Not a lot of sympathy for the Brexit fans this afternoon. Yes those terms of negotiation will leave us economically alive but with our influence stripped away till end 2020, but this is all happening because they pushed so hard for Brexit and haven't come up with any other deliverable approach since.
You won, suck it up etc. The Bill Cashes of this world own this however much they fume against it. My sneaking respect for Boris Johnson for staying in Government and trying to make the impossible work somehow is still there.
You really think Boris Johnson is trying to make the impossible work? To be fair to Theresa May, and I think the public may be fairer to her than many here, she is at least trying to make the impossible not blow up.
Boris is still trying to make Boris Prime Minister.
The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
Not really, they've always said we were.
As @Tissue_Price rightly says, it's of no consequence anyway. It's only 20 months for heaven's sake, and the EU is institutionally incapable of doing anything much in such a short time. You have to be a fully-paid-up eye-swiveler to be exercised about the transition period.
The issue isn't the transition period it's suspicion over what we're transiting to.
Either way I expect the terms of it to be qualified prior to its agreement.
What should be of much greater concern (if that's what is important to you) is that as small children in Dieppe could have pointed out, ain't no agreement gonna be happening in the ludicrously short time frame we have given ourselves to negotiate a final settlement with the EU. That means a likely or at least possible extension to the transition period.
And that means....GE2022!!
I'm not worried about it. I'm reporting how I read the situation.
I don't think it will be politically possible to extend the transition any longer. But the permanent deal will, I'm sure, include various staging/phasing steps over the subsequent years.
The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
Huh? We were rule takers in the EU and will be rule takers in the transition. The difference is that the transition will come to an end shortly.
Anyway, I thought Remainers were arguing for Article 50 not to be invoked so soon. At least we can negotiate new trade deals now, which we couldn't if we had followed your side's plan.
And Barnier confirmed new trade deal negotiation can start in the transition period when in fact they really can now. How would the EU stop it
Because how on earth would any third country know what final relationship we had with the EU, which would in turn inform their negotiating position?
We could have Potemkin negotiations. Give the third countries a few million to pay the salaries of their negotiators while they all sit in a room talking about nothing.
On topic, this doesn't fill me with any reassurance whatsoever that Labour have learnt any lessons other than the solution to any problem is to just throw more money at it.
I really don't want to spend the rest of my life going through an endless political cycle where Labour gets elected to spend money like water, crashes the economy, and then the Tories get elected to sort it out, suffering all the unpopularity and brand damage for the tough decisions they take in the meantime, only for Labour to win again once people get fed up with it just as the Tories start to get a grip.
But, it's probably what will happen.
FPTnP leads to this sort of thing
I'm to be convinced a PR system would be any better, they'd just give you a different type of problem.
At the very least, a system where your casting of your vote can be done more freely for the party you want rather than for the only party that can block the party you most dislike (which is what FPTP tends to default to - we just have to see the literature and party adverts) can lead to far better feedback to the political classes. The existing system means that if you want to avoid Corbyn, you have to accept whoever and whatever the Tories put forward. If you've had enough of the Tories, you have to accept whoever and whatever Labour puts forwards.
It's great for whoever is in charge of those two parties, of course - to an extent, but it suffers in the long term much like monopolistic companies in the economy. The feedback mechanism gets damaged at the very least, so the politicians get further and further divorced from what the people think and want.
The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
Huh? We were rule takers in the EU and will be rule takers in the transition. The difference is that the transition will come to an end shortly.
Anyway, I thought Remainers were arguing for Article 50 not to be invoked so soon. At least we can negotiate new trade deals now, which we couldn't if we had followed your side's plan.
And Barnier confirmed new trade deal negotiation can start in the transition period when in fact they really can now. How would the EU stop it
Because how on earth would any third country know what final relationship we had with the EU, which would in turn inform their negotiating position?
The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
Not really, they've always said we were.
As @Tissue_Price rightly says, it's of no consequence anyway. It's only 20 months for heaven's sake, and the EU is institutionally incapable of doing anything much in such a short time. You have to be a fully-paid-up eye-swiveler to be exercised about the transition period.
The issue isn't the transition period it's suspicion over what we're transiting to.
Either way I expect the terms of it to be qualified prior to its agreement.
What should be of much greater concern (if that's what is important to you) is that as small children in Dieppe could have pointed out, ain't no agreement gonna be happening in the ludicrously short time frame we have given ourselves to negotiate a final settlement with the EU. That means a likely or at least possible extension to the transition period.
And that means....GE2022!!
I'm not worried about it. I'm reporting how I read the situation.
I don't think it will be politically possible to extend the transition any longer. But the permanent deal will, I'm sure, include various staging/phasing steps over the subsequent years.
You should be worried about it if Lab even half get their act together.
As for "various staging/phasing steps"...you mean a transition phase?
Abbott would be a left liberal Home Secretary, she would adopt the second part of Blair's 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime', less so the former
The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
Huh? We were rule takers in the EU and will be rule takers in the transition. The difference is that the transition will come to an end shortly.
Anyway, I thought Remainers were arguing for Article 50 not to be invoked so soon. At least we can negotiate new trade deals now, which we couldn't if we had followed your side's plan.
And Barnier confirmed new trade deal negotiation can start in the transition period when in fact they really can now. How would the EU stop it
Because how on earth would any third country know what final relationship we had with the EU, which would in turn inform their negotiating position?
Bill Cash is pretty much saying that ultra-Hard Brexit is now a fait accompli.
Given that we’re leaving the EU and therefore the customs union, the single market and the provisions relating to freedom of movement, is the government going to reject this new EU ultimatum - including that the EU court of justice will continue to apply to the UK?
I might disagree with them, but I must concede that the Leave ultras have played a blinder. They've been brilliantly organized throughout, and have ruthlessly bounced Theresa into a hardest of Brexits that once seemed fanciful.
The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
Not really, they've always said we were.
As @Tissue_Price rightly says, it's of no consequence anyway. It's only 20 months for heaven's sake, and the EU is institutionally incapable of doing anything much in such a short time. You have to be a fully-paid-up eye-swiveler to be exercised about the transition period.
The issue isn't the transition period it's suspicion over what we're transiting to.
Either way I expect the terms of it to be qualified prior to its agreement.
What should be of much greater concern (if that's what is important to you) is that as small children in Dieppe could have pointed out, ain't no agreement gonna be happening in the ludicrously short time frame we have given ourselves to negotiate a final settlement with the EU. That means a likely or at least possible extension to the transition period.
And that means....GE2022!!
I'm not worried about it. I'm reporting how I read the situation.
I don't think it will be politically possible to extend the transition any longer. But the permanent deal will, I'm sure, include various staging/phasing steps over the subsequent years.
You should be worried about it if Lab even half get their act together.
As for "various staging/phasing steps"...you mean a transition phase?
In my mind I pictured a staircase leading us towards the sunlit uplands.
The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
Huh? We were rule takers in the EU and will be rule takers in the transition. The difference is that the transition will come to an end shortly.
Anyway, I thought Remainers were arguing for Article 50 not to be invoked so soon. At least we can negotiate new trade deals now, which we couldn't if we had followed your side's plan.
And Barnier confirmed new trade deal negotiation can start in the transition period when in fact they really can now. How would the EU stop it
Because how on earth would any third country know what final relationship we had with the EU, which would in turn inform their negotiating position?
That will not stop negotiations
Would be a bit rich of the EU to stop FTA negotiations between the Uk and third parties when they themselves are negotiating a FTA with the Uk.
At the very least, a system where your casting of your vote can be done more freely for the party you want rather than for the only party that can block the party you most dislike (which is what FPTP tends to default to - we just have to see the literature and party adverts) can lead to far better feedback to the political classes. The existing system means that if you want to avoid Corbyn, you have to accept whoever and whatever the Tories put forward. If you've had enough of the Tories, you have to accept whoever and whatever Labour puts forwards.
It's great for whoever is in charge of those two parties, of course - to an extent, but it suffers in the long term much like monopolistic companies in the economy. The feedback mechanism gets damaged at the very least, so the politicians get further and further divorced from what the people think and want.
I'd disagree with that. It's the opposite way round. What PR does is allow people to express single-issue concerns or various shades of opinion on mainstream issues. What it doesn't do is provide any mechanism for voters to decide how they want to resolve the trade-offs. Under FPTP, they have to make a choice: 'do you want package A which has some of what you want, or package B which has other things you want? Which is more important to you?'
Under PR, that feedback mechanism disappears. People can just vote without having to make real choices, and you can end up (as in Germany at the moment) with no combination which works.
The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
Huh? We were rule takers in the EU and will be rule takers in the transition. The difference is that the transition will come to an end shortly.
Anyway, I thought Remainers were arguing for Article 50 not to be invoked so soon. At least we can negotiate new trade deals now, which we couldn't if we had followed your side's plan.
And Barnier confirmed new trade deal negotiation can start in the transition period when in fact they really can now. How would the EU stop it
Because how on earth would any third country know what final relationship we had with the EU, which would in turn inform their negotiating position?
That will not stop negotiations
No, it will mean the negotiations do not start in the first place. The attractiveness of doing an FTA with the UK will depend on a number of things, including the level of access to the single market and the level of divergence from EU regulations - actual and future - our final deal with the EU allow. On top of which, we do no have the bandwidth to negotiate more than one trade deal at a time - and given the importance of the single market to our exporters, the EU agreement will clearly take priority.
The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
Huh? We were rule takers in the EU and will be rule takers in the transition. The difference is that the transition will come to an end shortly.
Anyway, I thought Remainers were arguing for Article 50 not to be invoked so soon. At least we can negotiate new trade deals now, which we couldn't if we had followed your side's plan.
And Barnier confirmed new trade deal negotiation can start in the transition period when in fact they really can now. How would the EU stop it
Because how on earth would any third country know what final relationship we had with the EU, which would in turn inform their negotiating position?
That will not stop negotiations
No, it will mean the negotiations do not start in the first place. The attractiveness of doing an FTA with the UK will depend on a number of things, including the level of access to the single market and the level of divergence from EU regulations - actual and future - our final deal with the EU allow. On top of which, we do no have the bandwidth to negotiate more than one trade deal at a time - and given the importance of the single market to our exporters, the EU agreement will clearly take priority.
Yes and nobody has ever had a job interview whilst they are still employed
The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
Not really, they've always said we were.
As @Tissue_Price rightly says, it's of no consequence anyway. It's only 20 months for heaven's sake, and the EU is institutionally incapable of doing anything much in such a short time. You have to be a fully-paid-up eye-swiveler to be exercised about the transition period.
The issue isn't the transition period it's suspicion over what we're transiting to.
Either way I expect the terms of it to be qualified prior to its agreement.
What should be of much greater concern (if that's what is important to you) is that as small children in Dieppe could have pointed out, ain't no agreement gonna be happening in the ludicrously short time frame we have given ourselves to negotiate a final settlement with the EU. That means a likely or at least possible extension to the transition period.
And that means....GE2022!!
I'm not worried about it. I'm reporting how I read the situation.
I don't think it will be politically possible to extend the transition any longer. But the permanent deal will, I'm sure, include various staging/phasing steps over the subsequent years.
You should be worried about it if Lab even half get their act together.
As for "various staging/phasing steps"...you mean a transition phase?
Like the new CAP regime, or BAP if you like, not taking full effect until 2024, or ECJ oversight of EU citizens for Brexit+ 8 years, I expect it will take years for many things to bed in.
At the very least, a system where your casting of your vote can be done more freely for the party you want rather than for the only party that can block the party you most dislike (which is what FPTP tends to default to - we just have to see the literature and party adverts) can lead to far better feedback to the political classes. The existing system means that if you want to avoid Corbyn, you have to accept whoever and whatever the Tories put forward. If you've had enough of the Tories, you have to accept whoever and whatever Labour puts forwards.
It's great for whoever is in charge of those two parties, of course - to an extent, but it suffers in the long term much like monopolistic companies in the economy. The feedback mechanism gets damaged at the very least, so the politicians get further and further divorced from what the people think and want.
I'd disagree with that. It's the opposite way round. What PR does is allow people to express single-issue concerns or various shades of opinion on mainstream issues. What it doesn't do is provide any mechanism for voters to decide how they want to resolve the trade-offs. Under FPTP, they have to make a choice: 'do you want package A which has some of what you want, or package B which has other things you want? Which is more important to you?'
Under PR, that feedback mechanism disappears. People can just vote without having to make real choices, and you can end up (as in Germany at the moment) with no combination which works.
Not sure how the result FPTP produced in 2017 in the UK is any better to the one that PR produced in Germany.
Surely, if we believe in the will of the people, we should be keen to ensure the will of the people is reflected in how the House of Commons is populated.
The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
Huh? We were rule takers in the EU and will be rule takers in the transition. The difference is that the transition will come to an end shortly.
Anyway, I thought Remainers were arguing for Article 50 not to be invoked so soon. At least we can negotiate new trade deals now, which we couldn't if we had followed your side's plan.
And Barnier confirmed new trade deal negotiation can start in the transition period when in fact they really can now. How would the EU stop it
Because how on earth would any third country know what final relationship we had with the EU, which would in turn inform their negotiating position?
That will not stop negotiations
No, it will mean the negotiations do not start in the first place. The attractiveness of doing an FTA with the UK will depend on a number of things, including the level of access to the single market and the level of divergence from EU regulations - actual and future - our final deal with the EU allow. On top of which, we do no have the bandwidth to negotiate more than one trade deal at a time - and given the importance of the single market to our exporters, the EU agreement will clearly take priority.
Yes and nobody has ever had a job interview whilst they are still employed
On topic, this doesn't fill me with any reassurance whatsoever that Labour have learnt any lessons other than the solution to any problem is to just throw more money at it.
I really don't want to spend the rest of my life going through an endless political cycle where Labour gets elected to spend money like water, crashes the economy, and then the Tories get elected to sort it out, suffering all the unpopularity and brand damage for the tough decisions they take in the meantime, only for Labour to win again once people get fed up with it just as the Tories start to get a grip.
But, it's probably what will happen.
FPTnP leads to this sort of thing
I'm to be convinced a PR system would be any better, they'd just give you a different type of problem.
At the very least, a system where your casting of your vote can be done more freely for the party you want rather than for the only party that can block the party you most dislike (which is what FPTP tends to default to - we just have to see the literature and party adverts) can lead to far better feedback to the political classes. The existing system means that if you want to avoid Corbyn, you have to accept whoever and whatever the Tories put forward. If you've had enough of the Tories, you have to accept whoever and whatever Labour puts forwards.
It's great for whoever is in charge of those two parties, of course - to an extent, but it suffers in the long term much like monopolistic companies in the economy. The feedback mechanism gets damaged at the very least, so the politicians get further and further divorced from what the people think and want.
PR also allows established parties to choose to ignore the feedback, as they have in Germany and Sweden, and I'm not a fan of months of backroom details prior to Governments being established.
There are no silver bullets when it comes to voting systems.
The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
Huh? We were rule takers in the EU and will be rule takers in the transition. The difference is that the transition will come to an end shortly.
Anyway, I thought Remainers were arguing for Article 50 not to be invoked so soon. At least we can negotiate new trade deals now, which we couldn't if we had followed your side's plan.
And Barnier confirmed new trade deal negotiation can start in the transition period when in fact they really can now. How would the EU stop it
Because how on earth would any third country know what final relationship we had with the EU, which would in turn inform their negotiating position?
I think you are misunderstanding the basic rules of how we leave the EU and what A50 and the transition phase mean. Under A50 our negotiations on our future relationship with the EU must be completed by March 2019. If they are not then the only way for them to continue is if there is a formal extension to the negotiating period. That is not the same as the transition period. If we have not finalised our negotiations and do not get an extension then we leave the EU with no agreement.
The transition period is entirely separate and is to give time for a trade agreement to be formalised with the EU. It is not legally a period for the UK:EU discussions on their constitutional relationship to continue.
So either we have decided all those matters such as the Irish border and the Single Market and Customs Union by March 2019 or it will be an automatic hard Brexit. Either way any future reading partners will already know where we stand with regards to the EU.
The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
Huh? We were rule takers in the EU and will be rule takers in the transition. The difference is that the transition will come to an end shortly.
Anyway, I thought Remainers were arguing for Article 50 not to be invoked so soon. At least we can negotiate new trade deals now, which we couldn't if we had followed your side's plan.
And Barnier confirmed new trade deal negotiation can start in the transition period when in fact they really can now. How would the EU stop it
Because how on earth would any third country know what final relationship we had with the EU, which would in turn inform their negotiating position?
That will not stop negotiations
No, it will mean the negotiations do not start in the first place. The attractiveness of doing an FTA with the UK will depend on a number of things, including the level of access to the single market and the level of divergence from EU regulations - actual and future - our final deal with the EU allow. On top of which, we do no have the bandwidth to negotiate more than one trade deal at a time - and given the importance of the single market to our exporters, the EU agreement will clearly take priority.
Yes and nobody has ever had a job interview whilst they are still employed
The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
Huh? We were rule takers in the EU and will be rule takers in the transition. The difference is that the transition will come to an end shortly.
Anyway, I thought Remainers were arguing for Article 50 not to be invoked so soon. At least we can negotiate new trade deals now, which we couldn't if we had followed your side's plan.
And Barnier confirmed new trade deal negotiation can start in the transition period when in fact they really can now. How would the EU stop it
Because how on earth would any third country know what final relationship we had with the EU, which would in turn inform their negotiating position?
That will not stop negotiations
No, it will mean the negotiations do not start in the first place. The attractiveness of doing an FTA with the UK will depend on a number of things, including the level of access to the single market and the level of divergence from EU regulations - actual and future - our final deal with the EU allow. On top of which, we do no have the bandwidth to negotiate more than one trade deal at a time - and given the importance of the single market to our exporters, the EU agreement will clearly take priority.
Yes and nobody has ever had a job interview whilst they are still employed
The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
Not really, they've always said we were.
As @Tissue_Price rightly says, it's of no consequence anyway. It's only 20 months for heaven's sake, and the EU is institutionally incapable of doing anything much in such a short time. You have to be a fully-paid-up eye-swiveler to be exercised about the transition period.
The issue isn't the transition period it's suspicion over what we're transiting to.
Either way I expect the terms of it to be qualified prior to its agreement.
What should be of much greater concern (if that's what is important to you) is that as small children in Dieppe could have pointed out, ain't no agreement gonna be happening in the ludicrously short time frame we have given ourselves to negotiate a final settlement with the EU. That means a likely or at least possible extension to the transition period.
And that means....GE2022!!
I'm not worried about it. I'm reporting how I read the situation.
I don't think it will be politically possible to extend the transition any longer. But the permanent deal will, I'm sure, include various staging/phasing steps over the subsequent years.
You should be worried about it if Lab even half get their act together.
As for "various staging/phasing steps"...you mean a transition phase?
Like the new CAP regime, or BAP if you like, not taking full effect until 2024, or ECJ oversight of EU citizens for Brexit+ 8 years, I expect it will take years for many things to bed in.
The issue isn't laws - which as you rightly point out, take years, but regulations (Aviation, Pharmacy, Finance etc.) which take months. I suppose if there was something particularly deleterious the UK could ignore it and get taken to court.....which takes years.....
Not sure how the result FPTP produced in 2017 in the UK is any better to the one that PR produced in Germany.
Surely, if we believe in the will of the people, we should be keen to ensure the will of the people is reflected in how the House of Commons is populated.
Well 2017 wasn't typical!
The error is in thinking that 'reflecting' diverse opinion is a good thing in its own right. The job of parliament, and more especially government, and by extension therefore the purpose of an election, is to decide between mutually-exclusive policies. What's more those policies all interact, so having a (hopefully coherent) pre-agreed package makes much more sense than haggling after the event.
At the very least, a system where your casting of your vote can be done more freely for the party you want rather than for the only party that can block the party you most dislike (which is what FPTP tends to default to - we just have to see the literature and party adverts) can lead to far better feedback to the political classes. The existing system means that if you want to avoid Corbyn, you have to accept whoever and whatever the Tories put forward. If you've had enough of the Tories, you have to accept whoever and whatever Labour puts forwards.
It's great for whoever is in charge of those two parties, of course - to an extent, but it suffers in the long term much like monopolistic companies in the economy. The feedback mechanism gets damaged at the very least, so the politicians get further and further divorced from what the people think and want.
I'd disagree with that. It's the opposite way round. What PR does is allow people to express single-issue concerns or various shades of opinion on mainstream issues. What it doesn't do is provide any mechanism for voters to decide how they want to resolve the trade-offs. Under FPTP, they have to make a choice: 'do you want package A which has some of what you want, or package B which has other things you want? Which is more important to you?'
Under PR, that feedback mechanism disappears. People can just vote without having to make real choices, and you can end up (as in Germany at the moment) with no combination which works.
FPTP only gives them Package A and Package B, with no power to give their support for anything that isn't in those packages. It turns out there are always far more options than just two. FPTP removes that power to whomever controls the two largest parties - the only choices you will ever get are the two these will give you, regardless of how unacceptable they may or may not be.
PR - with the sum total of the choices of all the people - allows them to freely express what particular flavour of ethos they want. Rather than guessing if people want Mogg-Conservatives, Cameron-Conservatives, May-Conservatives, Corbyn-Labour, New Labour, Kinnock-ite Labour, Orange Book Lib Dems, Beveridge Group Lib Dems, or whatever, we would get to see what the country wanted. As it stands, you can't express that will.
However, the self-interest of the big Two parties and those who support them (who will always see that even if their particular flavour may be out of favour at the moment, it might come back and then they can impose their choice on everyone) will mean that there's not many practical routes to them ever surrendering that power. Monopolists rarely give up monopolies; this is analogous. Even though monopolies end up damaging monopolists as well.
The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
Huh? We were rule takers in the EU and will be rule takers in the transition. The difference is that the transition will come to an end shortly.
Anyway, I thought Remainers were arguing for Article 50 not to be invoked so soon. At least we can negotiate new trade deals now, which we couldn't if we had followed your side's plan.
Indeed. As Nadine Dorries put it the EU is so complicated why bother making the distinction between collective decision-making and doing what you are told? I wouldn't assume rule-taking is going to end in 2020. Also any new third party deals are guaranteed to give us less than what we have already because of Rules of Origin if nothing else. Third parties are going to say, "opportunity to squeeze more out of the UK" and not, "opportunity to be more generous than we were before"
On topic, this doesn't fill me with any reassurance whatsoever that Labour have learnt any lessons other than the solution to any problem is to just throw more money at it.
I really don't want to spend the rest of my life going through an endless political cycle where Labour gets elected to spend money like water, crashes the economy, and then the Tories get elected to sort it out, suffering all the unpopularity and brand damage for the tough decisions they take in the meantime, only for Labour to win again once people get fed up with it just as the Tories start to get a grip.
But, it's probably what will happen.
FPTnP leads to this sort of thing
I'm to be convinced a PR system would be any better, they'd just give you a different type of problem.
At the very least, a system where your casting of your vote can be done more freely for the party you want rather than for the only party that can block the party you most dislike (which is what FPTP tends to default to - we just have to see the literature and party adverts) can lead to far better feedback to the political classes. The existing system means that if you want to avoid Corbyn, you have to accept whoever and whatever the Tories put forward. If you've had enough of the Tories, you have to accept whoever and whatever Labour puts forwards.
It's great for whoever is in charge of those two parties, of course - to an extent, but it suffers in the long term much like monopolistic companies in the economy. The feedback mechanism gets damaged at the very least, so the politicians get further and further divorced from what the people think and want.
PR also allows established parties to choose to ignore the feedback, as they have in Germany and Sweden, and I'm not a fan of months of backroom details prior to Governments being established.
There are no silver bullets when it comes to voting systems.
As with any other voting system, parties ignoring the feedback can get clobbered by the voters next time around. In disproportional representation, you have the additional protection for the party that if the alternative is obviously unacceptable (or can be portrayed as such), the clobbering can be dodged, at least for a while.
Under proportional representation, the FDP ignored feedback and ended up with no representation at all, even under a proportional system. They're now far more cautious about it.
I also would prefer fast government establishment, responsive to the people, and expressing the values of the people as closely as possible.
There are many things to worry about with Brexit, but the terms of the transition should be pretty low down that list. The transition was always going to have to be off-the-shelf (if you could negotiate a bespoke transition, you might as well do the final deal) and as long as it is time-limited, it shouldn’t be a problem. Indeed, it should help smooth out Britain’s exit from the European Union.
The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
Huh? We were rule takers in the EU and will be rule takers in the transition. The difference is that the transition will come to an end shortly.
Anyway, I thought Remainers were arguing for Article 50 not to be invoked so soon. At least we can negotiate new trade deals now, which we couldn't if we had followed your side's plan.
And Barnier confirmed new trade deal negotiation can start in the transition period when in fact they really can now. How would the EU stop it
Because how on earth would any third country know what final relationship we had with the EU, which would in turn inform their negotiating position?
That will not stop negotiations
No, it will mean the negotiations do not start in the first place. The attractiveness of doing an FTA with the UK will depend on a number of things, including the level of access to the single market and the level of divergence from EU regulations - actual and future - our final deal with the EU allow. On top of which, we do no have the bandwidth to negotiate more than one trade deal at a time - and given the importance of the single market to our exporters, the EU agreement will clearly take priority.
Yes and nobody has ever had a job interview whilst they are still employed
You'll have to explain that one. When you leave a job for another one, your previous employer does not get to tell you what time you have to get up for your new job, how long your lunch break will be and what holidays you are entitled to.
At the very least, a system where your casting of your vote can be done more freely for the party you want rather than for the only party that can block the party you most dislike (which is what FPTP tends to default to - we just have to see the literature and party adverts) can lead to far better feedback to the political classes. The existing system means that if you want to avoid Corbyn, you have to accept whoever and whatever the Tories put forward. If you've had enough of the Tories, you have to accept whoever and whatever Labour puts forwards.
It's great for whoever is in charge of those two parties, of course - to an extent, but it suffers in the long term much like monopolistic companies in the economy. The feedback mechanism gets damaged at the very least, so the politicians get further and further divorced from what the people think and want.
Under PR, that feedback mechanism disappears. People can just vote without having to make real choices, and you can end up (as in Germany at the moment) with no combination which works.
FPTP only gives them Package A and Package B, with no power to give their support for anything that isn't in those packages. It turns out there are always far more options than just two. FPTP removes that power to whomever controls the two largest parties - the only choices you will ever get are the two these will give you, regardless of how unacceptable they may or may not be.
PR - with the sum total of the choices of all the people - allows them to freely express what particular flavour of ethos they want. Rather than guessing if people want Mogg-Conservatives, Cameron-Conservatives, May-Conservatives, Corbyn-Labour, New Labour, Kinnock-ite Labour, Orange Book Lib Dems, Beveridge Group Lib Dems, or whatever, we would get to see what the country wanted. As it stands, you can't express that will.
However, the self-interest of the big Two parties and those who support them (who will always see that even if their particular flavour may be out of favour at the moment, it might come back and then they can impose their choice on everyone) will mean that there's not many practical routes to them ever surrendering that power. Monopolists rarely give up monopolies; this is analogous. Even though monopolies end up damaging monopolists as well.
Those who argue in favour of FPTP, couldn't really ask for a worse time than now to do so. With STV one could vote for Pro or Anti EU Tories or for Corbyn or moderate Labour candidates and make a real difference to the main parties.
One MP told HuffPost UK May’s leadership is so weak the party was in “Lord of the Flies territory” with a total breakdown of discipline.
Former Business Minister Anna Soubry, one of the most vocal anti-Brexit voices on the Tory benches, was heckled by MPs on her own side as she quizzed Minster for Exiting the EU Robin Walker.
“When is the Government going to stand up against the Hard Brexiteers who mainly inhabit these benches? There’s only about 35 of them…” she said, before fellow Tory MP Michael Fabricant shouted back at her: “No, there aren’t!
Soubry continued, telling Walker the Government needed to “see them off and make sure we get a sensible Brexit, because if we don’t we will sleep walk into a disastrous Brexit for generations to come.”
Not sure how the result FPTP produced in 2017 in the UK is any better to the one that PR produced in Germany.
Surely, if we believe in the will of the people, we should be keen to ensure the will of the people is reflected in how the House of Commons is populated.
Well 2017 wasn't typical!
The error is in thinking that 'reflecting' diverse opinion is a good thing in its own right. The job of parliament, and more especially government, and by extension therefore the purpose of an election, is to decide between mutually-exclusive policies. What's more those policies all interact, so having a (hopefully coherent) pre-agreed package makes much more sense than haggling after the event.
That would make sense if the voters tended to vote based on all the policies, but in reality, they tend to vote based on the perceived values of the parties, competence of the leaders, and a very small handful of widely reported policies.
In addition, Five Year Plans are more a feature of Soviet systems and highly socialist concepts than responsive democracies. We all know that reality is unpredictable and policies and positions will change based on how events worldwide and those domestically that could never be predicted actually unfold. A system where the public can change the overall balance and flavours of whatever values are represented at each election would arguably be better - albeit not for the two "winners" under the disproportional system.
"Politics is the art of compromise" - so the politicians can do their jobs when the people have declared what the balance of represented values will be, and they can stand or fall by their work at the next election.
Looks like Lab are moving towards CU and SM also...
No they aren't, Corbyn has confirmed on multiple occasions Labour supports the UK leaving the single market while he is leader and ending free movement, even on the Customs Union they want alignment with it rather than full membership of it.
The transition period does not change the ultimate destination
Under PR, that feedback mechanism disappears. People can just vote without having to make real choices, and you can end up (as in Germany at the moment) with no combination which works.
FPTP only gives them Package A and Package B, with no power to give their support for anything that isn't in those packages. It turns out there are always far more options than just two. FPTP removes that power to whomever controls the two largest parties - the only choices you will ever get are the two these will give you, regardless of how unacceptable they may or may not be.
PR - with the sum total of the choices of all the people - allows them to freely express what particular flavour of ethos they want. Rather than guessing if people want Mogg-Conservatives, Cameron-Conservatives, May-Conservatives, Corbyn-Labour, New Labour, Kinnock-ite Labour, Orange Book Lib Dems, Beveridge Group Lib Dems, or whatever, we would get to see what the country wanted. As it stands, you can't express that will.
However, the self-interest of the big Two parties and those who support them (who will always see that even if their particular flavour may be out of favour at the moment, it might come back and then they can impose their choice on everyone) will mean that there's not many practical routes to them ever surrendering that power. Monopolists rarely give up monopolies; this is analogous. Even though monopolies end up damaging monopolists as well.
Those who argue in favour of FPTP, couldn't really ask for a worse time than now to do so. With STV one could vote for Pro or Anti EU Tories or for Corbyn or moderate Labour candidates and make a real difference to the main parties.
Exactly! Corbynite/Momentum-ite/socialist Labour supporters wouldn't have had to wait out in the cold for a third of a century until they could get some form of representation (and centrist/Progress-wing/New-Labour supporters wouldn't have to now go outside in the cold for however-long-it-will be until they get another bite of the cherry. Eurosceptics wouldn't have had to either wait hopelessly in the Conservatives, or defect to UKIP. Traditionalist Conservatives wouldn't have had to wait, annoyed, under Cameron, with no way to vote for what they valued. More liberal Conservatives wouldn't have to be isolated at the moment. And so on.
Let the people choose what they actually value and let the politicians deal with that.
The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
Huh? We were rule takers in the EU and will be rule takers in the transition. The difference is that the transition will come to an end shortly.
Anyway, I thought Remainers were arguing for Article 50 not to be invoked so soon. At least we can negotiate new trade deals now, which we couldn't if we had followed your side's plan.
Indeed. As Nadine Dorries put it the EU is so complicated why bother making the distinction between collective decision-making and doing what you are told? I wouldn't assume rule-taking is going to end in 2020. Also any new third party deals are guaranteed to give us less than what we have already because of Rules of Origin if nothing else. Third parties are going to say, "opportunity to squeeze more out of the UK" and not, "opportunity to be more generous than we were before"
We will get far more out of the US than we would as EU members, for the simple reason the EU won't ratify a deal with them. The same is true of many other third parties.
What we need now is a comprehensive thread on the merits of AV. O @TSE wherefore art thou?
I believe that as a Brexiteer, I must now symbolically wail and gnash my teeth because the transition deal appears to be....exactly what I thought it would be. Oh well.
On topic, this doesn't fill me with any reassurance whatsoever that Labour have learnt any lessons other than the solution to any problem is to just throw more money at it.
I really don't want to spend the rest of my life going through an endless political cycle where Labour gets elected to spend money like water, crashes the economy, and then the Tories get elected to sort it out, suffering all the unpopularity and brand damage for the tough decisions they take in the meantime, only for Labour to win again once people get fed up with it just as the Tories start to get a grip.
But, it's probably what will happen.
FPTnP leads to this sort of thing
I'm to be convinced a PR system would be any better, they'd just give you a different type of problem.
At the very least, a system where your casting of your vote can be done more freely for the party you want rather than for the only party that can block the party you most dislike (which is what FPTP tends to default to - we just have to see the literature and party adverts) can lead to far better feedback to the political classes. The existing system means that if you want to avoid Corbyn, you have to accept whoever and whatever the Tories put forward. If you've had enough of the Tories, you have to accept whoever and whatever Labour puts forwards.
It's great for whoever is in charge of those two parties, of course - to an extent, but it suffers in the long term much like monopolistic companies in the economy. The feedback mechanism gets damaged at the very least, so the politicians get further and further divorced from what the people think and want.
The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
Huh? We were rule takers in the EU and will be rule takers in the transition. The difference is that the transition will come to an end shortly.
Anyway, I thought Remainers were arguing for Article 50 not to be invoked so soon. At least we can negotiate new trade deals now, which we couldn't if we had followed your side's plan.
And Barnier confirmed new trade deal negotiation can start in the transition period when in fact they really can now. How would the EU stop it
Because how on earth would any third country know what final relationship we had with the EU, which would in turn inform their negotiating position?
That will not stop negotiations
No, it will mean the negotiations do not start in the first place. The attractiveness of doing an FTA with the UK will depend on a number of things, including the level of access to the single market and the level of divergence from EU regulations - actual and future - our final deal with the EU allow. On top of which, we do no have the bandwidth to negotiate more than one trade deal at a time - and given the importance of the single market to our exporters, the EU agreement will clearly take priority.
Yes and nobody has ever had a job interview whilst they are still employed
On topic, this doesn't fill me with any reassurance whatsoever that Labour have learnt any lessons other than the solution to any problem is to just throw more money at it.
I really don't want to spend the rest of my life going through an endless political cycle where Labour gets elected to spend money like water, crashes the economy, and then the Tories get elected to sort it out, suffering all the unpopularity and brand damage for the tough decisions they take in the meantime, only for Labour to win again once people get fed up with it just as the Tories start to get a grip.
But, it's probably what will happen.
FPTnP leads to this sort of thing
I'm to be convinced a PR system would be any better, they'd just give you a different type of problem.
At the very least, a system where your casting of your vote can be done more freely for the party you want rather than for the only party that can block the party you most dislike (which is what FPTP tends to default to - we just have to see the literature and party adverts) can lead to far better feedback to the political classes. The existing system means that if you want to avoid Corbyn, you have to accept whoever and whatever the Tories put forward. If you've had enough of the Tories, you have to accept whoever and whatever Labour puts forwards.
It's great for whoever is in charge of those two parties, of course - to an extent, but it suffers in the long term much like monopolistic companies in the economy. The feedback mechanism gets damaged at the very least, so the politicians get further and further divorced from what the people think and want.
That's a very interesting observation.
Thanks. It's what has pushed me towards proportional systems (I used to argue against them) - the more I learned about how free markets are supposed to work for better allocation of resources and economic decision-making (the feedback mechanism from free choice is key), the more it seemed to point towards exactly analogous situations and feedback mechanisms with political decision-making.
The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
Huh? We were rule takers in the EU and will be rule takers in the transition. The difference is that the transition will come to an end shortly.
Anyway, I thought Remainers were arguing for Article 50 not to be invoked so soon. At least we can negotiate new trade deals now, which we couldn't if we had followed your side's plan.
And Barnier confirmed new trade deal negotiation can start in the transition period when in fact they really can now. How would the EU stop it
Because how on earth would any third country know what final relationship we had with the EU, which would in turn inform their negotiating position?
That will not stop negotiations
No, it will mean the negotiations do not start in the first place. The attractiveness of doing an FTA with the UK will depend on a number of things, including the level of access to the single market and the level of divergence from EU regulations - actual and future - our final deal with the EU allow. On top of which, we do no have the bandwidth to negotiate more than one trade deal at a time - and given the importance of the single market to our exporters, the EU agreement will clearly take priority.
Yes and nobody has ever had a job interview whilst they are still employed
You'll have to explain that one. When you leave a job for another one, your previous employer does not get to tell you what time you have to get up for your new job, how long your lunch break will be and what holidays you are entitled to.
Indeed - the EU may be able to insist on some gardening leave but that's about the extent of their influence.
Countering claims by hard-Brexiteers that most Tories would prefer no deal, Mr Hammond said a majority of “colleagues” would support staying in the European Free Trade Association (Efta). “Reality is now setting in — and that reality is that no deal would be a bad deal,” he said. Efta membership means participation in the European single market of 500 million people, but without the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.
The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
Huh? We were rule takers in the EU and will be rule takers in the transition. The difference is that the transition will come to an end shortly.
Anyway, I thought Remainers were arguing for Article 50 not to be invoked so soon. At least we can negotiate new trade deals now, which we couldn't if we had followed your side's plan.
And Barnier confirmed new trade deal negotiation can start in the transition period when in fact they really can now. How would the EU stop it
Because how on earth would any third country know what final relationship we had with the EU, which would in turn inform their negotiating position?
That will not stop negotiations
No, it will mean the negotiations do not start in the first place. The attractiveness of doing an FTA with the UK will depend on a number of things, including the level of access to the single market and the level of divergence from EU regulations - actual and future - our final deal with the EU allow. On top of which, we do no have the bandwidth to negotiate more than one trade deal at a time - and given the importance of the single market to our exporters, the EU agreement will clearly take priority.
Yes and nobody has ever had a job interview whilst they are still employed
Dated while still married is more apt...
I'm sure that there are lots of people that have (amicably) agreed to divorce, but are currently in the 2 year period of 'separation' who readily acknowledge that each other will be dating other people during the time.
The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
Huh? We were rule takers in the EU and will be rule takers in the transition. The difference is that the transition will come to an end shortly.
Anyway, I thought Remainers were arguing for Article 50 not to be invoked so soon. At least we can negotiate new trade deals now, which we couldn't if we had followed your side's plan.
And Barnier confirmed new trade deal negotiation can start in the transition period when in fact they really can now. How would the EU stop it
Because how on earth would any third country know what final relationship we had with the EU, which would in turn inform their negotiating position?
That will not stop negotiations
No, it will mean the negotiations do not start in the first place. The attractiveness of doing an FTA with the UK will depend on a number of things, including the level of access to the single market and the level of divergence from EU regulations - actual and future - our final deal with the EU allow. On top of which, we do no have the bandwidth to negotiate more than one trade deal at a time - and given the importance of the single market to our exporters, the EU agreement will clearly take priority.
Yes and nobody has ever had a job interview whilst they are still employed
Dated while still married is more apt...
I'm sure that there are lots of people that have (amicably) agreed to divorce, but are currently in the 2 year period of 'separation' who readily acknowledge that each other will be dating other people during the time.
Dates are not commitments. Marriages are. And only a fool gets married before knowing what the terms will be.
The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
Huh? We were rule takers in the EU and will be rule takers in the transition. The difference is that the transition will come to an end shortly.
Anyway, I thought Remainers were arguing for Article 50 not to be invoked so soon. At least we can negotiate new trade deals now, which we couldn't if we had followed your side's plan.
And Barnier confirmed new trade deal negotiation can start in the transition period when in fact they really can now. How would the EU stop it
Because how on earth would any third country know what final relationship we had with the EU, which would in turn inform their negotiating position?
That will not stop negotiations
No, it will mean the negotiations do not start in the first place. The attractiveness of doing an FTA with the UK will depend on a number of things, including the level of access to the single market and the level of divergence from EU regulations - actual and future - our final deal with the EU allow. On top of which, we do no have the bandwidth to negotiate more than one trade deal at a time - and given the importance of the single market to our exporters, the EU agreement will clearly take priority.
Yes and nobody has ever had a job interview whilst they are still employed
Dated while still married is more apt...
I'm sure that there are lots of people that have (amicably) agreed to divorce, but are currently in the 2 year period of 'separation' who readily acknowledge that each other will be dating other people during the time.
Dates are not commitments. Marriages are. And only a fool gets married before knowing what the terms will be.
But we heard that the EU was going to act like a Victorian dad and ban us from even flashing our petticoats at other suitors - not turning out to be the case.
The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
Huh? We were rule takers in the EU and will be rule takers in the transition. The difference is that the transition will come to an end shortly.
Anyway, I thought Remainers were arguing for Article 50 not to be invoked so soon. At least we can negotiate new trade deals now, which we couldn't if we had followed your side's plan.
And Barnier confirmed new trade deal negotiation can start in the transition period when in fact they really can now. How would the EU stop it
Because how on earth would any third country know what final relationship we had with the EU, which would in turn inform their negotiating position?
That will not stop negotiations
No, it will mean the negotiations do not start in the first place. The attractiveness of doing an FTA with the UK will depend on a number of things, including the level of access to the single market and the level of divergence from EU regulations - actual and future - our final deal with the EU allow. On top of which, we do no have the bandwidth to negotiate more than one trade deal at a time - and given the importance of the single market to our exporters, the EU agreement will clearly take priority.
Yes and nobody has ever had a job interview whilst they are still employed
You'll have to explain that one. When you leave a job for another one, your previous employer does not get to tell you what time you have to get up for your new job, how long your lunch break will be and what holidays you are entitled to.
Indeed - the EU may be able to insist on some gardening leave but that's about the extent of their influence.
Actually, the EU may end up deciding some or all of the terms of employment. There will be no job offers for the UK until the extent of its reach is fully known.
The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
Huh? We were rule takers in the EU and will be rule takers in the transition. The difference is that the transition will come to an end shortly.
Anyway, I thought Remainers were arguing for Article 50 not to be invoked so soon. At least we can negotiate new trade deals now, which we couldn't if we had followed your side's plan.
Indeed. As Nadine Dorries put it the EU is so complicated why bother making the distinction between collective decision-making and doing what you are told? I wouldn't assume rule-taking is going to end in 2020. Also any new third party deals are guaranteed to give us less than what we have already because of Rules of Origin if nothing else. Third parties are going to say, "opportunity to squeeze more out of the UK" and not, "opportunity to be more generous than we were before"
We will get far more out of the US than we would as EU members, for the simple reason the EU won't ratify a deal with them. The same is true of many other third parties.
Honestly, the USA is unlikely to make us a better offer outside the EU. It would have to give us access to services etc that it hasn't offered anyone else. The concessions we would need to make would seriously complicate our other trade agreements with the EU et al that cover a far more important amount of trade. .
The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
Huh? We were rule takers in the EU and will be rule takers in the transition. The difference is that the transition will come to an end shortly.
Anyway, I thought Remainers were arguing for Article 50 not to be invoked so soon. At least we can negotiate new trade deals now, which we couldn't if we had followed your side's plan.
And Barnier confirmed new trade deal negotiation can start in the transition period when in fact they really can now. How would the EU stop it
Because how on earth would any third country know what final relationship we had with the EU, which would in turn inform their negotiating position?
That will not stop negotiations
No, it will mean the negotiations do not start in the first place. The attractiveness of doing an FTA with the UK will depend on a number of things, including the level of access to the single market and the level of divergence from EU regulations - actual and future - our final deal with the EU allow. On top of which, we do no have the bandwidth to negotiate more than one trade deal at a time - and given the importance of the single market to our exporters, the EU agreement will clearly take priority.
Yes and nobody has ever had a job interview whilst they are still employed
Dated while still married is more apt...
I'm sure that there are lots of people that have (amicably) agreed to divorce, but are currently in the 2 year period of 'separation' who readily acknowledge that each other will be dating other people during the time.
Dates are not commitments. Marriages are. And only a fool gets married before knowing what the terms will be.
Love is blind, and lovers cannot see the pretty follies that they themselves commit.
The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
Huh? We were rule takers in the EU and will be rule takers in the transition. The difference is that the transition will come to an end shortly.
Anyway, I thought Remainers were arguing for Article 50 not to be invoked so soon. At least we can negotiate new trade deals now, which we couldn't if we had followed your side's plan.
And Barnier confirmed new trade deal negotiation can start in the transition period when in fact they really can now. How would the EU stop it
Because how on earth would any third country know what final relationship we had with the EU, which would in turn inform their negotiating position?
That will not stop negotiations
No,priority.
Yes and nobody has ever had a job interview whilst they are still employed
Dated while still married is more apt...
I'm sure that there are lots of people that have (amicably) agreed to divorce, but are currently in the 2 year period of 'separation' who readily acknowledge that each other will be dating other people during the time.
Dates are not commitments. Marriages are. And only a fool gets married before knowing what the terms will be.
But we heard that the EU was going to act like a Victorian dad and ban us from even flashing our petticoats at other suitors - not turning out to be the case.
No, we heard exactly what is going to happen: we can talk trade with third parties during the transition if we (and they) want to, but we can't implement deals without the EU's permission. The point is that, in practice, no-one is going to agree an FTA with the UK before the UK finalises its FTA with the EU.
The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
Huh? We were rule takers in the EU and will be rule takers in the transition. The difference is that the transition will come to an end shortly.
Anyway, I thought Remainers were arguing for Article 50 not to be invoked so soon. At least we can negotiate new trade deals now, which we couldn't if we had followed your side's plan.
And Barnier confirmed new trade deal negotiation can start in the transition period when in fact they really can now. How would the EU stop it
Because how on earth would any third country know what final relationship we had with the EU, which would in turn inform their negotiating position?
That will not stop negotiations
No, it will mean the negotiations do not start in the first place. The attractiveness of doing an FTA with the UK will depend on a number of things, including the level of access to the single market and the level of divergence from EU regulations - actual and future - our final deal with the EU allow. On top of which, we do no have the bandwidth to negotiate more than one trade deal at a time - and given the importance of the single market to our exporters, the EU agreement will clearly take priority.
Yes and nobody has ever had a job interview whilst they are still employed
Dated while still married is more apt...
I'm sure that there are lots of people that have (amicably) agreed to divorce, but are currently in the 2 year period of 'separation' who readily acknowledge that each other will be dating other people during the time.
Dates are not commitments. Marriages are. And only a fool gets married before knowing what the terms will be.
Love is blind, and lovers cannot see the pretty follies that they themselves commit.
True: it is possible that the UK's desperate need to do deals - its blind love, so to speak - may be an opportunity for some.
The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
Huh? We were rule takers in the EU and will be rule takers in the transition. The difference is that the transition will come to an end shortly.
Anyway, I thought Remainers were arguing for Article 50 not to be invoked so soon. At least we can negotiate new trade deals now, which we couldn't if we had followed your side's plan.
Indeed. As Nadine Dorries put it the EU is so complicated why bother making the distinction between collective decision-making and doing what you are told? I wouldn't assume rule-taking is going to end in 2020. Also any new third party deals are guaranteed to give us less than what we have already because of Rules of Origin if nothing else. Third parties are going to say, "opportunity to squeeze more out of the UK" and not, "opportunity to be more generous than we were before"
Except you are assuming that the current EU deals are optimal for the UK. This is not necessarily the case.
The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
Huh? We were rule takers in the EU and will be rule takers in the transition. The difference is that the transition will come to an end shortly.
Anyway, I thought Remainers were arguing for Article 50 not to be invoked so soon. At least we can negotiate new trade deals now, which we couldn't if we had followed your side's plan.
Indeed. As Nadine Dorries put it the EU is so complicated why bother making the distinction between collective decision-making and doing what you are told? I wouldn't assume rule-taking is going to end in 2020. Also any new third party deals are guaranteed to give us less than what we have already because of Rules of Origin if nothing else. Third parties are going to say, "opportunity to squeeze more out of the UK" and not, "opportunity to be more generous than we were before"
We will get far more out of the US than we would as EU members, for the simple reason the EU won't ratify a deal with them. The same is true of many other third parties.
I'm sorry, but it was the US that pulled out of the TPP and the TIPP.
There is - if we're going to be realistic - no likelihood of a US-UK FTA under the current US administration. (Despite all the talk.) Why?
1. The US would demand ISDS protections that would be at least as onerous as the ones in the NAFTA agreement. 2. We would likely need to keep our intellectual property law in lock-step with the US in perpetuity. 3. We would have a situation where US agricultural products would be sold in the UK while being produced to (lower) standards than we require of our own farmers.
The beautiful thing about this moment is that suddenly the Brexiteers find themselves having to argue why we weren't a vassal state in the EU but will be in transition.
Huh? We were rule takers in the EU and will be rule takers in the transition. The difference is that the transition will come to an end shortly.
Anyway, I thought Remainers were arguing for Article 50 not to be invoked so soon. At least we can negotiate new trade deals now, which we couldn't if we had followed your side's plan.
Indeed. As Nadine Dorries put it the EU is so complicated why bother making the distinction between collective decision-making and doing what you are told? I wouldn't assume rule-taking is going to end in 2020. Also any new third party deals are guaranteed to give us less than what we have already because of Rules of Origin if nothing else. Third parties are going to say, "opportunity to squeeze more out of the UK" and not, "opportunity to be more generous than we were before"
We will get far more out of the US than we would as EU members, for the simple reason the EU won't ratify a deal with them. The same is true of many other third parties.
I'm sorry, but it was the US that pulled out of the TPP and the TIPP.
There is - if we're going to be realistic - no likelihood of a US-UK FTA under the current US administration. (Despite all the talk.) Why?
1. The US would demand ISDS protections that would be at least as onerous as the ones in the NAFTA agreement. 2. We would likely need to keep our intellectual property law in lock-step with the US in perpetuity. 3. We would have a situation where US agricultural products would be sold in the UK while being produced to (lower) standards than we require of our own farmers.
In 5 or 10 years time, when not a single trade deal has been done, we will crawl back to the EU. That's if we have ever left, which I still doubt.
Looks like Lab are moving towards CU and SM also...
May I remind you that Jeremy Corbyn is leader of the Labour Party. Keir Starmer can sound off all he likes at his precious ‘away day’; the fact is that Corbyn, Milne and McDonnell are happy to leave the Single Market because it will make it easier to nationalise the commanding heights of the economy, redistribute land, collectivise agriculture and all the other things they are itching to do.
Both the BBC and Sky seemed to think the proposed transistion deal is likely to receive a positive welcome from the government but that detail would need to be negotiated. Their bulletins did not provide any indication that TM is under immediate threat.
It seems South Korea is very keen for a trade deal and the problem for the EU once we are free is that trade deals we strike may well attract EU companies to locate here in a reverse effect and to benefit from lower corporation tax rates
On topic, this doesn't fill me with any reassurance whatsoever that Labour have learnt any lessons other than the solution to any problem is to just throw more money at it.
I really don't want to spend the rest of my life going through an endless political cycle where Labour gets elected to spend money like water, crashes the economy, and then the Tories get elected to sort it out, suffering all the unpopularity and brand damage for the tough decisions they take in the meantime, only for Labour to win again once people get fed up with it just as the Tories start to get a grip.
But, it's probably what will happen.
FPTnP leads to this sort of thing
I'm to be convinced a PR system would be any better, they'd just give you a different type of problem.
At the very least, a system where your casting of your vote can be done more freely for the party you want rather than for the only party that can block the party you most dislike (which is what FPTP tends to default to - we just have to see the literature and party adverts) can lead to far better feedback to the political classes. The existing system means that if you want to avoid Corbyn, you have to accept whoever and whatever the Tories put forward. If you've had enough of the Tories, you have to accept whoever and whatever Labour puts forwards.
It's great for whoever is in charge of those two parties, of course - to an extent, but it suffers in the long term much like monopolistic companies in the economy. The feedback mechanism gets damaged at the very least, so the politicians get further and further divorced from what the people think and want.
That's a very interesting observation.
Thanks. It's what has pushed me towards proportional systems (I used to argue against them) - the more I learned about how free markets are supposed to work for better allocation of resources and economic decision-making (the feedback mechanism from free choice is key), the more it seemed to point towards exactly analogous situations and feedback mechanisms with political decision-making.
Prices are information. It's what makes capitalism work, and is why governments need to be very careful about interventions that affect price signals.
Comments
I don't think it will be politically possible to extend the transition any longer. But the permanent deal will, I'm sure, include various staging/phasing steps over the subsequent years.
It's great for whoever is in charge of those two parties, of course - to an extent, but it suffers in the long term much like monopolistic companies in the economy. The feedback mechanism gets damaged at the very least, so the politicians get further and further divorced from what the people think and want.
As for "various staging/phasing steps"...you mean a transition phase?
Given that we’re leaving the EU and therefore the customs union, the single market and the provisions relating to freedom of movement, is the government going to reject this new EU ultimatum - including that the EU court of justice will continue to apply to the UK?
https://tinyurl.com/yboa63dk
I might disagree with them, but I must concede that the Leave ultras have played a blinder. They've been brilliantly organized throughout, and have ruthlessly bounced Theresa into a hardest of Brexits that once seemed fanciful.
That and a bus - and complacent posh boys.
Under PR, that feedback mechanism disappears. People can just vote without having to make real choices, and you can end up (as in Germany at the moment) with no combination which works.
Surely, if we believe in the will of the people, we should be keen to ensure the will of the people is reflected in how the House of Commons is populated.
There are no silver bullets when it comes to voting systems.
The transition period is entirely separate and is to give time for a trade agreement to be formalised with the EU. It is not legally a period for the UK:EU discussions on their constitutional relationship to continue.
So either we have decided all those matters such as the Irish border and the Single Market and Customs Union by March 2019 or it will be an automatic hard Brexit. Either way any future reading partners will already know where we stand with regards to the EU.
The error is in thinking that 'reflecting' diverse opinion is a good thing in its own right. The job of parliament, and more especially government, and by extension therefore the purpose of an election, is to decide between mutually-exclusive policies. What's more those policies all interact, so having a (hopefully coherent) pre-agreed package makes much more sense than haggling after the event.
PR - with the sum total of the choices of all the people - allows them to freely express what particular flavour of ethos they want. Rather than guessing if people want Mogg-Conservatives, Cameron-Conservatives, May-Conservatives, Corbyn-Labour, New Labour, Kinnock-ite Labour, Orange Book Lib Dems, Beveridge Group Lib Dems, or whatever, we would get to see what the country wanted. As it stands, you can't express that will.
However, the self-interest of the big Two parties and those who support them (who will always see that even if their particular flavour may be out of favour at the moment, it might come back and then they can impose their choice on everyone) will mean that there's not many practical routes to them ever surrendering that power. Monopolists rarely give up monopolies; this is analogous. Even though monopolies end up damaging monopolists as well.
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/company-tax/anti-tax-avoidance-package/anti-tax-avoidance-directive_en
No wonder the Brexit loons - so many of who have close links to hedge funds - are upset about today's events.
Under proportional representation, the FDP ignored feedback and ended up with no representation at all, even under a proportional system. They're now far more cautious about it.
I also would prefer fast government establishment, responsive to the people, and expressing the values of the people as closely as possible.
There are many things to worry about with Brexit, but the terms of the transition should be pretty low down that list. The transition was always going to have to be off-the-shelf (if you could negotiate a bespoke transition, you might as well do the final deal) and as long as it is time-limited, it shouldn’t be a problem. Indeed, it should help smooth out Britain’s exit from the European Union.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/dont-sweat-the-brexit-transition-deal/
So far its been the Remainers being unhelpful, now it looks like the Brexiteers have decided its their turn.....
With STV one could vote for Pro or Anti EU Tories or for Corbyn or moderate Labour candidates and make a real difference to the main parties.
One MP told HuffPost UK May’s leadership is so weak the party was in “Lord of the Flies territory” with a total breakdown of discipline.
Former Business Minister Anna Soubry, one of the most vocal anti-Brexit voices on the Tory benches, was heckled by MPs on her own side as she quizzed Minster for Exiting the EU Robin Walker.
“When is the Government going to stand up against the Hard Brexiteers who mainly inhabit these benches? There’s only about 35 of them…” she said, before fellow Tory MP Michael Fabricant shouted back at her: “No, there aren’t!
Soubry continued, telling Walker the Government needed to “see them off and make sure we get a sensible Brexit, because if we don’t we will sleep walk into a disastrous Brexit for generations to come.”
In addition, Five Year Plans are more a feature of Soviet systems and highly socialist concepts than responsive democracies. We all know that reality is unpredictable and policies and positions will change based on how events worldwide and those domestically that could never be predicted actually unfold. A system where the public can change the overall balance and flavours of whatever values are represented at each election would arguably be better - albeit not for the two "winners" under the disproportional system.
"Politics is the art of compromise" - so the politicians can do their jobs when the people have declared what the balance of represented values will be, and they can stand or fall by their work at the next election.
The transition period does not change the ultimate destination
Corbynite/Momentum-ite/socialist Labour supporters wouldn't have had to wait out in the cold for a third of a century until they could get some form of representation (and centrist/Progress-wing/New-Labour supporters wouldn't have to now go outside in the cold for however-long-it-will be until they get another bite of the cherry.
Eurosceptics wouldn't have had to either wait hopelessly in the Conservatives, or defect to UKIP. Traditionalist Conservatives wouldn't have had to wait, annoyed, under Cameron, with no way to vote for what they valued. More liberal Conservatives wouldn't have to be isolated at the moment. And so on.
Let the people choose what they actually value and let the politicians deal with that.
https://twitter.com/damocrat/status/957973674904219648
I believe that as a Brexiteer, I must now symbolically wail and gnash my teeth because the transition deal appears to be....exactly what I thought it would be. Oh well.
* BRA, because they're tits.
Excellent news if that’s the case IMO.
Would "BRA, because they seem to always be in their cups" have been less offensive, if not more archaic?
Countering claims by hard-Brexiteers that most Tories would prefer no deal, Mr Hammond said a majority of “colleagues” would support staying in the European Free Trade Association (Efta). “Reality is now setting in — and that reality is that no deal would be a bad deal,” he said. Efta membership means participation in the European single market of 500 million people, but without the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mps-we-can-force-soft-brexit-a3752326.html
But its not Philip Hammond, but Stephen.....former Vice Chairman for London.....
It seems to be failing on both counts.
*unless you are Gibraltar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Monégasque_Treaties
There is - if we're going to be realistic - no likelihood of a US-UK FTA under the current US administration. (Despite all the talk.) Why?
1. The US would demand ISDS protections that would be at least as onerous as the ones in the NAFTA agreement.
2. We would likely need to keep our intellectual property law in lock-step with the US in perpetuity.
3. We would have a situation where US agricultural products would be sold in the UK while being produced to (lower) standards than we require of our own farmers.
It seems South Korea is very keen for a trade deal and the problem for the EU once we are free is that trade deals we strike may well attract EU companies to locate here in a reverse effect and to benefit from lower corporation tax rates