The focus here is on Tory rebels, but similar issues arise for the hardline Brexiteer Labour MPs. In general, sitting MPs are not at risk. However, if they voted to save the Government over Brexit then I think that they really would be deselected - the swing vote of centre-left members who are not especially keen on left-wing politics would support any challenger saying "we need a Labour MP who doesn't help the Tories". This isn't a threat (I'm not in a position to deselect anyone), just a fact. I suspect in reality that in a crunch they'd abstain.
Of course equally Tory associations in Tory Leave seats, including Broxtowe, may start to lose patience with their MPs voting consistemtly with Labour on Brexit
I know many Broxtowe Conservatives quite well. There is a minority who have never liked Anna, some quite vehemently, but the majority are pretty straightforward unideological Tories who like the fact that she's held the marginal seat. Deselection won't happen unless she actually resigns from the party.
In general MPs on both sides in marginals are safer from deselection than MPs in safe seats, both because the troops have fought hand-to-hand alongside them in the front line, and because the seat is likely to be held by an insurgent, even if the evicted MP tries to stand as an independent.
Yes up to a point. Soubry voting with Labour to bring down May and the government might be that point. Plus Broxtowe voted Leave of course
She’s not silly enough to vote against the government in an actual vote of confidence - she’d be thrown out of the party for that!
What’s more likely is some sort of informal pairing for some of the more contentious amendments, maybe Anna Soubry could go for a drink with Frank Field that day, and Ken Clarke with Kate Hoey?
I assume the government would do a deal with their soft Brexit rebels* and water down their regulatory and customs proposals, or most likely push it out until next year when the second cliff edge will have its effect.
* noteworthy that you have to specify which group of Tory rebels you are referring to.
I remember being told prior to the referendum that only a Leave victory would unite the Tory party.
Looking from the outside I would suggest it is united. 2 MPs who will never be reconciled to Brexit does not make for a split.
Google "tories split on brexit" About 1,250,000 results (0.47 seconds)
Gooogle "Labour split on Brexit" 445,000 results - and rising....
A fascinating 'Bottom Line' on Radio 4 last night with Evan Davis. Talking about share ownership of British companies. 54% of all shares in publicly listed UK companies are now owned by foreign investors - the US and China being the big investors these days.
UK Pension funds now hold only 3% of publicly owned shares. This is a phenomenal drop over the last decade.
UK Insurance companies hold 5% of publicly owned shares.
Unit Trusts hold 10%.
There has been a huge transformation in share ownership over the last couple of decades.
I did not catch the programme but those numbers are frightening. Although foreign investment is welcome, think of the profit and dividend outflows -- and don't wonder why our balance of payments is so heavily in the red.
The other interesting point was the number of medium sized companies that, whilst publicly listed, are turning their backs on secondary share offers to raise capital. Whilst this used to be a common way of raising money, apparently companies are now far more likely to go to private investment houses and banks to get the capital they need for projects rather than the markets.
That might be because of the changing relative cost of debt versus equity.
I still think it is more likely the ERG brings down Mrs May/The Government than the likes of Soubry and Clarke.
If she lost a vote on the customs union thing - would she have to go? And would a new leader have to call a GE?
Yes and no.
The FTPA complicates things.
The government would have to lose an explicit vote of no confidence and Corbyn would have 14 days to try and form a government.
I don't see why Clarke/Soubry et al. couldn't simply say (as Brexiteers have) - back our vision for Brexit or be replaced by a leader who will.
Either TM caves, or she is replaced by Hunt/Rudd/someone keen to stay in Customs Union.
Who is the 'et al'?
The main reason why May has not been replaced - apart from the disruption it would do to the Brexit process itself - is because MPs can't be sure that they'd get the sort of leader they'd like to replace her. However, while a centrist like Hunt could well win, that's almost certainly only the case if the election wasn't triggered by a Brexit falling out, where tempers are lower and where concentration is on other matters.
Were May to be critically wounded politically by a ex-Remain action, Brexit would be the prism all decisions would be viewed through and only true believers need apply.
But the simple maths is that whereas the ERG have the numbers to force a No Confidence vote (a point about the letter this last week that hasn't been sufficiently emphasised), the Continuity Remain wing doesn't, by a long way.
Well you know the Tory party much better than I do.
But if May loses this vote - then surely we will get a leader who accepts we will stay in customs union? 60 or so Tories could never vote for that - but presumably the rest can live with it then? And what’s the point electing a leader who can’t get Brexit through....
So the next election is on a knife edge, with a major chance the most left wing major party leader could become PM. A man that has worked with regimes from Islamists to ethnonationalists to undermime the West. The Conservative Party has major challenges maintaining unity, and the PM works a difficult balancing act thrashing out a Brexit compromise between the different wings. But she does it, getting a position soft Brexiteers like Phil Hammond can support. Boris Johnson is dealt with firmly and Fox is fuming about some changes, but it looks like the agreement will hold.
Then a handful of backbench MPs decide to take it upon themselves to nuke the compromise, undermine their own PM and tear open the wound. It's like they want to sabotage the Tories at the next election and let Corbyn in.
The Cons will not "let Corbyn in", the voters will vote him in.
Now, what he promises, what they vote for, and what he delivers would make for an interesting venn diagram, of course.
Or more particularly the SNP will let Corbyn in on current polling
Not sure if either the SNP or S.Labour want to be seen in the same bed. Tactically, it could turn out badly for both sides. In Scotland, from the hardline SNP membership PoV, it would be doing a deal with Hell and lose members and seats, from the Labour members PoV, they still consider the SNP treacherous and untrustworthy and "remember" the SNP bringing down a Labour Government in a vote of confidence, alongside the Tories. At the following 1979 GE, the SNP went from 9 to 2 seats, of course overall the Tories won, gained 62 and a majority and Labour lost 50. It must be remembered that Labour at the time were unpopular, seen as tired and incompetent, while the Tories had the new, yet untried Thatcher waiting to take the helm. Situation is reversed now with unpopular Tories and the "new" untried Corbyn in waiting! (1974 result Labour 319, Tories 277, 1979: T 339, L 268)
To save any arguments, it will be in England that the HoC GE result will be decided, not so much in Scotland, Wales or NI.
The Belgium PM inviting PM's from 12 other EU countries to a private meeting last night and Junckers and Tusk were specifically not invited to attend
Interesting. Sounds like there might be some pressure coming on the EU from the governments to stop messing around and get a deal done. Good news for everyone if true.
It would be a smart move by Labour, clearing up a lot of the Brexit headaches and making Jezza the darling of business and industry. It would also strip much of the romanticism from Brexit - reducing it to essentially a migrant-control measure. Theresa's reputation amongst the euro-sceptic Right would also be in tatters. She'd be remembered only as the saboteur PM who ruined Brexit.
I think it'd depend on circumstances. The Tories might get a couple of days at most to choose a new leader given current numbers.
To take a clearer historical parallel, suppose Blair lost first the Iraq War vote and then, doubling down, a Confidence vote he tied to his Iraq policy, and that the FTPA had been in operation. In those circumstances, it's almost certain that the cabinet and PLP would have rapidly nominated Brown to form a new government and a Confidence vote would have been carried comfortably.
With the benefit of hindsight I think you gave the Conservatives the best advice after the general election last year - they should have gone into opposition and sorted themselves out.
A couple of extra seats for Labour and that might have been an option (though not one I imagine the Conservatives would have taken, they would have at least tested the confidence of the house) but as it stands why would the Conservatives offer confidence to a minority Labour government? Abstaining when your votes would defeat is tacit endorsement...
Let him dandle, unable to do much in the way of positive action, until you're ready to replace him.
More likely you let him dangle unable to do much in way of positive action decontaminating him and allowing him to go to the country 10 months later and win a majority at which point his hands become untied...
Because how could the Conservatives refuse another election when they were unwilling to serve despite winning most seats in the prior one?
You have a higher opinion of Jeremy Corbyn's administrative abilities than I do.
I have no confidence in his administrative abilities, but as you identified his hands would be tied by a lack of majority. He'd put forward populist policies and have them defeated in the house, expressing sorrow as the "nasty tories" blocked all of his giveaways. In October he then would have gone to the country post conference asking for the majority so that he can hand out jam for everyone.
Letting Corbyn rule for a short period as a minority would be a campaign gift for him. </blockquote
You do know a PM cannot call a GE without a two third majority of MP's approval
It would be a smart move by Labour, clearing up a lot of the Brexit headaches and making Jezza the darling of business and industry. It would also strip much of the romanticism from Brexit - reducing it to essentially a migrant-control measure. Theresa's reputation amongst the euro-sceptic Right would also be in tatters. She'd be remembered only as the saboteur PM who ruined Brexit.
May's position on Brexit is basically the same as Corbyn's, if she could get staying in the Customs Union past her backbenchers she would
The focus here is on Tory rebels, but similar issues arise for the hardline Brexiteer Labour MPs. In general, sitting MPs are not at risk. However, if they voted to save the Government over Brexit then I think that they really would be deselected - the swing vote of centre-left members who are not especially keen on left-wing politics would support any challenger saying "we need a Labour MP who doesn't help the Tories". This isn't a threat (I'm not in a position to deselect anyone), just a fact. I suspect in reality that in a crunch they'd abstain.
Of course equally Tory associations in Tory Leave seats, including Broxtowe, may start to lose patience with their MPs voting consistemtly with Labour on Brexit
I know many Broxtowe Conservatives quite well. There is a minority who have never liked Anna, some quite vehemently, but the majority are pretty straightforward unideological Tories who like the fact that she's held the marginal seat. Deselection won't happen unless she actually resigns from the party.
In general MPs on both sides in marginals are safer from deselection than MPs in safe seats, both because the troops have fought hand-to-hand alongside them in the front line, and because the seat is likely to be held by an insurgent, even if the evicted MP tries to stand as an independent.
Yes up to a point. Soubry voting with Labour to bring down May and the government might be that point. Plus Broxtowe voted Leave of course
She’s not silly enough to vote against the government in an actual vote of confidence - she’d be thrown out of the party for that!
What’s more likely is some sort of informal pairing for some of the more contentious amendments, maybe Anna Soubry could go for a drink with Frank Field that day, and Ken Clarke with Kate Hoey?
I assume the government would do a deal with their soft Brexit rebels* and water down their regulatory and customs proposals, or most likely push it out until next year when the second cliff edge will have its effect.
* noteworthy that you have to specify which group of Tory rebels you are referring to.
I remember being told prior to the referendum that only a Leave victory would unite the Tory party.
Looking from the outside I would suggest it is united. 2 MPs who will never be reconciled to Brexit does not make for a split.
Google "tories split on brexit" About 1,250,000 results (0.47 seconds)
Gooogle "Labour split on Brexit" 445,000 results - and rising....
The only thing this reveals is the speed of one's internet I suspect.
It would be a smart move by Labour, clearing up a lot of the Brexit headaches and making Jezza the darling of business and industry. It would also strip much of the romanticism from Brexit - reducing it to essentially a migrant-control measure. Theresa's reputation amongst the euro-sceptic Right would also be in tatters. She'd be remembered only as the saboteur PM who ruined Brexit.
May's position on Brexit is basically the same as Corbyn's, if she could get staying in the Customs Union past her backbenchers she would
I think it's more Hammond's position. He returns to it like a dog to its vomit.
So the next election is on a knife edge, with a major chance the most left wing major party leader could become PM. A man that has worked with regimes from Islamists to ethnonationalists to undermime the West. The Conservative Party has major challenges maintaining unity, and the PM works a difficult balancing act thrashing out a Brexit compromise between the different wings. But she does it, getting a position soft Brexiteers like Phil Hammond can support. Boris Johnson is dealt with firmly and Fox is fuming about some changes, but it looks like the agreement will hold.
Then a handful of backbench MPs decide to take it upon themselves to nuke the compromise, undermine their own PM and tear open the wound. It's like they want to sabotage the Tories at the next election and let Corbyn in.
The Cons will not "let Corbyn in", the voters will vote him in.
Now, what he promises, what they vote for, and what he delivers would make for an interesting venn diagram, of course.
Or more particularly the SNP will let Corbyn in on current polling
Not sure if either the SNP or S.Labour want to be seen in the same bed. Tactically, it could turn out badly for both sides. In Scotland, from the hardline SNP membership PoV, it would be doing a deal with Hell and lose members and seats, from the Labour members PoV, they still consider the SNP treacherous and untrustworthy and "remember" the SNP bringing down a Labour Government in a vote of confidence, alongside the Tories. At the following 1979 GE, the SNP went from 9 to 2 seats, of course overall the Tories won, gained 62 and a majority and Labour lost 50. It must be remembered that Labour at the time were unpopular, seen as tired and incompetent, while the Tories had the new, yet untried Thatcher waiting to take the helm. Situation is reversed now with unpopular Tories and the "new" untried Corbyn in waiting! (1974 result Labour 319, Tories 277, 1979: T 339, L 268)
To save any arguments, it will be in England that the HoC GE result will be decided, not so much in Scotland, Wales or NI.
Sturgeon has made clear the SNP will support Labour on confidence and supply.
The Tories are likely to win a majority of seats in England even if Corbyn forms a government with SNP confidence and supply
Mark Stone again saying significantly Belgium PM hosted 12 PM's to a chateau for a private meeting to discuss Brexit and Merkel and Macron attended but again Junckers and Tusk were excluded
Because we’re not vegans, have never really been vegans (although sometimes were along with it for a while to keep the girlfriend happy) and really quite fancy a large juicy steak.
"A customs union means countries club together and agree to apply the same tariffs to goods from outside the union - but it does not allow members to strike their own trade deals."
Mark Stone again saying significantly Belgium PM hosted 12 PM's to a chateau for a private meeting to discuss Brexit and Merkel and Macron attended but again Junckers and Tusk were excluded
Maybe Belgium's PM just laying down the law:
"Look guys, we Belgians have had enough of hosting European wars - you need to find a new venue...."
Good analogy. Sounds like then we should LEAVE and go to a proper restaurant that serves steaks.
I always quite liked John Redwood's analogy;
"I always liken it to someone joining a football club and then announcing truculently that they have no wish to play football or watch football, getting cross when they go to club functions and people talk about football, and wanting to reduce the club subscription because, as they do not join in the football, they think they are overpaying. That is what the Government are doing to Europe."
His ideas for how Brexit should be implemented are barking mad, but he's not wrong about how dysfunctional our relationship has been with the EU and why we never fit in.
Mark Stone again saying significantly Belgium PM hosted 12 PM's to a chateau for a private meeting to discuss Brexit and Merkel and Macron attended but again Junckers and Tusk were excluded
Maybe Belgium's PM just laying down the law:
"Look guys, we Belgians have had enough of hosting European wars - you need to find a new venue...."
Seems the smaller EU countries are demanding as free a trade deal as possible
I assume the government would do a deal with their soft Brexit rebels* and water down their regulatory and customs proposals, or most likely push it out until next year when the second cliff edge will have its effect.
* noteworthy that you have to specify which group of Tory rebels you are referring to.
I remember being told prior to the referendum that only a Leave victory would unite the Tory party.
Looking from the outside I would suggest it is united. 2 MPs who will never be reconciled to Brexit does not make for a split.
Google "tories split on brexit" About 1,250,000 results (0.47 seconds)
Gooogle "Labour split on Brexit" 445,000 results - and rising....
The only thing this reveals is the speed of one's internet I suspect.
Of course it could suggest that there are more than 2 Tory MPs un-reconciled to Brexit and that both the Tories and Labour are split on the subject.
Mark Stone again saying significantly Belgium PM hosted 12 PM's to a chateau for a private meeting to discuss Brexit and Merkel and Macron attended but again Junckers and Tusk were excluded
Maybe Belgium's PM just laying down the law:
"Look guys, we Belgians have had enough of hosting European wars - you need to find a new venue...."
Seems the smaller EU countries are demanding as free a trade deal as possible
They are about to find out what little weight being a small country in the EU carries.
"You are DEMANDING what? Hah hah hah hah hah hah......"
A fascinating 'Bottom Line' on Radio 4 last night with Evan Davis. Talking about share ownership of British companies. 54% of all shares in publicly listed UK companies are now owned by foreign investors - the US and China being the big investors these days.
UK Pension funds now hold only 3% of publicly owned shares. This is a phenomenal drop over the last decade.
UK Insurance companies hold 5% of publicly owned shares.
Unit Trusts hold 10%.
There has been a huge transformation in share ownership over the last couple of decades.
Seems high (I am not in front of a bloomberg). All listed? AIM? FTSE-350 Low Yield? etc?
Or are they counting, eg. Capital as a foreign investor?
My biggest gripe with the Bottom Line is that they repeat it, a programme about business and related matters, on a Saturday early evening. When no one should care about the shenanigans of the business world and should be prepping themselves for a night out somewhere (Tubes, perhaps, for you Richard?).
What is the difference between "THE" Customs Union and "A" customs union?
The Customs Union prevents us from signing our own trade deals.
Why doesn't "a" customs union (as opposed to some other customs arrangement) prevent that?
A Customs Union doesn’t exist yet, it would be for us to negotiate it. The CU very much already exists.
Those talking about A CU really mean a comprehensive customs agreement without remaining in The CU.
So what is the Brexiteers objection to it? (or is it just about semantics ie. what it is called?).
If the Govt put a counter amendment rejecting "A Customs union" but advocating "a comprehensive customs agreement out side of The Customs Union" would it pass?
What is the difference between "THE" Customs Union and "A" customs union?
The Customs Union prevents us from signing our own trade deals.
Why doesn't "a" customs union (as opposed to some other customs arrangement) prevent that?
A Customs Union doesn’t exist yet, it would be for us to negotiate it. The CU very much already exists.
Those talking about A CU really mean a comprehensive customs agreement without remaining in The CU.
So what is the Brexiteers objection to it? (or is it just about semantics ie. what it is called?).
If the Govt put a counter amendment rejecting "A Customs union" but advocating "a comprehensive customs agreement out side of The Customs Union" would it pass?
Providing it doesn’t restrict the ability of the UK to do trade deals with other countries, and doesn’t impose product standards on the UK domestic market, then yes it should probably pass.
It would be a smart move by Labour, clearing up a lot of the Brexit headaches and making Jezza the darling of business and industry. It would also strip much of the romanticism from Brexit - reducing it to essentially a migrant-control measure. Theresa's reputation amongst the euro-sceptic Right would also be in tatters. She'd be remembered only as the saboteur PM who ruined Brexit.
May's position on Brexit is basically the same as Corbyn's, if she could get staying in the Customs Union past her backbenchers she would
I think it's more Hammond's position. He returns to it like a dog to its vomit.
That is no way to speak of the next Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party.
What is the difference between "THE" Customs Union and "A" customs union?
The Customs Union prevents us from signing our own trade deals.
Why doesn't "a" customs union (as opposed to some other customs arrangement) prevent that?
A Customs Union doesn’t exist yet, it would be for us to negotiate it. The CU very much already exists.
Those talking about A CU really mean a comprehensive customs agreement without remaining in The CU.
So what is the Brexiteers objection to it? (or is it just about semantics ie. what it is called?).
If the Govt put a counter amendment rejecting "A Customs union" but advocating "a comprehensive customs agreement out side of The Customs Union" would it pass?
Providing it doesn’t restrict the ability of the UK to do trade deals with other countries, and doesn’t impose product standards on the UK domestic market, then yes it should probably pass.
I suppose the other issue is that the Government don't want to put "negotiating objectives" in legislation. Because then if any of those objectives are watered down then it might produce a basis for legal challenge to a final agreement.
What is the difference between "THE" Customs Union and "A" customs union?
The Customs Union prevents us from signing our own trade deals.
Why doesn't "a" customs union (as opposed to some other customs arrangement) prevent that?
In short, because rules of origin can be put in place so that even though goods can go A to B and B to C without controls, they cannot go A to B to C.
Politically can be difficult though.
One of the obscure features of the Turkish customs union is that it offers a convention (essentially a waiver) on rules of origin called the Pan European Mediterranean cumulation. That includes the EU, EU candidate countries, EFTA, all the signatories of the Barcelona Process (basically a bunch of Arab countries plus Israel), Moldova and last, but of course, not least, the Faroes. And here you were thinking customs unions were dull.
A fascinating 'Bottom Line' on Radio 4 last night with Evan Davis. Talking about share ownership of British companies. 54% of all shares in publicly listed UK companies are now owned by foreign investors - the US and China being the big investors these days.
UK Pension funds now hold only 3% of publicly owned shares. This is a phenomenal drop over the last decade.
UK Insurance companies hold 5% of publicly owned shares.
Unit Trusts hold 10%.
There has been a huge transformation in share ownership over the last couple of decades.
Seems high (I am not in front of a bloomberg). All listed? AIM? FTSE-350 Low Yield? etc?
Or are they counting, eg. Capital as a foreign investor?
My biggest gripe with the Bottom Line is that they repeat it, a programme about business and related matters, on a Saturday early evening. When no one should care about the shenanigans of the business world and should be prepping themselves for a night out somewhere (Tubes, perhaps, for you Richard?).
They were using the most recent figures from the ONS and from the way they were talking the figures related to ownership all publicly listed shares.
I have not heard the programme very often but I happened to be driving to Nottingham to pick up my daughter from a show and it was better than listening to Jo Whiley talking to the execrable Stormzy on Radio 2.
What is the difference between "THE" Customs Union and "A" customs union?
The Customs Union prevents us from signing our own trade deals.
Why doesn't "a" customs union (as opposed to some other customs arrangement) prevent that?
A Customs Union doesn’t exist yet, it would be for us to negotiate it. The CU very much already exists.
Those talking about A CU really mean a comprehensive customs agreement without remaining in The CU.
So what is the Brexiteers objection to it? (or is it just about semantics ie. what it is called?).
If the Govt put a counter amendment rejecting "A Customs union" but advocating "a comprehensive customs agreement out side of The Customs Union" would it pass?
Providing it doesn’t restrict the ability of the UK to do trade deals with other countries, and doesn’t impose product standards on the UK domestic market, then yes it should probably pass.
I await details of this magical customs union (which sets a common external tariff, and if it doesn't, it ain't a customs union) but let's us negotiate FTAs (much of which deal with tariffs and NTBs).
To be clear, I don't much mind about FTAs which are overwhelmingly about goods. That's a relatively small part of the UK economy.
What is the difference between "THE" Customs Union and "A" customs union?
The Customs Union prevents us from signing our own trade deals.
Why doesn't "a" customs union (as opposed to some other customs arrangement) prevent that?
A Customs Union doesn’t exist yet, it would be for us to negotiate it. The CU very much already exists.
Those talking about A CU really mean a comprehensive customs agreement without remaining in The CU.
So what is the Brexiteers objection to it? (or is it just about semantics ie. what it is called?).
If the Govt put a counter amendment rejecting "A Customs union" but advocating "a comprehensive customs agreement out side of The Customs Union" would it pass?
Providing it doesn’t restrict the ability of the UK to do trade deals with other countries, and doesn’t impose product standards on the UK domestic market, then yes it should probably pass.
Yep I would agree with that. There is nothing in principle wrong with a customs union but the one we are currently in puts unacceptable restrictions on our ability to do our own trade deals or, perhaps as importantly, take up seats at places like the WTO.
What is the difference between "THE" Customs Union and "A" customs union?
The Customs Union prevents us from signing our own trade deals.
Why doesn't "a" customs union (as opposed to some other customs arrangement) prevent that?
A Customs Union doesn’t exist yet, it would be for us to negotiate it. The CU very much already exists.
Those talking about A CU really mean a comprehensive customs agreement without remaining in The CU.
So what is the Brexiteers objection to it? (or is it just about semantics ie. what it is called?).
If the Govt put a counter amendment rejecting "A Customs union" but advocating "a comprehensive customs agreement out side of The Customs Union" would it pass?
Providing it doesn’t restrict the ability of the UK to do trade deals with other countries, and doesn’t impose product standards on the UK domestic market, then yes it should probably pass.
Yep I would agree with that. There is nothing in principle wrong with a customs union but the one we are currently in puts unacceptable restrictions on our ability to do our own trade deals or, perhaps as importantly, take up seats at places like the WTO.
Are you absolutely sure that a FTA with, say, China won't simply increase our trade deficit? The only growth area for UK exports to there is in services.
What is the difference between "THE" Customs Union and "A" customs union?
The Customs Union prevents us from signing our own trade deals.
Why doesn't "a" customs union (as opposed to some other customs arrangement) prevent that?
A Customs Union doesn’t exist yet, it would be for us to negotiate it. The CU very much already exists.
Those talking about A CU really mean a comprehensive customs agreement without remaining in The CU.
So what is the Brexiteers objection to it? (or is it just about semantics ie. what it is called?).
If the Govt put a counter amendment rejecting "A Customs union" but advocating "a comprehensive customs agreement out side of The Customs Union" would it pass?
Providing it doesn’t restrict the ability of the UK to do trade deals with other countries, and doesn’t impose product standards on the UK domestic market, then yes it should probably pass.
I suppose the other issue is that the Government don't want to put "negotiating objectives" in legislation. Because then if any of those objectives are watered down then it might produce a basis for legal challenge to a final agreement.
Yes, which is why people trying to use amendments to the legislation going through Parliament has the potential to be very problematic. The resulting bill on Brexit is the product of a negotiation between the UK government and the EU, it can’t be unilaterally amended without reopening the negotiations (which also need to be ratified on the EU side).
What is the difference between "THE" Customs Union and "A" customs union?
The Customs Union prevents us from signing our own trade deals.
Why doesn't "a" customs union (as opposed to some other customs arrangement) prevent that?
A Customs Union doesn’t exist yet, it would be for us to negotiate it. The CU very much already exists.
Those talking about A CU really mean a comprehensive customs agreement without remaining in The CU.
So what is the Brexiteers objection to it? (or is it just about semantics ie. what it is called?).
If the Govt put a counter amendment rejecting "A Customs union" but advocating "a comprehensive customs agreement out side of The Customs Union" would it pass?
Providing it doesn’t restrict the ability of the UK to do trade deals with other countries, and doesn’t impose product standards on the UK domestic market, then yes it should probably pass.
Yep I would agree with that. There is nothing in principle wrong with a customs union but the one we are currently in puts unacceptable restrictions on our ability to do our own trade deals or, perhaps as importantly, take up seats at places like the WTO.
Are you absolutely sure that a FTA with, say, China won't simply increase our trade deficit? The only growth area for UK exports to there is in services.
No of course not. It might increase our trade deficit if we went for a bad deal. But the important point is that currently if we want to do any sort of deal with another country it has to be via the EU who are looking to do comprehensive trade deals which satisfy as much of the divergent needs of the 28 member states as possible. This inevitably means that such a deal will not be optimised for the UK.
The ability to strike our own deals - and they need not be comprehensive FTAs - means that we can negotiate with China (or any other country) on the basis of specific areas that are good for us and for them.
I assume the government would do a deal with their soft Brexit rebels* and water down their regulatory and customs proposals, or most likely push it out until next year when the second cliff edge will have its effect.
* noteworthy that you have to specify which group of Tory rebels you are referring to.
I remember being told prior to the referendum that only a Leave victory would unite the Tory party.
Looking from the outside I would suggest it is united. 2 MPs who will never be reconciled to Brexit does not make for a split.
Google "tories split on brexit" About 1,250,000 results (0.47 seconds)
Gooogle "Labour split on Brexit" 445,000 results - and rising....
What is the difference between "THE" Customs Union and "A" customs union?
The Customs Union prevents us from signing our own trade deals.
Why doesn't "a" customs union (as opposed to some other customs arrangement) prevent that?
A Customs Union doesn’t exist yet, it would be for us to negotiate it. The CU very much already exists.
Those talking about A CU really mean a comprehensive customs agreement without remaining in The CU.
So what is the Brexiteers objection to it? (or is it just about semantics ie. what it is called?).
If the Govt put a counter amendment rejecting "A Customs union" but advocating "a comprehensive customs agreement out side of The Customs Union" would it pass?
Providing it doesn’t restrict the ability of the UK to do trade deals with other countries, and doesn’t impose product standards on the UK domestic market, then yes it should probably pass.
Yep I would agree with that. There is nothing in principle wrong with a customs union but the one we are currently in puts unacceptable restrictions on our ability to do our own trade deals or, perhaps as importantly, take up seats at places like the WTO.
Yes, and the WTO is where the big decisions on global trade are made, rather than the tinkering around with kettles and light bulbs the EU is famous for. The return of our seat at the WTO is one of the biggest positives of leaving the EU.
What is the difference between "THE" Customs Union and "A" customs union?
The Customs Union prevents us from signing our own trade deals.
Why doesn't "a" customs union (as opposed to some other customs arrangement) prevent that?
In short, because rules of origin can be put in place so that even though goods can go A to B and B to C without controls, they cannot go A to B to C.
Politically can be difficult though.
One of the obscure features of the Turkish customs union is that it offers a convention (essentially a waiver) on rules of origin called the Pan European Mediterranean cumulation. That includes the EU, EU candidate countries, EFTA, all the signatories of the Barcelona Process (basically a bunch of Arab countries plus Israel), Moldova and last, but of course, not least, the Faroes. And here you were thinking customs unions were dull.
The massive problem with the Turkish/EU Customs Union is it allows other countries to sell into Turkey tariff free but does not allow Turkey to sell into those countries without a separate trade deal.
I assume the government would do a deal with their soft Brexit rebels* and water down their regulatory and customs proposals, or most likely push it out until next year when the second cliff edge will have its effect.
* noteworthy that you have to specify which group of Tory rebels you are referring to.
I remember being told prior to the referendum that only a Leave victory would unite the Tory party.
Looking from the outside I would suggest it is united. 2 MPs who will never be reconciled to Brexit does not make for a split.
Google "tories split on brexit" About 1,250,000 results (0.47 seconds)
Gooogle "Labour split on Brexit" 445,000 results - and rising....
Banana split on Brexit gets you 137,000.
'Taylor Swift split on Brexit' gets 274k. I promise to do no more of these, it's addictive .
What is the difference between "THE" Customs Union and "A" customs union?
The Customs Union prevents us from signing our own trade deals.
Why doesn't "a" customs union (as opposed to some other customs arrangement) prevent that?
A Customs Union doesn’t exist yet, it would be for us to negotiate it. The CU very much already exists.
Those talking about A CU really mean a comprehensive customs agreement without remaining in The CU.
So what is the Brexiteers objection to it? (or is it just about semantics ie. what it is called?).
If the Govt put a counter amendment rejecting "A Customs union" but advocating "a comprehensive customs agreement out side of The Customs Union" would it pass?
Providrobably pass.
Yep I would agree with that. There is nothing in principle wrong with a customs union but the one we are currently in puts unacceptable restrictions on our ability to do our own trade deals or, perhaps as importantly, take up seats at places like the WTO.
Are you absolutely sure that a FTA with, say, China won't simply increase our trade deficit? The only growth area for UK exports to there is in services.
No of course not. It might increase our trade deficit if we went for a bad deal. But the important point is that currently if we want to do any sort of deal with another country it has to be via the EU who are looking to do comprehensive trade deals which satisfy as much of the divergent needs of the 28 member states as possible. This inevitably means that such a deal will not be optimised for the UK.
The ability to strike our own deals - and they need not be comprehensive FTAs - means that we can negotiate with China (or any other country) on the basis of specific areas that are good for us and for them.
Yebbut the thing that is sometimes easy to forget, is that we have an optimised for us trade deal in the bag for nearly half our exports. That is the idiocy of trying to jettison that one and create new ones with other countries (including, of course, the EU). It is truly baby and bathwater territory.
But nevermind we've been through all that. Much more importantly, I have ONLY JUST NOW finished reading the fantastic thread was it @MarqueeMark posted on pedantry. Excellent, if time-consuming.
I assume the government would do a deal with their soft Brexit rebels* and water down their regulatory and customs proposals, or most likely push it out until next year when the second cliff edge will have its effect.
* noteworthy that you have to specify which group of Tory rebels you are referring to.
I remember being told prior to the referendum that only a Leave victory would unite the Tory party.
Looking from the outside I would suggest it is united. 2 MPs who will never be reconciled to Brexit does not make for a split.
Google "tories split on brexit" About 1,250,000 results (0.47 seconds)
Gooogle "Labour split on Brexit" 445,000 results - and rising....
Banana split on Brexit gets you 137,000.
Thanks. Now I've got the Banana Split song in my head.
I assume the government would do a deal with their soft Brexit rebels* and water down their regulatory and customs proposals, or most likely push it out until next year when the second cliff edge will have its effect.
* noteworthy that you have to specify which group of Tory rebels you are referring to.
I remember being told prior to the referendum that only a Leave victory would unite the Tory party.
Looking from the outside I would suggest it is united. 2 MPs who will never be reconciled to Brexit does not make for a split.
Google "tories split on brexit" About 1,250,000 results (0.47 seconds)
Gooogle "Labour split on Brexit" 445,000 results - and rising....
Banana split on Brexit gets you 137,000.
Thanks. Now I've got the Banana Split song in my head.
Well thanks to Brexit we can have any shaped banana we like even if we don't have optimum access to the world's largest free trade zone. So it's swings and roundabouts.
What is the difference between "THE" Customs Union and "A" customs union?
The Customs Union prevents us from signing our own trade deals.
Why doesn't "a" customs union (as opposed to some other customs arrangement) prevent that?
A Customs Union doesn’t exist yet, it would be for us to negotiate it. The CU very much already exists.
Those talking about A CU really mean a comprehensive customs agreement without remaining in The CU.
So what is the Brexiteers objection to it? (or is it just about semantics ie. what it is called?).
If the Govt put a counter amendment rejecting "A Customs union" but advocating "a comprehensive customs agreement out side of The Customs Union" would it pass?
Providing it doesn’t restrict the ability of the UK to do trade deals with other countries, and doesn’t impose product standards on the UK domestic market, then yes it should probably pass.
Yep I would agree with that. There is nothing in principle wrong with a customs union but the one we are currently in puts unacceptable restrictions on our ability to do our own trade deals or, perhaps as importantly, take up seats at places like the WTO.
Are you absolutely sure that a FTA with, say, China won't simply increase our trade deficit? The only growth area for UK exports to there is in services.
An FTA that accepts tariff free imports of foreign goods in exchange for tariff free exports of UK services is likely to damage the UK economy.
The reason is that the damage to UK producers of manufactured goods will also damage the much larger hinterland of associated services that service the manufacturing sector. I assume the economic models that show the small benefit of FTAs are picking up this effect.
I assume the government would do a deal with their soft Brexit rebels* and water down their regulatory and customs proposals, or most likely push it out until next year when the second cliff edge will have its effect.
* noteworthy that you have to specify which group of Tory rebels you are referring to.
I remember being told prior to the referendum that only a Leave victory would unite the Tory party.
Looking from the outside I would suggest it is united. 2 MPs who will never be reconciled to Brexit does not make for a split.
Google "tories split on brexit" About 1,250,000 results (0.47 seconds)
Gooogle "Labour split on Brexit" 445,000 results - and rising....
Banana split on Brexit gets you 137,000.
'Taylor Swift split on Brexit' gets 274k. I promise to do no more of these, it's addictive .
What is the difference between "THE" Customs Union and "A" customs union?
The Customs Union prevents us from signing our own trade deals.
Why doesn't "a" customs union (as opposed to some other customs arrangement) prevent that?
A Customs Union doesn’t exist yet, it would be for us to negotiate it. The CU very much already exists.
Those talking about A CU really mean a comprehensive customs agreement without remaining in The CU.
So what is the Brexiteers objection to it? (or is it just about semantics ie. what it is called?).
If the Govt put a counter amendment rejecting "A Customs union" but advocating "a comprehensive customs agreement out side of The Customs Union" would it pass?
Providing it doesn’t restrict the ability of the UK to do trade deals with other countries, and doesn’t impose product standards on the UK domestic market, then yes it should probably pass.
Yep I would agree with that. There is nothing in principle wrong with a customs union but the one we are currently in puts unacceptable restrictions on our ability to do our own trade deals or, perhaps as importantly, take up seats at places like the WTO.
Are you absolutely sure that a FTA with, say, China won't simply increase our trade deficit? The only growth area for UK exports to there is in services.
An FTA that accepts tariff free imports of foreign goods in exchange for tariff free exports of UK services is likely to damage the UK economy.
The reason is that the damage to UK producers of manufactured goods will also damage the much larger hinterland of associated services that service the manufacturing sector. I assume the economic models that show the small benefit of FTAs are picking up this effect.
Oh yes absolutely but someone will no doubt tell us (Patrick Minford, for example), that we should go down that road.
I assume the government would do a deal with their soft Brexit rebels* and water down their regulatory and customs proposals, or most likely push it out until next year when the second cliff edge will have its effect.
* noteworthy that you have to specify which group of Tory rebels you are referring to.
I remember being told prior to the referendum that only a Leave victory would unite the Tory party.
Looking from the outside I would suggest it is united. 2 MPs who will never be reconciled to Brexit does not make for a split.
Google "tories split on brexit" About 1,250,000 results (0.47 seconds)
Gooogle "Labour split on Brexit" 445,000 results - and rising....
Banana split on Brexit gets you 137,000.
Thanks. Now I've got the Banana Split song in my head.
Well thanks to Brexit we can have any shaped banana we like even if we don't have optimum access to the world's largest free trade zone. So it's swings and roundabouts.
All the 'funny shaped banana' directives were repeeled (bum! tish!) in the mid noughties, so we don't even have that for consolation.
@PaulBrandITV: LATEST: Number of Tories signing up to @Anna_Soubry's amendment to keep Britiain in 'a' customs union continues to grow. Just spoke to Dominic Grieve who will also be backing it.
I assume the government would do a deal with their soft Brexit rebels* and water down their regulatory and customs proposals, or most likely push it out until next year when the second cliff edge will have its effect.
* noteworthy that you have to specify which group of Tory rebels you are referring to.
I remember being told prior to the referendum that only a Leave victory would unite the Tory party.
Looking from the outside I would suggest it is united. 2 MPs who will never be reconciled to Brexit does not make for a split.
Google "tories split on brexit" About 1,250,000 results (0.47 seconds)
Gooogle "Labour split on Brexit" 445,000 results - and rising....
Banana split on Brexit gets you 137,000.
Thanks. Now I've got the Banana Split song in my head.
Well thanks to Brexit we can have any shaped banana we like even if we don't have optimum access to the world's largest free trade zone. So it's swings and roundabouts.
All the 'funny shaped banana' directives were repeeled (bum! tish!) in the mid noughties, so we don't even have that for consolation.
@PaulBrandITV: LATEST: Number of Tories signing up to @Anna_Soubry's amendment to keep Britiain in 'a' customs union continues to grow. Just spoke to Dominic Grieve who will also be backing it.
Grieve backs staying in customs union... Who knew!!!!!
Worth noting the Labour Leave MPs,apart from Kate Hoey,under the stewardship of Dennis Skinner, were persuaded that voting to defeat the government was the greater good in this case in a previous vote.They may only be 7 but are an influential part of the numbers equation-6-1 against- Tory whips acted on to prevent a certain defeat on the issue of a customs union.The desire for unity to defeat this government should not be under-estimated.
Good analogy. Sounds like then we should LEAVE and go to a proper restaurant that serves steaks.
The analogy would be more accurate if around half of our dining party were vegans, and half dedicated carnivores. They are not going to be happy at either the vegan restaurant, or the steakhouse the meateaters are demanding. Of course it ought to be possible to find a restaurant that might satisfy both, but it will be more expensive, and some of the meateaters, who are (narrowly) the majority, are insisting on the steakhouse...
@PaulBrandITV: LATEST: Number of Tories signing up to @Anna_Soubry's amendment to keep Britiain in 'a' customs union continues to grow. Just spoke to Dominic Grieve who will also be backing it.
Grieve backs staying in customs union... Who knew!!!!!
Yes it is amazing that an election which was called to render such mind-boggling information irrelevant, has instead made it front page news.
@PaulBrandITV: LATEST: Number of Tories signing up to @Anna_Soubry's amendment to keep Britiain in 'a' customs union continues to grow. Just spoke to Dominic Grieve who will also be backing it.
Quite right. Why should the idiot Moggeties be the only public face of the Tory Party.
Worth noting the Labour Leave MPs,apart from Kate Hoey,under the stewardship of Dennis Skinner, were persuaded that voting to defeat the government was the greater good in this case in a previous vote.They may only be 7 but are an influential part of the numbers equation-6-1 against- Tory whips acted on to prevent a certain defeat on the issue of a customs union.The desire for unity to defeat this government should not be under-estimated.
I always wonder in situations like this... how far can Conservative whips trust someone like Dennis Skinner or Kate Hoey to vote the way they promise?
On the assumption the full cabinet endorse yesterday's agreement by the Chequers meeting I assume it becomes government policy and any MP defying that policy is defying their own government
On the assumption the full cabinet endorse yesterday's agreement by the Chequers meeting I assume it becomes government policy and any MP defying that policy is defying their own government
Tories rebelling against their own government on EU matters?
On the assumption the full cabinet endorse yesterday's agreement by the Chequers meeting I assume it becomes government policy and any MP defying that policy is defying their own government
I'm not sure the likes of Soubry care. They've become unhinged by Brexit....
Ousted Ukip leader Henry Bolton has revealed that he “fibbed” about breaking off his controversial relationship with former model Jo Marney over racist texts messages about Meghan Markle.
Worth noting the Labour Leave MPs,apart from Kate Hoey,under the stewardship of Dennis Skinner, were persuaded that voting to defeat the government was the greater good in this case in a previous vote.They may only be 7 but are an influential part of the numbers equation-6-1 against- Tory whips acted on to prevent a certain defeat on the issue of a customs union.The desire for unity to defeat this government should not be under-estimated.
I always wonder in situations like this... how far can Conservative whips trust someone like Dennis Skinner or Kate Hoey to vote the way they promise?
@PaulBrandITV: LATEST: Number of Tories signing up to @Anna_Soubry's amendment to keep Britiain in 'a' customs union continues to grow. Just spoke to Dominic Grieve who will also be backing it.
Quite right. Why should the idiot Moggeties be the only public face of the Tory Party.
A fascinating 'Bottom Line' on Radio 4 last night with Evan Davis. Talking about share ownership of British companies. 54% of all shares in publicly listed UK companies are now owned by foreign investors - the US and China being the big investors these days.
UK Pension funds now hold only 3% of publicly owned shares. This is a phenomenal drop over the last decade.
UK Insurance companies hold 5% of publicly owned shares.
Unit Trusts hold 10%.
There has been a huge transformation in share ownership over the last couple of decades.
That's true, but of course it's partly because globalisation and the opening up of capital markets means that UK investors are holding more international shares. It's a two-way process.
Only Field, Skinner and Hoey voted against retaining the existing EU customs union in December. Skinner might vote for the new amendment to give the Tories a bloody nose. Hoey and Field won't.
But that leaves several Eurosceptic Labour MPs who didn't vote against the customs union in December (Stringer, Godsiff, Campbell, Mann, and Hopkins if you still count him as Labour) and will therefore probably back it this time.
The numbers are looking very tight for May. Wonder if she's still pursuing the policy of "oh, we might lose, let's not bring it to a vote"?
On topic: I think the key here is in the word 'a'. We are in a position where semantics trump reality.
So, what do people mean by 'a' customs union? Jeremy Corbyn clearly doesn't have a clue what he means, and John McDonnell is being deliberately evasive:
Speaking at an event on Thursday, McDonnell said Labour was “not supporting membership of ‘the’ customs union, but we are looking at ‘a’ customs union”.
“The reason we’re saying ‘a’ customs union is because we don’t want the same asymmetric relationship that Turkey have got,” he said.
“What we would want is to negotiate around our ability to influence the trade negotiations that would take place on behalf of us all – both ourselves and European countries – in terms of trade via a customs union. That would be the discussion we would want to open up.”
Theresa May has spoken repeatedly of a 'customs arrangement', which sounds much the same.
Since no-one can say what 'a' customs union actually would be, is there a bit of wriggle-room here for government to accept the amendment, or an amended form of it?
Yesterday I put a small sum on a 2018 election and also tried to reduce my losses on Corbyn on the next PM market.
I still think there won't be an election this year. I've stayed out of laying Corbyn on the next PM market - as time creeps forwards his price will shorten and shorten.. essentially you need a Tory leadership contest in order not to be caught with your pants down on that market when the next GE is called.
On topic: I think the key here is in the word 'a'. We are in a position where semantics trump reality.
So, what do people mean by 'a' customs union? Jeremy Corbyn clearly doesn't have a clue what he means, and John McDonnell is being deliberately evasive:
Speaking at an event on Thursday, McDonnell said Labour was “not supporting membership of ‘the’ customs union, but we are looking at ‘a’ customs union”.
“The reason we’re saying ‘a’ customs union is because we don’t want the same asymmetric relationship that Turkey have got,” he said.
“What we would want is to negotiate around our ability to influence the trade negotiations that would take place on behalf of us all – both ourselves and European countries – in terms of trade via a customs union. That would be the discussion we would want to open up.”
Theresa May has spoken repeatedly of a 'customs arrangement', which sounds much the same.
Since no-one can say what 'a' customs union actually would be, is there a bit of wriggle-room here for government to accept the amendment, or an amended form of it?
Yes it is pretty meaningless stuff. The Gov't should probably delay and amend this one for a while though or the pro European lot will see they have a victory, and try and get more ground.
A fascinating 'Bottom Line' on Radio 4 last night with Evan Davis. Talking about share ownership of British companies. 54% of all shares in publicly listed UK companies are now owned by foreign investors - the US and China being the big investors these days.
UK Pension funds now hold only 3% of publicly owned shares. This is a phenomenal drop over the last decade.
UK Insurance companies hold 5% of publicly owned shares.
Unit Trusts hold 10%.
There has been a huge transformation in share ownership over the last couple of decades.
That's true, but of course it's partly because globalisation and the opening up of capital markets means that UK investors are holding more international shares. It's a two-way process.
Very much so and that was emphasised by the programme (it is well worth listening to)
I think the point that struck me was that so often on here we talk about falls in the UK stock market as being terribly bad for pension funds. It seems to me that that link has slowly dissolved over the years and that the UK institutional investors that typically backed UK business are now becoming less and less important.
Yesterday I put a small sum on a 2018 election and also tried to reduce my losses on Corbyn on the next PM market.
I still think there won't be an election this year. I've stayed out of laying Corbyn on the next PM market - as time creeps forwards his price will shorten and shorten.. essentially you need a Tory leadership contest in order not to be caught with your pants down on that market when the next GE is called.
A good point. Those of us with a large red number against next PM Corbyn will start to worry if it looks like May survives until the next scheduled election.
On topic: I think the key here is in the word 'a'. We are in a position where semantics trump reality.
So, what do people mean by 'a' customs union? Jeremy Corbyn clearly doesn't have a clue what he means, and John McDonnell is being deliberately evasive:
Speaking at an event on Thursday, McDonnell said Labour was “not supporting membership of ‘the’ customs union, but we are looking at ‘a’ customs union”.
“The reason we’re saying ‘a’ customs union is because we don’t want the same asymmetric relationship that Turkey have got,” he said.
“What we would want is to negotiate around our ability to influence the trade negotiations that would take place on behalf of us all – both ourselves and European countries – in terms of trade via a customs union. That would be the discussion we would want to open up.”
Theresa May has spoken repeatedly of a 'customs arrangement', which sounds much the same.
Since no-one can say what 'a' customs union actually would be, is there a bit of wriggle-room here for government to accept the amendment, or an amended form of it?
That might work but it requires TMay to face down the extreme Brexiteer Tory MPs
A fascinating 'Bottom Line' on Radio 4 last night with Evan Davis. Talking about share ownership of British companies. 54% of all shares in publicly listed UK companies are now owned by foreign investors - the US and China being the big investors these days.
UK Pension funds now hold only 3% of publicly owned shares. This is a phenomenal drop over the last decade.
UK Insurance companies hold 5% of publicly owned shares.
Unit Trusts hold 10%.
There has been a huge transformation in share ownership over the last couple of decades.
That's true, but of course it's partly because globalisation and the opening up of capital markets means that UK investors are holding more international shares. It's a two-way process.
Very much so and that was emphasised by the programme (it is well worth listening to)
I think the point that struck me was that so often on here we talk about falls in the UK stock market as being terribly bad for pension funds. It seems to me that that link has slowly dissolved over the years and that the UK institutional investors that typically backed UK business are now becoming less and less important.
Good analogy. Sounds like then we should LEAVE and go to a proper restaurant that serves steaks.
The analogy would be more accurate if around half of our dining party were vegans, and half dedicated carnivores. They are not going to be happy at either the vegan restaurant, or the steakhouse the meateaters are demanding. Of course it ought to be possible to find a restaurant that might satisfy both, but it will be more expensive, and some of the meateaters, who are (narrowly) the majority, are insisting on the steakhouse...
Well, yeah. Our entire political culture and system is based on adversarial rather than consensus. Winner takes all (or largest minority takes all); everyone else to be ignored.
It's just that we inevitably end up with people feeling pushed into one camp or another and intolerant of "the other" camp. "Suck it up, losers" versus "We'll wipe the smiles off your face"
This is just the latest manifestation of that. Yes, it's worsening, but it won't be the worst. We can just look across the ocean to see the future.
Speaking at an event on Thursday, McDonnell said Labour was “not supporting membership of ‘the’ customs union, but we are looking at ‘a’ customs union”.
“The reason we’re saying ‘a’ customs union is because we don’t want the same asymmetric relationship that Turkey have got,” he said.
The only way to avoid an asymmetric relationship is to remain in the EU.
What is the difference between "THE" Customs Union and "A" customs union?
The Customs Union prevents us from signing our own trade deals.
Why doesn't "a" customs union (as opposed to some other customs arrangement) prevent that?
A Customs Union doesn’t exist yet, it would be for us to negotiate it. The CU very much already exists.
Those talking about A CU really mean a comprehensive customs agreement without remaining in The CU.
So what is the Brexiteers objection to it? (or is it just about semantics ie. what it is called?).
If the Govt put a counter amendment rejecting "A Customs union" but advocating "a comprehensive customs agreement out side of The Customs Union" would it pass?
Providrobably pass.
Yep I would agree with that. There is nothing in principle wrong with a customs union but the one we are currently in puts unacceptable restrictions on our ability to do our own trade deals or, perhaps as importantly, take up seats at places like the WTO.
Are you absolutely sure that a FTA with, say, China won't simply increase our trade deficit? The only growth area for UK exports to there is in services.
No of course not. It might increase our trade deficit if we went for a bad deal. But the important point is that currently if we want to do any sort of deal with another country it has to be via the EU who are looking to do comprehensive trade deals which satisfy as much of the divergent needs of the 28 member states as possible. This inevitably means that such a deal will not be optimised for the UK.
The ability to strike our own deals - and they need not be comprehensive FTAs - means that we can negotiate with China (or any other country) on the basis of specific areas that are good for us and for them.
Yebbut the thing that is sometimes easy to forget, is that we have an optimised for us trade deal in the bag for nearly half our exports. That is the idiocy of trying to jettison that one and create new ones with other countries (including, of course, the EU). It is truly baby and bathwater territory.
Except of course it is not optimised for us. If it were we not have a massive and growing trade deficit with the rest of the EU which more than wipes our our trade surplus with the rest of the world.
Speaking at an event on Thursday, McDonnell said Labour was “not supporting membership of ‘the’ customs union, but we are looking at ‘a’ customs union”.
“The reason we’re saying ‘a’ customs union is because we don’t want the same asymmetric relationship that Turkey have got,” he said.
The only way to avoid an asymmetric relationship is to remain in the EU.
What is the difference between "THE" Customs Union and "A" customs union?
"THE" CU is linked in with the rest of the EU deal and implies regulatory identity (not convergence or non-divergence or equivalence). "A" CU merely means agreement on common tariffs to third parties, plus anything else the participants decide to include. The big plus is that it makes UK-EU trade, specifically in Ireland, very much easier, although how "very" that is depends on regulatory agreement. The big minus is that you can't then run off and agree different tariffs with anyone else, ever.
Speaking at an event on Thursday, McDonnell said Labour was “not supporting membership of ‘the’ customs union, but we are looking at ‘a’ customs union”.
“The reason we’re saying ‘a’ customs union is because we don’t want the same asymmetric relationship that Turkey have got,” he said.
The only way to avoid an asymmetric relationship is to remain in the EU.
Yes, in fact inasmuch as John McDonnell makes any sense at all, he seems to be advocating a very asymmetric relationship. Personally I think it's the least damaging of the poor options potentially available, but we shouldn't kid ourselves that it's anything other than signing up to EU rules (and probably third-party tariffs) on those items covered by any 'customs arrangement' or 'a customs union', or whatever you want to call it.
Comments
What’s more likely is some sort of informal pairing for some of the more contentious amendments, maybe Anna Soubry could go for a drink with Frank Field that day, and Ken Clarke with Kate Hoey?
445,000 results - and rising....
But if May loses this vote - then surely we will get a leader who accepts we will stay in customs union? 60 or so Tories could never vote for that - but presumably the rest can live with it then?
And what’s the point electing a leader who can’t get Brexit through....
To save any arguments, it will be in England that the HoC GE result will be decided, not so much in Scotland, Wales or NI.
Source?
The Tories are likely to win a majority of seats in England even if Corbyn forms a government with SNP confidence and supply
'Rapper gets over 3 years in prison for lyrics '
https://tinyurl.com/yd5jpr8m
"We continue to want to see the rule of law upheld, the Spanish Constitution respected, and Spanish unity preserved.”
(Quoting from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43167824 )
"A customs union means countries club together and agree to apply the same tariffs to goods from outside the union - but it does not allow members to strike their own trade deals."
"Look guys, we Belgians have had enough of hosting European wars - you need to find a new venue...."
Politically can be difficult though.
"I always liken it to someone joining a football club and then announcing truculently that they have no wish to play football or watch football, getting cross when they go to club functions and people talk about football, and wanting to reduce the club subscription because, as they do not join in the football, they think they are overpaying. That is what the Government are doing to Europe."
His ideas for how Brexit should be implemented are barking mad, but he's not wrong about how dysfunctional our relationship has been with the EU and why we never fit in.
Those talking about A CU really mean a comprehensive customs agreement without remaining in The CU.
Andorra, Turkey and San Marino are non EU participants in "A" (bilateral) custom unions with the EU.
"You are DEMANDING what? Hah hah hah hah hah hah......"
Or are they counting, eg. Capital as a foreign investor?
My biggest gripe with the Bottom Line is that they repeat it, a programme about business and related matters, on a Saturday early evening. When no one should care about the shenanigans of the business world and should be prepping themselves for a night out somewhere (Tubes, perhaps, for you Richard?).
If the Govt put a counter amendment rejecting "A Customs union" but advocating "a comprehensive customs agreement out side of The Customs Union" would it pass?
"Cabinet minister Jeremy Hunt has said there is no possibility that the government would back remaining in a customs union after Brexit."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43167824
Edit: Just realised that is the same article @alex. linked to.
I have not heard the programme very often but I happened to be driving to Nottingham to pick up my daughter from a show and it was better than listening to Jo Whiley talking to the execrable Stormzy on Radio 2.
To be clear, I don't much mind about FTAs which are overwhelmingly about goods. That's a relatively small part of the UK economy.
He may be saying the complete opposite next week.
The ability to strike our own deals - and they need not be comprehensive FTAs - means that we can negotiate with China (or any other country) on the basis of specific areas that are good for us and for them.
But nevermind we've been through all that. Much more importantly, I have ONLY JUST NOW finished reading the fantastic thread was it @MarqueeMark posted on pedantry. Excellent, if time-consuming.
https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=107926751
The reason is that the damage to UK producers of manufactured goods will also damage the much larger hinterland of associated services that service the manufacturing sector. I assume the economic models that show the small benefit of FTAs are picking up this effect.
Those Lab rebels + DUP could off-set the Con rebels?
Grieve backs staying in customs union... Who knew!!!!!
Of course it ought to be possible to find a restaurant that might satisfy both, but it will be more expensive, and some of the meateaters, who are (narrowly) the majority, are insisting on the steakhouse...
Never happened before has it.
Ousted Ukip leader Henry Bolton has revealed that he “fibbed” about breaking off his controversial relationship with former model Jo Marney over racist texts messages about Meghan Markle.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ousted-ukip-leader-henry-bolton-admits-he-fibbed-about-breaking-up-with-jo-marney-a3774056.html
Kate Hoey and Frank Field maybe.
But that leaves several Eurosceptic Labour MPs who didn't vote against the customs union in December (Stringer, Godsiff, Campbell, Mann, and Hopkins if you still count him as Labour) and will therefore probably back it this time.
The numbers are looking very tight for May. Wonder if she's still pursuing the policy of "oh, we might lose, let's not bring it to a vote"?
“When participating in EU agencies the UK will respect the remit of the European Court of Justice."
I’ve put a bit on that.
So, what do people mean by 'a' customs union? Jeremy Corbyn clearly doesn't have a clue what he means, and John McDonnell is being deliberately evasive:
Speaking at an event on Thursday, McDonnell said Labour was “not supporting membership of ‘the’ customs union, but we are looking at ‘a’ customs union”.
“The reason we’re saying ‘a’ customs union is because we don’t want the same asymmetric relationship that Turkey have got,” he said.
“What we would want is to negotiate around our ability to influence the trade negotiations that would take place on behalf of us all – both ourselves and European countries – in terms of trade via a customs union. That would be the discussion we would want to open up.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/22/jeremy-corbyn-could-back-remaining-in-eu-customs-union
Theresa May has spoken repeatedly of a 'customs arrangement', which sounds much the same.
Since no-one can say what 'a' customs union actually would be, is there a bit of wriggle-room here for government to accept the amendment, or an amended form of it?
I think the point that struck me was that so often on here we talk about falls in the UK stock market as being terribly bad for pension funds. It seems to me that that link has slowly dissolved over the years and that the UK institutional investors that typically backed UK business are now becoming less and less important.
"Last month, held to ransom by the Brexit hardline minority in the party, No 10 shifted position and ruled out any membership of a customs union — without explaining how this act of protectionism is remotely consistent with streamlined “tariff-free” trade with Europe and an open border with Ireland."
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-tories-rift-over-customs-union-is-a-gift-for-corbyn-a3773201.html
It's just that we inevitably end up with people feeling pushed into one camp or another and intolerant of "the other" camp. "Suck it up, losers" versus "We'll wipe the smiles off your face"
This is just the latest manifestation of that. Yes, it's worsening, but it won't be the worst. We can just look across the ocean to see the future.
"THE" CU is linked in with the rest of the EU deal and implies regulatory identity (not convergence or non-divergence or equivalence). "A" CU merely means agreement on common tariffs to third parties, plus anything else the participants decide to include. The big plus is that it makes UK-EU trade, specifically in Ireland, very much easier, although how "very" that is depends on regulatory agreement. The big minus is that you can't then run off and agree different tariffs with anyone else, ever.