could be argued that a divergence vote taken by the NI assembly might have UK-wide implications and so could not be taken by the NI assembly. As I say, an interesting one. It’s one of the reasons lawyers are going to do very well out of Brexit!!
Perhaps the only downside I would concede to us leaving
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.
Kettle smuggling, something else for the Loyalist & Republican gangs to get involved with.
'Aye, we had to take their boy Sean's knees out. He won't be peddling any more Brevilles.'
Once the new border and other arrangements have been in place for a while the UK can decide to vary from the EU rules and still claim it is aligned, in its view - the sort of thing the French do.
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?
Regulatory alignment as it currently exists in the EU means both minimum and maximum standards in theory at least. The fear being that one country can put in much higher standards which effectively exclude manufacturers from other countries from selling their goods there. I am not sure if it has happened in the past but if an EU country did try to impose higher standards that restricted trade then a manufacturer would have recourse to the ECJ on the grounds of restriction of trade,
The German beer purity cases were classic decisions of the ECJ on that point before we even joined the EEC, as it was then. German law prevented beer from having anything other than the 4 classic ingredients. Manufacturers in other EEC countries challenged this as an unfair barrier and won.
PERHAPS the most significant development of the past few days is the fact the EU now clearly wants a deal.
Proof of that is how a veil of secrecy has been drawn over the humiliating moment in the May-Juncker lunch when the Prime Minister realised she could not proceed.
Compare that with the deliberately damaging leaks that followed May’s Downing Street and Brussels dinners with the Commission president earlier this year and you can see how the EU’s approach has changed.
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.
Ah, my specialist subject (I'm Head of Policy for Compassion in World Farming)...
1. US regs are seriously worse than Dutch regs with respect to animal welfare - indeed, there are almost no US farm welfare regs at national level. Some US companies are pretty good and getting better - it's the American way to have companies rather than government lead. (Chrlorination isn't the problem, it's the conditions that chlorination are trying to allow for.) But if we open up to US imports they will include plenty of cheap, nastily-produced stuff which will undercut our farmers.
2. It's a problem for the EU because if they then allow us to export chickens, a re-export market will open up funnelling cheap US chickens via Britain into the hitherto blocked market. In theory this could be addressed by elaborate checks and labelling. In practice they'll probably just ban chicken imports from us too.
3. It's therefore a double problem for us too. British farmers will then be undercut at home simultaneously with being unable to export to our neighbours. The British chicken industry will simply disappear.
Mr. Divvie, that said, the EU is in the process if suing Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic for not taking the migrants they've been allotted following Merkel's unilateral decision to go stark raving mad.
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.
Fair enough. As I see it, this Brexit is a line in the sand: the UK is leaving, will essentially retain the regulatory regime we have now for the forseeable future, will therefore have a very close relationship with the EU, but will definitively not take part in any further integration. It could be that further down the line, when the full implications of what will have been a tumultuous few years are better understood, political leaders as yet unknown on both sides decide to revisit outstanding issues so that they align better to new realities. For now, though, I’d suggest most people are reaching revolution saturation point.
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?
Regulatory alignment as it currently exists in the EU means both minimum and maximum standards in theory at least. The fear being that one country can put in much higher standards which effectively exclude manufacturers from other countries from selling their goods there. I am not sure if it has happened in the past but if an EU country did try to impose higher standards that restricted trade then a manufacturer would have recourse to the ECJ on the grounds of restriction of trade,
The German beer purity cases were classic decisions of the ECJ on that point before we even joined the EEC, as it was then. German law prevented beer from having anything other than the 4 classic ingredients. Manufacturers in other EEC countries challenged this as an unfair barrier and won.
Yes, but they still apply the Reinheitsgebot rules to their domestic production and beers are frequently advertised as compliant with that rule as a marketing tool. There's some quite interesting stuff about the history and current impact of these rules here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinheitsgebot
German beer purity rules actually had quite a big impact on the development of EU law. The Brassier de pecheur case was where the ECJ decided that a company who had lost out as a result was entitled to compensation from the defaulting State (Germany) giving EU law a serious set of teeth for the first time.
One gets the feeling that SO is being used as a proxy for another poster who is perhaps less reconciled to the direction of travel than he is.
SO has always done his damndest on here to be reasonable when looking at things he clearly cares a great deal about and, like many of us, has a lot of emotional involvement with. It is one of the reasons I like arguing with him so much. You actually feel like you might learn something but also get a considered response to your comments.
He can still be a pain in the arse sometimes of course.
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.
Tbh, my constituency’s standings didn’t really influence my vote in 2017 (whereas it did in 2015).
My constituency is a Conservative seat right now, it’s semi-marginal IIRC (its been Conservative since 2010, before it was held by Labour). I have issues with both Labour and the Tories, and I want to vote for a left of centre party. I’m concerned about the universal credit, the impact of austerity and I am looking to a party which promotes socially liberal values. Those are the main things influencing my decision right now.
Shouldn't you be voting Lib Dem - free market economics with a heart?
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.
Fair enough. As I see it, this Brexit is a line in the sand: the UK is leaving, will essentially retain the regulatory regime we have now for the forseeable future, will therefore have a very close relationship with the EU, but will definitively not take part in any further integration. It could be that further down the line, when the full implications of what will have been a tumultuous few years are better understood, political leaders as yet unknown on both sides decide to revisit outstanding issues so that they align better to new realities. For now, though, I’d suggest most people are reaching revolution saturation point.
Oh yes indeed. But that is what PB is for! A refuge for the last obsessives.
PERHAPS the most significant development of the past few days is the fact the EU now clearly wants a deal.
Proof of that is how a veil of secrecy has been drawn over the humiliating moment in the May-Juncker lunch when the Prime Minister realised she could not proceed.
Compare that with the deliberately damaging leaks that followed May’s Downing Street and Brussels dinners with the Commission president earlier this year and you can see how the EU’s approach has changed.
The EU was never averse to a deal. Why would it be? It just wanted to ensure its interests, as it saw them, were protected. The UK has come to realise this and so we move to Phase Two.
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.
Kettle smuggling, something else for the Loyalist & Republican gangs to get involved with.
'Aye, we had to take their boy Sean's knees out. He won't be peddling any more Brevilles.'
PERHAPS the most significant development of the past few days is the fact the EU now clearly wants a deal.
Proof of that is how a veil of secrecy has been drawn over the humiliating moment in the May-Juncker lunch when the Prime Minister realised she could not proceed.
Compare that with the deliberately damaging leaks that followed May’s Downing Street and Brussels dinners with the Commission president earlier this year and you can see how the EU’s approach has changed.
It would be worthwhile knowing or finding out why the EU suddenly changed its attitude and was keen to agree stage one and move to stage two. It might be something that could be exploited in forthcoming negotiations.
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.
Ah, my specialist subject (I'm Head of Policy for Compassion in World Farming)...
1. US regs are seriously worse than Dutch regs with respect to animal welfare - indeed, there are almost no US farm welfare regs at national level. Some US companies are pretty good and getting better - it's the American way to have companies rather than government lead. (Chrlorination isn't the problem, it's the conditions that chlorination are trying to allow for.) But if we open up to US imports they will include plenty of cheap, nastily-produced stuff which will undercut our farmers.
2. It's a problem for the EU because if they then allow us to export chickens, a re-export market will open up funnelling cheap US chickens via Britain into the hitherto blocked market. In theory this could be addressed by elaborate checks and labelling. In practice they'll probably just ban chicken imports from us too.
3. It's therefore a double problem for us too. British farmers will then be undercut at home simultaneously with being unable to export to our neighbours. The British chicken industry will simply disappear.
I am not arguing the rights and wrongs of chlorinated chicken. Simply using that as a short hand example familiar to PB readers!
But taking your points with my limited knowledge:
1. Clearly that is a risk and we don't want a race to the bottom.
2.It should not be a problem because the re-export of such chickens would be illegal; selling them would be illegal and they would be prone to being seized. Not a viable business model.
3. Perhaps. If even MacDonalds can make a virtue of quality I don't see why British chicken producers can't also. I suspect the crap would, as usual, end up in the ready meal/pre-processed products.
Once the new border and other arrangements have been in place for a while the UK can decide to vary from the EU rules and still claim it is aligned, in its view - the sort of thing the French do.
“Kettle regulations” would be a decent example of the “reverse salami” that will gradually take place once we are out. For years, I get the impression, the EU salami sliced away at all this detailed boring under the radar stuff getting us more and more enmeshed past the point that that the British people wished to go ( I think Jean Monet actually made reference to something similar that each small “ economic “ step would result in further and further integration all without anybody quite realising it). Once we are out, we can do the reverse, so to take kettles we stick with a higher wattage or capacity or fudge it in some way to the max, or tell them to do a running jump and carry on and let their energy to pursue such a trivial thing ebb and we end up with a slight step of separation. Where we want it. If not carry on.
Just as an aside the thought of kettle smuggling to the Republic across County Fermanagh dodging Euro kettle inspectors would be a fantastic 21st century mix of Ealing comedy/ Will Hay/ Whisky Galore/and Yes Minister (“ defence of the British cuppa”). Peter Kay to star?
PERHAPS the most significant development of the past few days is the fact the EU now clearly wants a deal.
Proof of that is how a veil of secrecy has been drawn over the humiliating moment in the May-Juncker lunch when the Prime Minister realised she could not proceed.
Compare that with the deliberately damaging leaks that followed May’s Downing Street and Brussels dinners with the Commission president earlier this year and you can see how the EU’s approach has changed.
The EU was never averse to a deal. Why would it be? It just wanted to ensure its interests, as it saw them, were protected. The UK has come to realise this and so we move to Phase Two.
The open question was whether the EU was looking to encourage the possibility of No Deal as a route to reversing Brexit. Of course in the context of Brexit happening they want a deal.
Bear in mind that for all the criticism that the UK Govt was keeping open the prospect of no deal as leverage, the EU was doing it as well.
PERHAPS the most significant development of the past few days is the fact the EU now clearly wants a deal.
Proof of that is how a veil of secrecy has been drawn over the humiliating moment in the May-Juncker lunch when the Prime Minister realised she could not proceed.
Compare that with the deliberately damaging leaks that followed May’s Downing Street and Brussels dinners with the Commission president earlier this year and you can see how the EU’s approach has changed.
It would be worthwhile knowing or finding out why the EU suddenly changed its attitude and was keen to agree stage one and move to stage two. It might be something that could be exploited in forthcoming negotiations.
Anyone care to speculate?
I already have. They finally accepted that this was for real so now they want to keep as many of their current advantages as possible. A UK that could use state finance to support EU import substitution, for example, would cost them hundreds of thousands of jobs. Their priority will be to tie our hands in a FTA so that they keep their surpluses intact. Our priority has to be to get sufficient room for manoeuvre to address that surplus.
PERHAPS the most significant development of the past few days is the fact the EU now clearly wants a deal.
Proof of that is how a veil of secrecy has been drawn over the humiliating moment in the May-Juncker lunch when the Prime Minister realised she could not proceed.
Compare that with the deliberately damaging leaks that followed May’s Downing Street and Brussels dinners with the Commission president earlier this year and you can see how the EU’s approach has changed.
It would be worthwhile knowing or finding out why the EU suddenly changed its attitude and was keen to agree stage one and move to stage two. It might be something that could be exploited in forthcoming negotiations.
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?
Regulatory alignment as it currently exists in the EU means both minimum and maximum standards in theory at least. The fear being that one country can put in much higher standards which effectively exclude manufacturers from other countries from selling their goods there. I am not sure if it has happened in the past but if an EU country did try to impose higher standards that restricted trade then a manufacturer would have recourse to the ECJ on the grounds of restriction of trade,
The German beer purity cases were classic decisions of the ECJ on that point before we even joined the EEC, as it was then. German law prevented beer from having anything other than the 4 classic ingredients. Manufacturers in other EEC countries challenged this as an unfair barrier and won.
Yes, but they still apply the Reinheitsgebot rules to their domestic production and beers are frequently advertised as compliant with that rule as a marketing tool. There's some quite interesting stuff about the history and current impact of these rules here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinheitsgebot
German beer purity rules actually had quite a big impact on the development of EU law. The Brassier de pecheur case was where the ECJ decided that a company who had lost out as a result was entitled to compensation from the defaulting State (Germany) giving EU law a serious set of teeth for the first time.
Beer quality would be something I'd be happy for our saurkraut eating overlords to have hegemony over.
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.
Have you seen the Green Party 2017 manifesto?
Key policies ■Phase in a four-day working week ■A referendum on the final deal for Brexit ■Protect freedom of movement ■Press to remain in single market ■Scrap university tuition fees ■Reform taxation to include a wealth tax on the top 1% of earners ■Replace fracking, coal power stations, subsidies to fossil fuels and nuclear with renewable energy ■Roll back 'privatisation' of the NHS ■Renationalise energy, water, railways, buses, the Royal Mail and care work ■Lower the voting age to 16 ■Cancel Trident replacement, saving £110bn over 30 years ■Introduce proportional representation (PR) for parliamentary and local elections.
I am not arguing the rights and wrongs of chlorinated chicken. Simply using that as a short hand example familiar to PB readers!
But taking your points with my limited knowledge:
1. Clearly that is a risk and we don't want a race to the bottom.
2.It should not be a problem because the re-export of such chickens would be illegal; selling them would be illegal and they would be prone to being seized. Not a viable business model.
3. Perhaps. If even MacDonalds can make a virtue of quality I don't see why British chicken producers can't also. I suspect the crap would, as usual, end up in the ready meal/pre-processed products.
Re 2: Chickens are pretty generic to the non-specialist eye. If X has an import-export business in chicken meat, what is the customs official (and yes, it needs a customs official and a stop for inspection) to do as he eyes a consignment and tries to decide if this includes any American-sourced meat? It really needs inspection and labelling at the factory => lots more expense and red tape. As you say, it's just an example, but it shows the problem of regulatory divergence. The moment you diverge at all, you create a need for labelling, inspection forms, penalties, border posts, etc. You can solve the problem by declaring a whole sector (e.g. agriculture) non-divergent and sticking to whatever rules the EU introduces. But if you do that for most sectors,you essentially have the Norway model - which may well be the best available now, but perhaps not what most people expected.
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?
Regulatory alignment as it currently exists in the EU means both minimum and maximum standards in theory at least. The fear being that one country can put in much higher standards which effectively exclude manufacturers from other countries from selling their goods there. I am not sure if it has happened in the past but if an EU country did try to impose higher standards that restricted trade then a manufacturer would have recourse to the ECJ on the grounds of restriction of trade,
The German beer purity cases were classic decisions of the ECJ on that point before we even joined the EEC, as it was then. German law prevented beer from having anything other than the 4 classic ingredients. Manufacturers in other EEC countries challenged this as an unfair barrier and won.
Yes, but they still apply the Reinheitsgebot rules to their domestic production and beers are frequently advertised as compliant with that rule as a marketing tool. There's some quite interesting stuff about the history and current impact of these rules here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinheitsgebot
German beer purity rules actually had quite a big impact on the development of EU law. The Brassier de pecheur case was where the ECJ decided that a company who had lost out as a result was entitled to compensation from the defaulting State (Germany) giving EU law a serious set of teeth for the first time.
Beer quality would be something I'm happy for our saurkraut eating overlords to have hegemony over.
It is rather good. But it is also a good example of how we can have quite significant levels of divergence in our domestic regulation whilst maintaining regulatory alignment.
RAIB have released their final report into the Sandliands tram crash last year that killed seven people. It's a brilliant example of looking a every possible angle of an incident, even one where the immediate cause is simple.
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.
Have you seen the Green Party 2017 manifesto?
Key policies ■Phase in a four-day working week ■A referendum on the final deal for Brexit ■Protect freedom of movement ■Press to remain in single market ■Scrap university tuition fees ■Reform taxation to include a wealth tax on the top 1% of earners ■Replace fracking, coal power stations, subsidies to fossil fuels and nuclear with renewable energy ■Roll back 'privatisation' of the NHS ■Renationalise energy, water, railways, buses, the Royal Mail and care work ■Lower the voting age to 16 ■Cancel Trident replacement, saving £110bn over 30 years ■Introduce proportional representation (PR) for parliamentary and local elections.
Mostly looks good to me, but it's essentially full fat Corbyn with added hard-to-afford things. In a marginal seat, I wonder if they'll feel they should really stand and thereby increase the prospect of a Tory hold.
Incidentally, keeping in mind the general flavour of your posts, I think you probably see these things as all undesirable? One of PB's charms is that we have such a broad spectrum, isn't it?
PERHAPS the most significant development of the past few days is the fact the EU now clearly wants a deal.
Proof of that is how a veil of secrecy has been drawn over the humiliating moment in the May-Juncker lunch when the Prime Minister realised she could not proceed.
Compare that with the deliberately damaging leaks that followed May’s Downing Street and Brussels dinners with the Commission president earlier this year and you can see how the EU’s approach has changed.
The EU was never averse to a deal. Why would it be? It just wanted to ensure its interests, as it saw them, were protected. The UK has come to realise this and so we move to Phase Two.
The open question was whether the EU was looking to encourage the possibility of No Deal as a route to reversing Brexit. Of course in the context of Brexit happening they want a deal.
Bear in mind that for all the criticism that the UK Govt was keeping open the prospect of no deal as leverage, the EU was doing it as well.
One thing we tend to overlook is the gap in high level negotiation experience between the EU27 and UK. Their side has done all this before and knows exactly how to play the game. Our side, from the PM down, hasn’t and doesn’t. It’s a very big and ongoing learning curve for Team GB. Part of that is understanding who holds the cards, what they are and how they will be played, as well as what they know about your hand. Incidentally, that’s why the thought of Dr Liam Fox sitting in front of a group of gnarled, highly-experienced US trade negotiators is slightly terrifying. They’d eat him for breakfast!!!
Off topic - the Con Home members survey has the pb.com preferred next Tory leader Jeremy Hunt rising to 4th in the Cabinet approval ratings.
To my mind - this deal reduces the need for a Brexiteer to follow May. Hunt is still North of 30/1 on betfair - that’s value I reckon.
Except the top choice of Tory members in the Conservative Home Tory members next Tory leader poll also this week was Jacob Rees Mogg who is not even in the Cabinet.
Not one Remainer even made the top 5, Hunt was 8th.
Off topic - the Con Home members survey has the pb.com preferred next Tory leader Jeremy Hunt rising to 4th in the Cabinet approval ratings.
To my mind - this deal reduces the need for a Brexiteer to follow May. Hunt is still North of 30/1 on betfair - that’s value I reckon.
Except the top choice of Tory members in the Conservative Home Tory members next Tory leader poll also this week was Jacob Rees Mogg who is not even in the Cabinet.
Off topic - the Con Home members survey has the pb.com preferred next Tory leader Jeremy Hunt rising to 4th in the Cabinet approval ratings.
To my mind - this deal reduces the need for a Brexiteer to follow May. Hunt is still North of 30/1 on betfair - that’s value I reckon.
Except the top choice of Tory members in the Conservative Home Tory members next Tory leader poll also this week was Jacob Rees Mogg who is not even in the Cabinet.
PERHAPS the most significant development of the past few days is the fact the EU now clearly wants a deal.
Proof of that is how a veil of secrecy has been drawn over the humiliating moment in the May-Juncker lunch when the Prime Minister realised she could not proceed.
Compare that with the deliberately damaging leaks that followed May’s Downing Street and Brussels dinners with the Commission president earlier this year and you can see how the EU’s approach has changed.
It would be worthwhile knowing or finding out why the EU suddenly changed its attitude and was keen to agree stage one and move to stage two. It might be something that could be exploited in forthcoming negotiations.
Anyone care to speculate?
I already have. They finally accepted that this was for real so now they want to keep as many of their current advantages as possible. A UK that could use state finance to support EU import substitution, for example, would cost them hundreds of thousands of jobs. Their priority will be to tie our hands in a FTA so that they keep their surpluses intact. Our priority has to be to get sufficient room for manoeuvre to address that surplus.
There is no more chance of persuading the British public to buy Austin Allegros than of persuading citizens of a newly-independent Scotland to buy Ford Caledonias or AyePhones. If British manufacturers want to reduce the trade gap, they're going to have to make better stuff.
Off topic - the Con Home members survey has the pb.com preferred next Tory leader Jeremy Hunt rising to 4th in the Cabinet approval ratings.
To my mind - this deal reduces the need for a Brexiteer to follow May. Hunt is still North of 30/1 on betfair - that’s value I reckon.
Except the top choice of Tory members in the Conservative Home Tory members next Tory leader poll also this week was Jacob Rees Mogg who is not even in the Cabinet.
Fortunately there appears to be little correlation between Conservative Home polls and reality.
Not true. A Conservative Home poll not only predicted Cameron would win the 2005 Tory leadership election but got his margin of victory almost exactly right too
Yes, all the signs are for another hung parliament or at most a tiny majority for either Labour or the Tories
I agree that is a reasonable expectation given the polls. But I got caught out by them this year. Judging by what I see with my own eyes things look rather different. In my constituency Labour have been in third place since forever, even 1997. But this time the came 2nd, albeit a rather poor one. But there is now an actual Labour Party in existence. They have members. They are out campaigning at weekends. They might even have a branch structure - or at least are trying to create one. I
PERHAPS the most significant development of the past few days is the fact the EU now clearly wants a deal.
Proof of that is how a veil of secrecy has been drawn over the humiliating moment in the May-Juncker lunch when the Prime Minister realised she could not proceed.
Compare that with the deliberately damaging leaks that followed May’s Downing Street and Brussels dinners with the Commission president earlier this year and you can see how the EU’s approach has changed.
The EU was never averse to a deal. Why would it be? It just wanted to ensure its interests, as it saw them, were protected. The UK has come to realise this and so we move to Phase Two.
The open question was whether the EU was looking to encourage the possibility of No Deal as a route to reversing Brexit. Of course in the context of Brexit happening they want a deal.
Bear in mind that for all the criticism that the UK Govt was keeping open the prospect of no deal as leverage, the EU was doing it as well.
One thing we tend to overlook is the gap in high level negotiation experience between the EU27 and UK. Their side has done all this before and knows exactly how to play the game. Our side, from the PM down, hasn’t and doesn’t. It’s a very big and ongoing learning curve for Team GB. Part of that is understanding who holds the cards, what they are and how they will be played, as well as what they know about your hand. Incidentally, that’s why the thought of Dr Liam Fox sitting in front of a group of gnarled, highly-experienced US trade negotiators is slightly terrifying. They’d eat him for breakfast!!!
All true. And hiring good negotiators is expensive. By definition.
Off topic - the Con Home members survey has the pb.com preferred next Tory leader Jeremy Hunt rising to 4th in the Cabinet approval ratings.
To my mind - this deal reduces the need for a Brexiteer to follow May. Hunt is still North of 30/1 on betfair - that’s value I reckon.
Except the top choice of Tory members in the Conservative Home Tory members next Tory leader poll also this week was Jacob Rees Mogg who is not even in the Cabinet.
None of the above was the top choice. In any case - JRM makes the final 2? Doubt it.
Hunt has improved his credentials with his endorsement of leave - I think 30/1 is far too generous.
Add up the total for all the Leave candidates and you get to 59%, 18% more than the 41% for all the Remainer candidates (counting Hunt as a Remainer) + 'none of the above' combined.
Off topic - the Con Home members survey has the pb.com preferred next Tory leader Jeremy Hunt rising to 4th in the Cabinet approval ratings.
To my mind - this deal reduces the need for a Brexiteer to follow May. Hunt is still North of 30/1 on betfair - that’s value I reckon.
Except the top choice of Tory members in the Conservative Home Tory members next Tory leader poll also this week was Jacob Rees Mogg who is not even in the Cabinet.
Off topic - the Con Home members survey has the pb.com preferred next Tory leader Jeremy Hunt rising to 4th in the Cabinet approval ratings.
To my mind - this deal reduces the need for a Brexiteer to follow May. Hunt is still North of 30/1 on betfair - that’s value I reckon.
Except the top choice of Tory members in the Conservative Home Tory members next Tory leader poll also this week was Jacob Rees Mogg who is not even in the Cabinet.
Fortunately there appears to be little correlation between Conservative Home polls and reality.
Not true. A Conservative Home poll not only predicted Cameron would win the 2005 Tory leadership election but got his margin of victory almost exactly right too
LOL. *Twelve years* ago? Is that the best you can do? And at what stage did that miraculous accuracy occur - when there were a handful of candidates or earlier?
I'm bemused that anyone can take such voodoo polls seriously.
Off topic - the Con Home members survey has the pb.com preferred next Tory leader Jeremy Hunt rising to 4th in the Cabinet approval ratings.
To my mind - this deal reduces the need for a Brexiteer to follow May. Hunt is still North of 30/1 on betfair - that’s value I reckon.
Except the top choice of Tory members in the Conservative Home Tory members next Tory leader poll also this week was Jacob Rees Mogg who is not even in the Cabinet.
Yes, all the signs are for another hung parliament or at most a tiny majority for either Labour or the Tories
I agree that is a reasonable expectation given the polls. But I got caught out by them this year. Judging by what I see with my own eyes things look rather different. In my constituency Labour have been in third place since forever, even 1997. But this time the came 2nd, albeit a rather poor one. But there is now an actual Labour Party in existence. They have members. They are out campaigning at weekends. They might even have a branch structure - or at least - or at least are trying to create one
Given the collapse of the LDs and UKIP Labour came second in most seats in June.
Plus most of the final polls in June suggested a slim Tory majority rather than the landslide May originally hoped for and Survation and Yougov had even predicted a hung parliament.
PERHAPS the most significant development of the past few days is the fact the EU now clearly wants a deal.
Proof of that is how a veil of secrecy has been drawn over the humiliating moment in the May-Juncker lunch when the Prime Minister realised she could not proceed.
Compare that with the deliberately damaging leaks that followed May’s Downing Street and Brussels dinners with the Commission president earlier this year and you can see how the EU’s approach has changed.
It would be worthwhile knowing or finding out why the EU suddenly changed its attitude and was keen to agree stage one and move to stage two. It might be something that could be exploited in forthcoming negotiations.
Anyone care to speculate?
I already have. They finally accepted that this was for real so now they want to keep as many of their current advantages as possible. A UK that could use state finance to support EU import substitution, for example, would cost them hundreds of thousands of jobs. Their priority will be to tie our hands in a FTA so that they keep their surpluses intact. Our priority has to be to get sufficient room for manoeuvre to address that surplus.
There is no more chance of persuading the British public to buy Austin Allegros than of persuading citizens of a newly-independent Scotland to buy Ford Caledonias or AyePhones. If British manufacturers want to reduce the trade gap, they're going to have to make better stuff.
I think DavidL is referring more to examples such as HP sauce now being made in the Netherlands.
Or the saga as to where Cadbury's chocolate comes from - Lidl's is better IMO and cheaper in any case.
Off topic - the Con Home members survey has the pb.com preferred next Tory leader Jeremy Hunt rising to 4th in the Cabinet approval ratings.
To my mind - this deal reduces the need for a Brexiteer to follow May. Hunt is still North of 30/1 on betfair - that’s value I reckon.
Except the top choice of Tory members in the Conservative Home Tory members next Tory leader poll also this week was Jacob Rees Mogg who is not even in the Cabinet.
PERHAPS the most significant development of the past few days is the fact the EU now clearly wants a deal.
Proof of that is how a veil of secrecy has been drawn over the humiliating moment in the May-Juncker lunch when the Prime Minister realised she could not proceed.
Compare that with the deliberately damaging leaks that followed May’s Downing Street and Brussels dinners with the Commission president earlier this year and you can see how the EU’s approach has changed.
It would be worthwhile knowing or finding out why the EU suddenly changed its attitude and was keen to agree stage one and move to stage two. It might be something that could be exploited in forthcoming negotiations.
Anyone care to speculate?
I already have. They finally accepted that this was for real so now they want to keep as many of their current advantages as possible. A UK that could use state finance to support EU import substitution, for example, would cost them hundreds of thousands of jobs. Their priority will be to tie our hands in a FTA so that they keep their surpluses intact. Our priority has to be to get sufficient room for manoeuvre to address that surplus.
There is no more chance of persuading the British public to buy Austin Allegros than of persuading citizens of a newly-independent Scotland to buy Ford Caledonias or AyePhones. If British manufacturers want to reduce the trade gap, they're going to have to make better stuff.
Yep - the trade gap is largely in our hands. As you say, the solution is to build and offer higher quality products. But that involves making financial commitments that most British companies snd investors - so fixated on short-term returns - are reluctant to make. Of course, we are prepared to do this in areas like professional services and we reap the rewards.
Off topic - the Con Home members survey has the pb.com preferred next Tory leader Jeremy Hunt rising to 4th in the Cabinet approval ratings.
To my mind - this deal reduces the need for a Brexiteer to follow May. Hunt is still North of 30/1 on betfair - that’s value I reckon.
Except the top choice of Tory members in the Conservative Home Tory members next Tory leader poll also this week was Jacob Rees Mogg who is not even in the Cabinet.
Fortunately there appears to be little correlation between Conservative Home polls and reality.
Not true. A Conservative Home poll not only predicted Cameron would win the 2005 Tory leadership election but got his margin of victory almost exactly right too
LOL. *Twelve years* ago? Is that the best you can do? And at what stage did that miraculous accuracy occur - when there were a handful of candidates or earlier?
I'm bemused that anyone can take such voodoo polls seriously.
The members have not been consulted in a Tory leadership poll since then as Leadsom endorsed May before it went to the membership. Conservative Home can only predict elections if there are some and the last time it did it got it spot on.
They are not 'voodoo' polls e.g. an Observer poll in July of Tory members (pre the real rise of JRM when Conservative Home had Boris or Davis first) had Davis first on 21%, Boris second on 18% and JRM third on 6% just ahead of Hammond on 5% and Rudd on 4%
PERHAPS the most significant development of the past few days is the fact the EU now clearly wants a deal.
Proof of that is how a veil of secrecy has been drawn over the humiliating moment in the May-Juncker lunch when the Prime Minister realised she could not proceed.
Compare that with the deliberately damaging leaks that followed May’s Downing Street and Brussels dinners with the Commission president earlier this year and you can see how the EU’s approach has changed.
It would be worthwhile knowing or finding out why the EU suddenly changed its attitude and was keen to agree stage one and move to stage two. It might be something that could be exploited in forthcoming negotiations.
Anyone care to speculate?
I already have. They finally accepted that this was for real so now they want to keep as many of their current advantages as possible. A UK that could use state finance to support EU import substitution, for example, would cost them hundreds of thousands of jobs. Their priority will be to tie our hands in a FTA so that they keep their surpluses intact. Our priority has to be to get sufficient room for manoeuvre to address that surplus.
There is no more chance of persuading the British public to buy Austin Allegros than of persuading citizens of a newly-independent Scotland to buy Ford Caledonias or AyePhones. If British manufacturers want to reduce the trade gap, they're going to have to make better stuff.
We cannot afford to continue with a £60bn deficit. Sooner or later we will run out of things to sell and other peoples' money.
PERHAPS the most significant development of the past few days is the fact the EU now clearly wants a deal.
Proof of that is how a veil of secrecy has been drawn over the humiliating moment in the May-Juncker lunch when the Prime Minister realised she could not proceed.
Compare that with the deliberately damaging leaks that followed May’s Downing Street and Brussels dinners with the Commission president earlier this year and you can see how the EU’s approach has changed.
It would be worthwhile knowing or finding out why the EU suddenly changed its attitude and was keen to agree stage one and move to stage two. It might be something that could be exploited in forthcoming negotiations.
Anyone care to speculate?
I already have. They finally accepted that this was for real so now they want to keep as many of their current advantages as possible. A UK that could use state finance to support EU import substitution, for example, would cost them hundreds of thousands of jobs. Their priority will be to tie our hands in a FTA so that they keep their surpluses intact. Our priority has to be to get sufficient room for manoeuvre to address that surplus.
There is no more chance of persuading the British public to buy Austin Allegros than of persuading citizens of a newly-independent Scotland to buy Ford Caledonias or AyePhones. If British manufacturers want to reduce the trade gap, they're going to have to make better stuff.
I think DavidL is referring more to examples such as HP sauce now being made in the Netherlands.
Or the saga as to where Cadbury's chocolate comes from - Lidl's is better IMO and cheaper in any case.
There is quite a lot of low hanging fruit that even the smallest amount of sand in the post Brexit arrangements is likely to change the balance for. But we have a long, long way to go.
Off topic - the Con Home members survey has the pb.com preferred next Tory leader Jeremy Hunt rising to 4th in the Cabinet approval ratings.
To my mind - this deal reduces the need for a Brexiteer to follow May. Hunt is still North of 30/1 on betfair - that’s value I reckon.
Except the top choice of Tory members in the Conservative Home Tory members next Tory leader poll also this week was Jacob Rees Mogg who is not even in the Cabinet.
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.
Have you seen the Green Party 2017 manifesto?
Key policies ■Phase in a four-day working week ■A referendum on the final deal for Brexit ■Protect freedom of movement ■Press to remain in single market ■Scrap university tuition fees ■Reform taxation to include a wealth tax on the top 1% of earners ■Replace fracking, coal power stations, subsidies to fossil fuels and nuclear with renewable energy ■Roll back 'privatisation' of the NHS ■Renationalise energy, water, railways, buses, the Royal Mail and care work ■Lower the voting age to 16 ■Cancel Trident replacement, saving £110bn over 30 years ■Introduce proportional representation (PR) for parliamentary and local elections.
Out of curiosity why do they want to tax the wealth of the top *earners*?
For the really wealthy it's quite easy to manage income so they are not in the to 1% - so the policy would just prevent anyone else building up a substantial pool of capital to challenge the incumbents
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.
Have you seen the Green Party 2017 manifesto?
Key policies ■Phase in a four-day working week ■A referendum on the final deal for Brexit ■Protect freedom of movement ■Press to remain in single market ■Scrap university tuition fees ■Reform taxation to include a wealth tax on the top 1% of earners ■Replace fracking, coal power stations, subsidies to fossil fuels and nuclear with renewable energy ■Roll back 'privatisation' of the NHS ■Renationalise energy, water, railways, buses, the Royal Mail and care work ■Lower the voting age to 16 ■Cancel Trident replacement, saving £110bn over 30 years ■Introduce proportional representation (PR) for parliamentary and local elections.
Out of curiosity why do they want to tax the wealth of the top *earners*?
For the really wealthy it's quite easy to manage income so they are not in the to 1% - so the policy would just prevent anyone else building up a substantial pool of capital to challenge the incumbents
You're not seriously expecting this to be rational, are you?
PERHAPS the most significant development of the past few days is the fact the EU now clearly wants a deal.
Proof of that is how a veil of secrecy has been drawn over the humiliating moment in the May-Juncker lunch when the Prime Minister realised she could not proceed.
Compare that with the deliberately damaging leaks that followed May’s Downing Street and Brussels dinners with the Commission president earlier this year and you can see how the EU’s approach has changed.
It would be worthwhile knowing or finding out why the EU suddenly changed its attitude and was keen to agree stage one and move to stage two. It might be something that could be exploited in forthcoming negotiations.
Anyone care to speculate?
I already have. They finally accepted that this was for real so now they want to keep as many of their current advantages as possible. A UK that could use state finance to support EU import substitution, for example, would cost them hundreds of thousands of jobs. Their priority will be to tie our hands in a FTA so that they keep their surpluses intact. Our priority has to be to get sufficient room for manoeuvre to address that surplus.
There is no more chance of persuading the British public to buy Austin Allegros than of persuading citizens of a newly-independent Scotland to buy Ford Caledonias or AyePhones. If British manufacturers want to reduce the trade gap, they're going to have to make better stuff.
We cannot afford to continue with a £60bn deficit. Sooner or later we will run out of things to sell and other peoples' money.
Focussing on making better products therefore seems indicated. Making it harder to trade or encouraging people to buy inferior goods does not.
Why then are the Brexiters not up in arms? It is partly because the agreement plays on their lack of realism... ... Why is it important that this deceit continues? Because if everyone was honest, and respected the reality of the border issue, people would rightly ask whether our final destination (obeying the rules but with no say on the rules) is worth having. They would note that being to all intents and purposes part of the Customs Union means Mr. Fox cannot make new trade agreements. People might start asking MPs why are we doing this, and the line that we have to do this because the people voted for it would sound increasingly dumb.
PERHAPS the most significant development of the past few days is the fact the EU now clearly wants a deal.
Proof of that is how a veil of secrecy has been drawn over the humiliating moment in the May-Juncker lunch when the Prime Minister realised she could not proceed.
Compare that with the deliberately damaging leaks that followed May’s Downing Street and Brussels dinners with the Commission president earlier this year and you can see how the EU’s approach has changed.
It would be worthwhile knowing or finding out why the EU suddenly changed its attitude and was keen to agree stage one and move to stage two. It might be something that could be exploited in forthcoming negotiations.
Anyone care to speculate?
I already have. They finally accepted that this was for real so now they want to keep as many of their current advantages as possible. A UK that could use state finance to support EU import substitution, for example, would cost them hundreds of thousands of jobs. Their priority will be to tie our hands in a FTA so that they keep their surpluses intact. Our priority has to be to get sufficient room for manoeuvre to address that surplus.
There is no more chance of persuading the British public to buy Austin Allegros than of persuading citizens of a newly-independent Scotland to buy Ford Caledonias or AyePhones. If British manufacturers want to reduce the trade gap, they're going to have to make better stuff.
We cannot afford to continue with a £60bn deficit. Sooner or later we will run out of things to sell and other peoples' money.
Focussing on making better products therefore seems indicated. Making it harder to trade or encouraging people to buy inferior goods does not.
I fear you are being a tad simplistic for once. We will need both to encourage production here equivalent in value to what we want to consume.
PERHAPS the most significant development of the past few days is the fact the EU now clearly wants a deal.
Proof of that is how a veil of secrecy has been drawn over the humiliating moment in the May-Juncker lunch when the Prime Minister realised she could not proceed.
Compare that with the deliberately damaging leaks that followed May’s Downing Street and Brussels dinners with the Commission president earlier this year and you can see how the EU’s approach has changed.
It would be worthwhile knowing or finding out why the EU suddenly changed its attitude and was keen to agree stage one and move to stage two. It might be something that could be exploited in forthcoming negotiations.
Anyone care to speculate?
I already have. They finally accepted that this was for real so now they want to keep as many of their current advantages as possible. A UK that could use state finance to support EU import substitution, for example, would cost them hundreds of thousands of jobs. Their priority will be to tie our hands in a FTA so that they keep their surpluses intact. Our priority has to be to get sufficient room for manoeuvre to address that surplus.
There is no more chance of persuading the British public to buy Austin Allegros than of persuading citizens of a newly-independent Scotland to buy Ford Caledonias or AyePhones. If British manufacturers want to reduce the trade gap, they're going to have to make better stuff.
We cannot afford to continue with a £60bn deficit. Sooner or later we will run out of things to sell and other peoples' money.
Focussing on making better products therefore seems indicated. Making it harder to trade or encouraging people to buy inferior goods does not.
I fear you are being a tad simplistic for once. We will need both to encourage production here equivalent in value to what we want to consume.
Putting union flags on crap products is a waste of money. Autarky is a dead end.
How much do Tory Eurosceptics really care about the Single Market/Customs Union. Aren't they more concerned about the perceived inexorable direction of travel towards the European Superstate? And as long as they are out of that, ultimately they are happy.
PERHAPS the most significant development of the past few days is the fact the EU now clearly wants a deal.
Proof of that is how a veil of secrecy has been drawn over the humiliating moment in the May-Juncker lunch when the Prime Minister realised she could not proceed.
Compare that with the deliberately damaging leaks that followed May’s Downing Street and Brussels dinners with the Commission president earlier this year and you can see how the EU’s approach has changed.
It would be worthwhile knowing or finding out why the EU suddenly changed its attitude and was keen to agree stage one and move to stage two. It might be something that could be exploited in forthcoming negotiations.
Anyone care to speculate?
I already have. They finally accepted that this was for real so now they want to keep as many of their current advantages as possible. A UK that could use state finance to support EU import substitution, for example, would cost them hundreds of thousands of jobs. Their priority will be to tie our hands in a FTA so that they keep their surpluses intact. Our priority has to be to get sufficient room for manoeuvre to address that surplus.
There is no more chance of persuading the British public to buy Austin Allegros than of persuading citizens of a newly-independent Scotland to buy Ford Caledonias or AyePhones. If British manufacturers want to reduce the trade gap, they're going to have to make better stuff.
We cannot afford to continue with a £60bn deficit. Sooner or later we will run out of things to sell and other peoples' money.
Focussing on making better products therefore seems indicated. Making it harder to trade or encouraging people to buy inferior goods does not.
I fear you are being a tad simplistic for once. We will need both to encourage production here equivalent in value to what we want to consume.
Putting union flags on crap products is a waste of money. Autarky is a dead end.
True.. although we can certainly get away with a nice high profile "Buy British" campaign once outside the EU.
PERHAPS the most significant development of the past few days is the fact the EU now clearly wants a deal.
Proof of that is how a veil of secrecy has been drawn over the humiliating moment in the May-Juncker lunch when the Prime Minister realised she could not proceed.
Compare that with the deliberately damaging leaks that followed May’s Downing Street and Brussels dinners with the Commission president earlier this year and you can see how the EU’s approach has changed.
It would be worthwhile knowing or finding out why the EU suddenly changed its attitude and was keen to agree stage one and move to stage two. It might be something that could be exploited in forthcoming negotiations.
Anyone care to speculate?
I already have. They finally accepted that this was for real so now they want to keep as many of their current advantages as possible. A UK that could use state finance to support EU import substitution, for example, would cost them hundreds of thousands of jobs. Their priority will be to tie our hands in a FTA so that they keep their surpluses intact. Our priority has to be to get sufficient room for manoeuvre to address that surplus.
There is no more chance of persuading the British public to buy Austin Allegros than of persuading citizens of a newly-independent Scotland to buy Ford Caledonias or AyePhones. If British manufacturers want to reduce the trade gap, they're going to have to make better stuff.
We cannot afford to continue with a £60bn deficit. Sooner or later we will run out of things to sell and other peoples' money.
Focussing on making better products therefore seems indicated. Making it harder to trade or encouraging people to buy inferior goods does not.
I fear you are being a tad simplistic for once. We will need both to encourage production here equivalent in value to what we want to consume.
Putting union flags on crap products is a waste of money. Autarky is a dead end.
What is the quality difference of HP sauce made in Birmingham and HP sauce made in the Netherlands ?
Does anyone know whether the agreement would allow the UK to sign free trade agreements with other countries and set our own regulations? I'm guessing it doesn't, but I'm hopeful.
The BoE need to start aggressively raising interest rates. That'll soon bring the £ bill to the EU down
Soon put thousands of houses onto the market as all those buy to let mortgages become too expensive to be covered by the rent, and as more properties become available, there will less need of rented property. Sanity will soon return to the property market, the home owning dream will become real, while all those landlords who believed they were saving for their old age, will be out on the streets, yep, that one will fly, I think not!
PS: An assessment of the 2008 crash that I read, was that it wasn't the poor that had been conned into buying property in the US that defaulted. It was the middle class who had built up large property portfolios who couldn't afford to pay the mortgages and bank loans.
Does anyone know whether the agreement would allow the UK to sign free trade agreements with other countries and set our own regulations? I'm guessing it doesn't, but I'm hopeful.
Short answer: probably, at a cost to be determined. Constrained by the commitment to maintain regulatory conformity between Eire/EU and NI and between NI and GB for a number of areas which someone (not yet clear who) will define.
How much do Tory Eurosceptics really care about the Single Market/Customs Union. Aren't they more concerned about the perceived inexorable direction of travel towards the European Superstate? And as long as they are out of that, ultimately they are happy.
Good afternoon all.
Common Market good, political union bad. Sadly, Single Market membership isn't up to us; Mrs May has said that FoM has to end, hence, Single Market membership is not an option. Of course, FoM is a moveable feast; we might have done something radical like reforming our health and welfare systems, but that ship has probably sailed.
Does anyone know whether the agreement would allow the UK to sign free trade agreements with other countries and set our own regulations? I'm guessing it doesn't, but I'm hopeful.
Short answer: probably, at a cost to be determined. Constrained by the commitment to maintain regulatory conformity between Eire/EU and NI and between NI and GB for a number of areas which someone (not yet clear who) will define.
Great thanks for the summary. In that case it doesn't sound like that bad a deal for us in the long run depending on the details.
Is there a market up yet for which EU leader will be the first to suggest that they aren't entirely happy with the agreement that Juncker has shaken hands on and they might just be inclined to veto it unless their palms are greased with a better share of the 40-50 billion....?
I did vote LD back in June, but they seem to only really stand for 'avoid Brexit', plus I'm not keen on Cable. I have seen the Green Manifesto - I'm not all enthused by nationalisation generally, but I'm not happy with the status-quo (especially regarding energy), and nationalisation does not put me off voting for a party. If anything, it's their position on Trident that I don't agree with. Votes for sixteen-year-olds I feel pretty neutral about - not the end of the world if it doesn't happen, but I can't say I'm all that opposed to it happening either. I'm also supportive of PR, so that wouldn't put me off.
England will never rejoin the EU. Once out regulatory divergence can occur first in microns, then in inches, before later in chains, furlongs and leagues. Tories are well-practised at salami-slicing their way to a destination and this, now, is the point in time when the EU will have maximum leverage over the UK.
England will never rejoin the EU. Once out regulatory divergence can occur first in microns, then in inches, before later in chains, furlongs and leagues. Tories are well-practised at salami-slicing their way to a destination and this, now, is the point in time when the EU will have maximum leverage over the UK.
As you said previously about May's commitment to avoid border infrastructure:
I thought this was a bit of a bold statement. Certainly neither side want physical border controls, but if the UK leaves the Customs Union it is hard to see how they are avoidable.
This is the sort of impossible to square contradiction that could see a finite implementation period indefinitely renewed, if you take the speech at face value.
England will never rejoin the EU. Once out regulatory divergence can occur first in microns, then in inches, before later in chains, furlongs and leagues. Tories are well-practised at salami-slicing their way to a destination and this, now, is the point in time when the EU will have maximum leverage over the UK.
England will never rejoin the EU. Once out regulatory divergence can occur first in microns, then in inches, before later in chains, furlongs and leagues. Tories are well-practised at salami-slicing their way to a destination and this, now, is the point in time when the EU will have maximum leverage over the UK.
I think that's probably correct. If we continue the divorce analogy, there's often a stage when people talk about 'getting back together' or 'remaining really good friends'. The reality is usually different. We will head our separate ways.
I suppose the other factor is that the EU itself may change considerable. It too is under considerable pressure.
England will never rejoin the EU. Once out regulatory divergence can occur first in microns, then in inches, before later in chains, furlongs and leagues. Tories are well-practised at salami-slicing their way to a destination and this, now, is the point in time when the EU will have maximum leverage over the UK.
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.
Have you seen the Green Party 2017 manifesto?
Key policies ■Phase in a four-day working week ■A referendum on the final deal for Brexit ■Protect freedom of movement ■Press to remain in single market ■Scrap university tuition fees ■Reform taxation to include a wealth tax on the top 1% of earners ■Replace fracking, coal power stations, subsidies to fossil fuels and nuclear with renewable energy ■Roll back 'privatisation' of the NHS ■Renationalise energy, water, railways, buses, the Royal Mail and care work ■Lower the voting age to 16 ■Cancel Trident replacement, saving £110bn over 30 years ■Introduce proportional representation (PR) for parliamentary and local elections.
England will never rejoin the EU. Once out regulatory divergence can occur first in microns, then in inches, before later in chains, furlongs and leagues. Tories are well-practised at salami-slicing their way to a destination and this, now, is the point in time when the EU will have maximum leverage over the UK.
I think that's probably correct. If we continue the divorce analogy, there's often a stage when people talk about 'getting back together' or 'remaining really good friends'. The reality is usually different. We will head our separate ways.
I suppose the other factor is that the EU itself may change considerable. It too is under considerable pressure.
Hello and welcome Handymandy80!
The divorce analogy is interesting, but it's a bit more complicated - I think SeanT said something last night to the effect that it took us 40 years to become as intertwined as we are with the EU and it may well take us another 40 years to disentangle ourselves - so I like to look on it as more of a "conscious uncoupling" than a divorce!
As a Eurosceptic I am overall very happy with the direction of things - it appears as if a hard cliff edge brexit has been avoided and we are heading towards a slow drift apart that will enable Britain to do what's best for Britain while the EU does what is best for it. We will be able to disentangle ourselves over time, on a case by case basis. This is a good and sensible thing. Only the ultras on both sides will be disappointed.
The real "divorce" that should have happened was divorcing economc integration from political union. Sadly, that was never on the EU's mind.
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.
Have you seen the Green Party 2017 manifesto?
Key policies ■Phase in a four-day working week ■A referendum on the final deal for Brexit ■Protect freedom of movement ■Press to remain in single market ■Scrap university tuition fees ■Reform taxation to include a wealth tax on the top 1% of earners ■Replace fracking, coal power stations, subsidies to fossil fuels and nuclear with renewable energy ■Roll back 'privatisation' of the NHS ■Renationalise energy, water, railways, buses, the Royal Mail and care work ■Lower the voting age to 16 ■Cancel Trident replacement, saving £110bn over 30 years ■Introduce proportional representation (PR) for parliamentary and local elections.
Looks good to me
+1
I wonder which of those he thought should be frightening?
Some of my Brexit friends are in despair, just as Farage is. Tory politicians are in a special situation though, having to hold the party ship together being rather more important in the short term. Because of their situation they are forced to take the Irish Question very seriously, and May will have told them that they can have a harder Brexit if they can solve it. That will effectively keep the tails between the legs of most of them. Also, as politicians they are aware that politics is a long game, and often the most important thing is the direction of travel. Clearly the current deal is crap, but we are firmly set on a (slow) course away from EU-ness, and they can now spend their days finding ways to chip away at our ties.
Does anyone know whether the agreement would allow the UK to sign free trade agreements with other countries and set our own regulations? I'm guessing it doesn't, but I'm hopeful.
Short answer: probably, at a cost to be determined. Constrained by the commitment to maintain regulatory conformity between Eire/EU and NI and between NI and GB for a number of areas which someone (not yet clear who) will define.
Great thanks for the summary. In that case it doesn't sound like that bad a deal for us in the long run depending on the details.
I think the truth is that we just don't know yet. We've got round the first corner, and I personally think a deal will emerge, but what that will be we shan't know until next autumn. But the extremes of "leave without a deal" and "cancel Brexit" have probably become less likely.
Another answer to this thread's question is that perhaps some leavers really did believe the idea that remainers would be able to steal away Brexit (e.g. through a second referendum) if negotiations were seen to be going badly enough.
Some of my Brexit friends are in despair, just as Farage is. Tory politicians are in a special situation though, having to hold the party ship together being rather more important in the short term. Because of their situation they are forced to take the Irish Question very seriously, and May will have told them that they can have a harder Brexit if they can solve it. That will effectively keep the tails between the legs of most of them. Also, as politicians they are aware that politics is a long game, and often the most important thing is the direction of travel. Clearly the current deal is crap, but we are firmly set on a (slow) course away from EU-ness, and they can now spend their days finding ways to chip away at our ties.
As I said this morning, they get Brexit, and they get to keep at their hobby. The should be delighted at this cake and eat it outcome.
Off topic - the Con Home members survey has the pb.com preferred next Tory leader Jeremy Hunt rising to 4th in the Cabinet approval ratings.
To my mind - this deal reduces the need for a Brexiteer to follow May. Hunt is still North of 30/1 on betfair - that’s value I reckon.
Except the top choice of Tory members in the Conservative Home Tory members next Tory leader poll also this week was Jacob Rees Mogg who is not even in the Cabinet.
Fortunately there appears to be little correlation between Conservative Home polls and reality.
Not true. A Conservative Home poll not only predicted Cameron would win the 2005 Tory leadership election but got his margin of victory almost exactly right too
LOL. *Twelve years* ago? Is that the best you can do? And at what stage did that miraculous accuracy occur - when there were a handful of candidates or earlier?
I'm bemused that anyone can take such voodoo polls seriously.
The members have not been consulted in a Tory leadership poll since then as Leadsom endorsed May before it went to the membership. Conservative Home can only predict elections if there are some and the last time it did it got it spot on.
They are not 'voodoo' polls e.g. an Observer poll in July of Tory members (pre the real rise of JRM when Conservative Home had Boris or Davis first) had Davis first on 21%, Boris second on 18% and JRM third on 6% just ahead of Hammond on 5% and Rudd on 4%
England will never rejoin the EU. Once out regulatory divergence can occur first in microns, then in inches, before later in chains, furlongs and leagues. Tories are well-practised at salami-slicing their way to a destination and this, now, is the point in time when the EU will have maximum leverage over the UK.
As you said previously about May's commitment to avoid border infrastructure:
I thought this was a bit of a bold statement. Certainly neither side want physical border controls, but if the UK leaves the Customs Union it is hard to see how they are avoidable.
This is the sort of impossible to square contradiction that could see a finite implementation period indefinitely renewed, if you take the speech at face value.
Indeed. We're not leaving.
Quite a lot of Brexiters saying the same today. The Brexit Paradox is born. I find it hard to believe though, that come Brexit Day 2019, all the Leavers won't be out on the streets celebrating.
Oblitus is also right, and that opinion is clearly shared by a lot of Eurosceptic Tory MPs: any kind of Brexit is Brexit. And all they have to do is solve the Irish Question in the meantime and hey presto! Hard Brexit.
The rather large spanner in the works is Labour. If, as seems likely, they win the next election (although this does rather depend on whether the Brexit deal satisfies no-one or everyone, and other factors will probably determine the national mood) increasing divergence might not be an inevitable reality.
Comments
My constituency is a Conservative seat right now, it’s semi-marginal IIRC (its been Conservative since 2010, before it was held by Labour). I have issues with both Labour and the Tories, and I want to vote for a left of centre party. I’m concerned about the universal credit, the impact of austerity and I am looking to a party which promotes socially liberal values. Those are the main things influencing my decision right now.
He can still be a pain in the arse sometimes of course.
Edit, in fact this was still going on in the 1980s (the Germans take their beer very seriously) and they were still losing: https://webstroke.co.uk/law/cases/case-17884-commission-v-germany-beer-purity-1987
'Aye, we had to take their boy Sean's knees out. He won't be peddling any more Brevilles.'
PERHAPS the most significant development of the past few days is the fact the EU now clearly wants a deal.
Proof of that is how a veil of secrecy has been drawn over the humiliating moment in the May-Juncker lunch when the Prime Minister realised she could not proceed.
Compare that with the deliberately damaging leaks that followed May’s Downing Street and Brussels dinners with the Commission president earlier this year and you can see how the EU’s approach has changed.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5099281/now-in-her-strongest-position-since-the-election-theresa-may-must-find-the-best-xmas-deal-for-britain/
1. US regs are seriously worse than Dutch regs with respect to animal welfare - indeed, there are almost no US farm welfare regs at national level. Some US companies are pretty good and getting better - it's the American way to have companies rather than government lead. (Chrlorination isn't the problem, it's the conditions that chlorination are trying to allow for.) But if we open up to US imports they will include plenty of cheap, nastily-produced stuff which will undercut our farmers.
2. It's a problem for the EU because if they then allow us to export chickens, a re-export market will open up funnelling cheap US chickens via Britain into the hitherto blocked market. In theory this could be addressed by elaborate checks and labelling. In practice they'll probably just ban chicken imports from us too.
3. It's therefore a double problem for us too. British farmers will then be undercut at home simultaneously with being unable to export to our neighbours. The British chicken industry will simply disappear.
Anyway, I must be off.
German beer purity rules actually had quite a big impact on the development of EU law. The Brassier de pecheur case was where the ECJ decided that a company who had lost out as a result was entitled to compensation from the defaulting State (Germany) giving EU law a serious set of teeth for the first time.
Bonkers. Cuckoo.
Anyone care to speculate?
But taking your points with my limited knowledge:
1. Clearly that is a risk and we don't want a race to the bottom.
2.It should not be a problem because the re-export of such chickens would be illegal; selling them would be illegal and they would be prone to being seized. Not a viable business model.
3. Perhaps. If even MacDonalds can make a virtue of quality I don't see why British chicken producers can't also. I suspect the crap would, as usual, end up in the ready meal/pre-processed products.
Just as an aside the thought of kettle smuggling to the Republic across County Fermanagh dodging Euro kettle inspectors would be a fantastic 21st century mix of Ealing comedy/ Will Hay/ Whisky Galore/and Yes Minister (“ defence of the British cuppa”). Peter Kay to star?
Bear in mind that for all the criticism that the UK Govt was keeping open the prospect of no deal as leverage, the EU was doing it as well.
I haven’t yet read a good summary of what this all means.
Links welcome.
Have you seen the Green Party 2017 manifesto?
Key policies
■Phase in a four-day working week
■A referendum on the final deal for Brexit
■Protect freedom of movement
■Press to remain in single market
■Scrap university tuition fees
■Reform taxation to include a wealth tax on the top 1% of earners
■Replace fracking, coal power stations, subsidies to fossil fuels and nuclear with renewable energy
■Roll back 'privatisation' of the NHS
■Renationalise energy, water, railways, buses, the Royal Mail and care work
■Lower the voting age to 16
■Cancel Trident replacement, saving £110bn over 30 years
■Introduce proportional representation (PR) for parliamentary and local elections.
As you say, it's just an example, but it shows the problem of regulatory divergence. The moment you diverge at all, you create a need for labelling, inspection forms, penalties, border posts, etc. You can solve the problem by declaring a whole sector (e.g. agriculture) non-divergent and sticking to whatever rules the EU introduces. But if you do that for most sectors,you essentially have the Norway model - which may well be the best available now, but perhaps not what most people expected.
RAIB have released their final report into the Sandliands tram crash last year that killed seven people. It's a brilliant example of looking a every possible angle of an incident, even one where the immediate cause is simple.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/665906/R182017_171207_Sandilands.pdf
To my mind - this deal reduces the need for a Brexiteer to follow May.
Hunt is still North of 30/1 on betfair - that’s value I reckon.
Incidentally, keeping in mind the general flavour of your posts, I think you probably see these things as all undesirable? One of PB's charms is that we have such a broad spectrum, isn't it?
Not one Remainer even made the top 5, Hunt was 8th.
Gove and Davis were both ahead if Hunt in both the Cabinet approval rating poll and next Tory leader poll, Mordaunt was ahead of Hunt too in the approval rating poll but not an option in the next Tory leader poll.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/12/next-tory-leader-our-survey-rees-mogg-leads-gove-is-second-and-none-of-the-above-still-beats-the-lot.html
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/12/mordaunt-takes-an-immediate-bronze-in-our-cabinet-league-table.html
In any case - JRM makes the final 2? Doubt it.
Hunt has improved his credentials with his endorsement of leave - I think 30/1 is far too generous.
Sigh.
I'm bemused that anyone can take such voodoo polls seriously.
Crazy to me that JRM is seen as similarly likely now.
Plus most of the final polls in June suggested a slim Tory majority rather than the landslide May originally hoped for and Survation and Yougov had even predicted a hung parliament.
Or the saga as to where Cadbury's chocolate comes from - Lidl's is better IMO and cheaper in any case.
I even did a piece on it.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/12/03/your-regular-reminder-that-laying-the-favourite-in-the-next-tory-leader-market-is-usually-very-profitable/
They are not 'voodoo' polls e.g. an Observer poll in July of Tory members (pre the real rise of JRM when Conservative Home had Boris or Davis first) had Davis first on 21%, Boris second on 18% and JRM third on 6% just ahead of Hammond on 5% and Rudd on 4%
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/22/davis-johnson-rudd-none-of-the-above-tory-tribe-seeks-dream-candidate
Disliked more than May though.
https://twitter.com/UKunityorg/status/939246911244132357
Possibly the only time in history those names will be mentioned as bedfellows.
For the really wealthy it's quite easy to manage income so they are not in the to 1% - so the policy would just prevent anyone else building up a substantial pool of capital to challenge the incumbents
Why then are the Brexiters not up in arms? It is partly because the agreement plays on their lack of realism...
...
Why is it important that this deceit continues? Because if everyone was honest, and respected the reality of the border issue, people would rightly ask whether our final destination (obeying the rules but with no say on the rules) is worth having. They would note that being to all intents and purposes part of the Customs Union means Mr. Fox cannot make new trade agreements. People might start asking MPs why are we doing this, and the line that we have to do this because the people voted for it would sound increasingly dumb.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/dec/07/bitcoin-64m-cryptocurrency-stolen-hack-attack-marketplace-nicehash-passwords
Does anyone know whether the agreement would allow the UK to sign free trade agreements with other countries and set our own regulations? I'm guessing it doesn't, but I'm hopeful.
■Phase in a four-day working week
20% pay cuts all round!
■A referendum on the final deal for Brexit
A neverendum - best of three? Why not five?
■Protect freedom of movement
Screw you, poor people!
■Press to remain in single market
And we'll make sure you keep voting until you vote the right way.
■Scrap university tuition fees
Massively raise taxes for everyone or reduce number of people going to uni to historic levels, sod social mobility
■Reform taxation to include a wealth tax on the top 1% of earners
See you in Singapore guys! Also wealth <> income
■Replace fracking, coal power stations, subsidies to fossil fuels and nuclear with renewable energy
Ah, now I see why they need us to go back to the four day working week. Rolling blackouts all round!
■Roll back 'privatisation' of the NHS
Pretty certain it was state funded last time I checked. Perhaps all Green party members are confused because they have private healthcare...
■Renationalise energy, water, railways, buses, the Royal Mail and care work
Seize the means of production, comrades! Capital flight? What's that? Some kind of new London based airline?
■Lower the voting age to 16
Followed by a consultation on extending the franchise to thirteen year olds, dolphins, and very smart cats.
■Cancel Trident replacement, saving £110bn over 30 years
Leaving us defenceless against the French.
■Introduce proportional representation (PR) for parliamentary and local elections.
A system that would have given us a UKIP/Con coalition had it been in force in 2015...
Sensible policies for a sensible Britain!
PS: An assessment of the 2008 crash that I read, was that it wasn't the poor that had been conned into buying property in the US that defaulted. It was the middle class who had built up large property portfolios who couldn't afford to pay the mortgages and bank loans.
https://twitter.com/UKunityorg/status/939246911244132357?s=17
Common Market good, political union bad. Sadly, Single Market membership isn't up to us; Mrs May has said that FoM has to end, hence, Single Market membership is not an option. Of course, FoM is a moveable feast; we might have done something radical like reforming our health and welfare systems, but that ship has probably sailed.
Sorry for the late reply.
I did vote LD back in June, but they seem to only really stand for 'avoid Brexit', plus I'm not keen on Cable. I have seen the Green Manifesto - I'm not all enthused by nationalisation generally, but I'm not happy with the status-quo (especially regarding energy), and nationalisation does not put me off voting for a party. If anything, it's their position on Trident that I don't agree with. Votes for sixteen-year-olds I feel pretty neutral about - not the end of the world if it doesn't happen, but I can't say I'm all that opposed to it happening either. I'm also supportive of PR, so that wouldn't put me off.
I suppose the other factor is that the EU itself may change considerable. It too is under considerable pressure.
The divorce analogy is interesting, but it's a bit more complicated - I think SeanT said something last night to the effect that it took us 40 years to become as intertwined as we are with the EU and it may well take us another 40 years to disentangle ourselves - so I like to look on it as more of a "conscious uncoupling" than a divorce!
As a Eurosceptic I am overall very happy with the direction of things - it appears as if a hard cliff edge brexit has been avoided and we are heading towards a slow drift apart that will enable Britain to do what's best for Britain while the EU does what is best for it. We will be able to disentangle ourselves over time, on a case by case basis. This is a good and sensible thing. Only the ultras on both sides will be disappointed.
The real "divorce" that should have happened was divorcing economc integration from political union. Sadly, that was never on the EU's mind.
I wonder which of those he thought should be frightening?
The problem the Tories face is having more potential nutter candidates than they may be able to screen out.
Oblitus is also right, and that opinion is clearly shared by a lot of Eurosceptic Tory MPs: any kind of Brexit is Brexit. And all they have to do is solve the Irish Question in the meantime and hey presto! Hard Brexit.
The rather large spanner in the works is Labour. If, as seems likely, they win the next election (although this does rather depend on whether the Brexit deal satisfies no-one or everyone, and other factors will probably determine the national mood) increasing divergence might not be an inevitable reality.