Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tories go into Thursday’s locals in a much better national

124»

Comments

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,575

    nunuone said:

    Scott_P said:
    Is anyone surprised that he is a bully?
    Short man syndrome...Say Bollocks to Brexit Bercow.
    Shortist.
    I think it's meant to be spelt shortest. ;)
    Shortarse syndrome?
  • felixfelix Posts: 8,005
    Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 40% (-)
    LAB: 40% (-1)
    LDEM: 9% (+2)
    UKIP: 5% (+1)
    GRN: 3% (+1)

    Com Res 27-29 April
  • MJWMJW Posts: 475
    Entirely unsurprising. All high stress professions which potentially provide you with large amounts of disposable income, and also potentially give you discretion over when you work.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,682
    Will the Bercow scandal dwarf the Customs Union row?

    Who threw my coat at me?
  • MJWMJW Posts: 475

    Interesting comment from Andrew Hawkins, from the Express article:

    Andrew Hawkins, ComRes Chairman, said: “That the two main parties are polling neck and neck despite Theresa May’s considerable lead over Jeremy Corbyn on economic management points either to voters being prepared to support a party that they believe will them poorer, or at Election time they will instead opt for what they feel is the safer option.

    Theresa May has a substantial lead over Jeremy Corbyn on the issue of stewardship of the economy

    "The danger for Labour is not just that there is a discrepancy, it is the scale of it, including among young people whose support is vital if the Party is to stand a chance of winning an election."


    I make that two discrepancies - economy & leadership.....

    Corbyn is a lead weight on a party that is being buoyed by the Tories own unpleasant illiberalism and indulgence towards their fanatics and fantasists. However, luckily for the Tories, Corbyn's status as a symbol of the activist left means his supporters are unwilling and unable to see it. Admitting he's useless and morally defective would mean admitting their own reasoning is flawed and morality clouded.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 475

    Interesting comment from Andrew Hawkins, from the Express article:

    Andrew Hawkins, ComRes Chairman, said: “That the two main parties are polling neck and neck despite Theresa May’s considerable lead over Jeremy Corbyn on economic management points either to voters being prepared to support a party that they believe will them poorer, or at Election time they will instead opt for what they feel is the safer option.

    Theresa May has a substantial lead over Jeremy Corbyn on the issue of stewardship of the economy

    "The danger for Labour is not just that there is a discrepancy, it is the scale of it, including among young people whose support is vital if the Party is to stand a chance of winning an election."


    I make that two discrepancies - economy & leadership.....

    Corbyn is a lead weight on a party that is being buoyed by the Tories own unpleasant illiberalism and indulgence towards their fanatics and fantasists. However, luckily for the Tories, Corbyn's status as a symbol of the activist left means his supporters are unwilling and unable to see it. Admitting he's useless and morally defective would mean admitting their own reasoning is flawed and morality clouded.
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 1,521
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:



    Dr Liam Fox is the major reason the whole Customs Union is becoming an issue.

    No, the referendum result is the reason that the Customs Union is an issue. Plus the fact that both major parties were elected on a platform of leaving. And the fact that it makes no sense to remain in the CU unless you also remain in full alignment with the SM, which effectively negates the purpose of leaving anyway.

    The only people who push the CU issue are people who want to overturn the result of the referendum.

    But blame Fox if it makes you feel better.
    When we leave the EU, we leave about 100 agreements the EU has.

    Dr Fox has stated publicly that he expects existing arrangements to be rolled over by those countries that have deals with the UK. This is deeply naive. And while some deals are vanilla, some have the ECJ as an arbiter, some have freedom of movement built in, and some rely on the EFTA Court for enforcement.

    We have been publicly slapped down by both the Swiss and the South Korean governments for not engaging with them over the roll over. Not the EU: the Swiss and the South Koreans.

    Dr Fox's priority is getting a US-UK trade deal. I'm an Atlanticist. I live in Los Angeles. I'd love a deep free trade deal between the UK and the US. But I also recognise that maintaining existing relationships is more important than a deal with the US that would require very substantial compromises - as far as accepting the suzrenity of US bases ISDS tribunals and requiring our IP laws to be kept in lock-step with the US.

    Wrong on every level. The reason that Fox has not been negotiating trade deals is because the EU have objected until after Brexit and the UK has agreed to wait, mainly to satisfy the Remainers to whom the very idea of doing something the EU doesn't like is almost unbearable and get quite hysterical whenever it is suggested.

    On US trade, you miss the point of trade deals. WTO rules exist for trade. Trade deals beyond this are therefore only necessary if there is a Win-Win proposition. If the UK-US deal is not beneficial for the UK then there will not be a deal and trade will continue at it does at present. Unfortunately you think just like the EU when you assume that every trade deal is an excuse for imposing your crap on everyone else. But most other countries (except the EU it seems) realise that trade deals benefit both parties and will therefore happily trade off items of equal value to arrive at a deal.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 45,509
    Good morning, everyone.

    I know this observation was noted the other day, but it's still deeply counter-intuitive. What an odd political world in which we live.

    Mr. 1000, indeed. Fox is deeply unimpressive.
  • felixfelix Posts: 8,005
    ydoethur said:

    Will the Bercow scandal dwarf the Customs Union row?

    Who threw my coat at me?

    Bit of a tall order that one.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 14,828

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:



    Dr Liam Fox is the major reason the whole Customs Union is becoming an issue.

    The only people who push the CU issue are people who want to overturn the result of the referendum.

    But blame Fox if it makes you feel better.
    When we leave the EU, we leave about 100 agreements the EU has.

    Dr Fox has stated publicly that he expects existing arrangements to be rolled over by those countries that have deals with the UK. This is deeply naive. And while some deals are vanilla, some have the ECJ as an arbiter, some have freedom of movement built in, and some rely on the EFTA Court for enforcement.

    We have been publicly slapped down by both the Swiss and the South Korean governments for not engaging with them over the roll over. Not the EU: the Swiss and the South Koreans.

    Dr Fox's priority is getting a US-UK trade deal. I'm an Atlanticist. I live in Los Angeles. I'd love a deep free trade deal between the UK and the US. But I also recognise that maintaining existing relationships is more important than a deal with the US that would require very substantial compromises - as far as accepting the suzrenity of US bases ISDS tribunals and requiring our IP laws to be kept in lock-step with the US.

    Wrong on every level. The reason that Fox has not been negotiating trade deals is because the EU have objected until after Brexit and the UK has agreed to wait, mainly to satisfy the Remainers to whom the very idea of doing something the EU doesn't like is almost unbearable and get quite hysterical whenever it is suggested.

    On US trade, you miss the point of trade deals. WTO rules exist for trade. Trade deals beyond this are therefore only necessary if there is a Win-Win proposition. If the UK-US deal is not beneficial for the UK then there will not be a deal and trade will continue at it does at present. Unfortunately you think just like the EU when you assume that every trade deal is an excuse for imposing your crap on everyone else. But most other countries (except the EU it seems) realise that trade deals benefit both parties and will therefore happily trade off items of equal value to arrive at a deal.
    I thought one of our big "wins" was that we could begin negotiating deals ahead of our departure.

    Although who would negotiate with us ahead of knowing our terms of trade with the EU goodness only knows.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,634
    felix said:

    ydoethur said:

    Will the Bercow scandal dwarf the Customs Union row?

    Who threw my coat at me?

    Bit of a tall order that one.
    Gone over my head that one...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 45,509
    Sad to see we have serious political elections tomorrow and everybody's just making silly puns. I thought we were bigger than that.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 8,575

    Sad to see we have serious political elections tomorrow and everybody's just making silly puns. I thought we were bigger than that.

    Need to grow up.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 4,715

    Sad to see we have serious political elections tomorrow and everybody's just making silly puns. I thought we were bigger than that.

    Need to grow up.
    Give them short shrift.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,747
    edited May 2
    Re bullying. If you picture Philip Green or Mohammed Al Feyad screaming at a shelf stacker it's a pretty unattractive sight and the shelf stacker should recieve all the protection the law offers.

    When I was starting out three of the most talented photographers working in London were New Yorkers. Whether by chance or because it's a New York thing they all had such tempers they could wreck a studio in five minutes. I had the good fortune to be the assistant to one of them.

    Quite simply at their level the pressure to succeed everytime was stressful and they didn't bottle it up. It would have been nice if every day had been a trip to Lalaland but there wasn't an aspiring photographer who wouldn't have given their right arm to have worked for one of them.

    I sense the same is the case with the Speaker. I like the idea that the job isn't just the Gentleman's club of our imagining and that behind the pomp there are some seriously creative decisions being made
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 2,481

    rcs1000 said:

    Oh I do hope not.....

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/953851/brexit-news-theresa-may-general-election-tories-remain-eu-uk

    "She may need to call a Brexit election to settle this once and for all. We need to make life uncomfortable for Remain-backing MPs who represent constituencies that voted leave," the Brexit-backing minister said.

    It's Fox, isn't it? None of the others are that stupid.....

    Dr Liam Fox is the major reason the whole Customs Union is becoming an issue.


    No, the referendum result is the reason that the Customs Union is an issue. Plus the fact that both major parties were elected on a platform of leaving. And the fact that it makes no sense to remain in the CU unless you also remain in full alignment with the SM, which effectively negates the purpose of leaving anyway.

    The only people who push the CU issue are people who want to overturn the result of the referendum.

    But blame Fox if it makes you feel better.
    The CU is an issue because the Brexiteer promises that the EU and the rest of the world would all be desperate to make trade agreements with us were complete hogwash. Fox et al ignored the experts’ warnings and staying the CU is now the only way to mitigate some of this self-inflicted damage
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 31,005

    Sad to see we have serious political elections tomorrow and everybody's just making silly puns. I thought we were bigger than that.

    Need to grow up.
    Rise above it....
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 25,577
    (1) I’m not sure a Customs *partnership* is such a big deal, other than we don’t yet know exactly what it means. If the U.K. collects tariffs on behalf of the EU for goods landing in the UK for which their final destination is the EU - and vice versa - then i struggle to see the problem. It’s not a union. It’s a practical way of managing rules of origin. We could still set our own tariffs for RoW.
    (2) Anyone who does anything to put Jeremy Corbyn anywhere near power is a muppet. He’ll make Theresa May look like a dream picnic on a Summer’s Day
    (3) Regardless of the above, the pressure on May is probably good for the Brexit negotiations as they don’t want JRM or to reset the clock with Corbyn and nor do they want a “no deal” Brexit, which would also hurt them badly. So expect movement.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 22,854

    I nce had a seven bottle lunch with a top ranked City lawyer who departed the restaurant at 5.00 pm to do a series of calls with US clients. I was all over the place, but had managed to get her to sign a £20,000 sponsorship deal. She paid for the lunch, too. Lawyers do drink a shedload.

    There was a fairly recent court case where one solicitor was held to an agreement to buy another solicitor's practice, which she signed while they both drunk.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 9,312

    (1) I’m not sure a Customs *partnership* is such a big deal, other than we don’t yet know exactly what it means. If the U.K. collects tariffs on behalf of the EU for goods landing in the UK for which their final destination is the EU - and vice versa - then i struggle to see the problem. It’s not a union. It’s a practical way of managing rules of origin. We could still set our own tariffs for RoW.
    (2) Anyone who does anything to put Jeremy Corbyn anywhere near power is a muppet. He’ll make Theresa May look like a dream picnic on a Summer’s Day
    (3) Regardless of the above, the pressure on May is probably good for the Brexit negotiations as they don’t want JRM or to reset the clock with Corbyn and nor do they want a “no deal” Brexit, which would also hurt them badly. So expect movement.

    Jeremy Corbyn may or may not be bad for the economy but the Conservatives have delivered an unintended and unplanned Brexit which might cost us £300 billion or gift the NHS £350 million a week depending who you believe. That's the bar.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 22,854
    ydoethur said:

    Will the Bercow scandal dwarf the Customs Union row?

    Who threw my coat at me?

    The Gollum of British Politics.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 10,619
    Roger said:

    ...

    When I was starting out three of the most talented photographers working in London were New Yorkers. Whether by chance or because it's a New York thing they all had such tempers they could wreck a studio in five minutes. I had the good fortune to be the assistant to one of them.

    Quite simply at their level the pressure to succeed everytime was stressful and they didn't bottle it up. It would have been nice if every day had been a trip to Lalaland but there wasn't an aspiring photographer who wouldn't have given their right arm to have worked for one of them.

    I sense the same is the case with the Speaker. I like the idea that the job isn't just the Gentleman's club of our imagining and that behind the pomp there are some seriously creative decisions being made

    Hogwash. People deserve not to be treated in such a way; whether they work in the arts or business, or, more pertinently, politics.
  • BudGBudG Posts: 610

    Interesting comment from Andrew Hawkins, from the Express article:

    Andrew Hawkins, ComRes Chairman, said: “That the two main parties are polling neck and neck despite Theresa May’s considerable lead over Jeremy Corbyn on economic management points either to voters being prepared to support a party that they believe will them poorer, or at Election time they will instead opt for what they feel is the safer option.

    Theresa May has a substantial lead over Jeremy Corbyn on the issue of stewardship of the economy



    Not surprising that the stock of polling companies has gone down if the Chairman of ComRes puts such spin on his own polling figures.

    Just because the Tories might be more trusted than Labour on the stewardship of the economy does not mean that those who support Labour think they will make them personally poorer. They may feel that although the economy will not perform as well under Labour, that a Labour government will lead to a fairer distribution of wealth that will actually improve their personal situation financially
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 21,491
    Bullying is bad.

    It does not matter if you are in a 'creative' industry or a supermarket; bullying creates a negative environment that prevents people from doing their best work. And the bullies are invariably people who have a greater belief in their abilities than they possess in reality.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 17,420
    I believe TM is in a position that her only option is to play for time and let the vote in tbe HOC take place over the CU and if she wins the vote the whole dynamic will change and EU minds will need to focus on us leaving the or a CU.

    However, if as is more likely the HOC defeats leaving the CU, TM can turn to the HOC and accept the result and negotiate accordingly and let the Brexiteers either accept the reality or try to remove TM. However, even with JRM the Brexiteers would lose.

    For Brexiteers it all depends on the HOC vote, and to a large extent the EU
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,204
    The fact that the government still hasn’t worked out its Brexit strategy with less than 11 months to go before we leave really is something. The lack of a credible opposition means that there is no real incentive to do so, of course, but it cannot be good for the country. Not that this is a government concern, I hasten to add.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 4,715

    Bullying is bad.

    It does not matter if you are in a 'creative' industry or a supermarket; bullying creates a negative environment that prevents people from doing their best work. And the bullies are invariably people who have a greater belief in their abilities than they possess in reality.

    I agree, and bullying is often part of a wider pattern of abusive behaviour, such as with Weinstein.

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 17,420
    Foxy said:

    Bullying is bad.

    It does not matter if you are in a 'creative' industry or a supermarket; bullying creates a negative environment that prevents people from doing their best work. And the bullies are invariably people who have a greater belief in their abilities than they possess in reality.

    I agree, and bullying is often part of a wider pattern of abusive behaviour, such as with Weinstein.

    The problem with Bercow is you see his bullying attitude in the HOC regularly.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 4,715

    The fact that the government still hasn’t worked out its Brexit strategy with less than 11 months to go before we leave really is something. The lack of a credible opposition means that there is no real incentive to do so, of course, but it cannot be good for the country. Not that this is a government concern, I hasten to add.

    22 months after the vote and the government still has no Brexit plan. It is why that WTO Brexit remains a possibility. It is, after all, the default on 29/3/19, if nothing else is agreed.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 45,509
    Dr. Foxy, whilst there's great disagreement over the decision to leave, I suspect the vast majority would agree that the execution of that decision has been gravely mishandled by May.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 12,225
    edited May 2
    Sean_F said:

    I nce had a seven bottle lunch with a top ranked City lawyer who departed the restaurant at 5.00 pm to do a series of calls with US clients. I was all over the place, but had managed to get her to sign a £20,000 sponsorship deal. She paid for the lunch, too. Lawyers do drink a shedload.

    There was a fairly recent court case where one solicitor was held to an agreement to buy another solicitor's practice, which she signed while they both drunk.
    I once went a meeting in a rather nice restuarant where we were discussing some new post-grad education material, to be produced by part of Big Pharma. There were eight of us, and I wasn’t drinking (health). We had seven bottles of wine, seven pre-dinner alcoholic drinks and finished off with port.
    Then everyone got into their cars and went their several ways. IIRC only two were car sharing, the rest were driving themselves.
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 1,521
    TOPPING said:



    Wrong on every level. The reason that Fox has not been negotiating trade deals is because the EU have objected until after Brexit and the UK has agreed to wait, mainly to satisfy the Remainers to whom the very idea of doing something the EU doesn't like is almost unbearable and get quite hysterical whenever it is suggested.

    On US trade, you miss the point of trade deals. WTO rules exist for trade. Trade deals beyond this are therefore only necessary if there is a Win-Win proposition. If the UK-US deal is not beneficial for the UK then there will not be a deal and trade will continue at it does at present. Unfortunately you think just like the EU when you assume that every trade deal is an excuse for imposing your crap on everyone else. But most other countries (except the EU it seems) realise that trade deals benefit both parties and will therefore happily trade off items of equal value to arrive at a deal.

    I thought one of our big "wins" was that we could begin negotiating deals ahead of our departure.

    Although who would negotiate with us ahead of knowing our terms of trade with the EU goodness only knows.
    Well if we had done what the public asked and left without worrying about trying to remain at the same time, there would have been no problem. We could have declared that we were not going to remain in alignment with the EU at all and then started doing trade deals. As always, it was the Remainers who prevented Brexit from being implemented properly.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 16,954
    Morning all,

    I must confess I am lost on the customs union stuff. I'm pretty sure that the EU has already rejected both of the options that May is busy spending days making her mind up over.

    Is my memory failing in my mid 50s?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 10,619

    I believe TM is in a position that her only option is to play for time and let the vote in tbe HOC take place over the CU and if she wins the vote the whole dynamic will change and EU minds will need to focus on us leaving the or a CU.

    However, if as is more likely the HOC defeats leaving the CU, TM can turn to the HOC and accept the result and negotiate accordingly and let the Brexiteers either accept the reality or try to remove TM. However, even with JRM the Brexiteers would lose.

    For Brexiteers it all depends on the HOC vote, and to a large extent the EU

    The govt will almost certainly win a vote on leaving the CU. They already have. Twice.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 7,326
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Oh I do hope not.....

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/953851/brexit-news-theresa-may-general-election-tories-remain-eu-uk

    "She may need to call a Brexit election to settle this once and for all. We need to make life uncomfortable for Remain-backing MPs who represent constituencies that voted leave," the Brexit-backing minister said.

    It's Fox, isn't it? None of the others are that stupid.....

    Dr Liam Fox is the major reason the whole Customs Union is becoming an issue.


    No, the referendum result is the reason that the Customs Union is an issue. Plus the fact that both major parties were elected on a platform of leaving. And the fact that it makes no sense to remain in the CU unless you also remain in full alignment with the SM, which effectively negates the purpose of leaving anyway.

    The only people who push the CU issue are people who want to overturn the result of the referendum.

    But blame Fox if it makes you feel better.
    When we leave the EU, we leave about 100 agreements the EU has.

    Dr Fox has stated publicly that he expects existing arrangements to be rolled over by those countries that have deals with the UK. This is deeply naive. And while some deals are vanilla, some have the ECJ as an arbiter, some have freedom of movement built in, and some rely on the EFTA Court for enforcement.

    We have been publicly slapped down by both the Swiss and the South Korean governments for not engaging with them over the roll over. Not the EU: the Swiss and the South Koreans.

    Dr Fox's priority is getting a US-UK trade deal. I'm an Atlanticist. I live in Los Angeles. I'd love a deep free trade deal between the UK and the US. But I also recognise that maintaining existing relationships is more important than a deal with the US that would require very substantial compromises - as far as accepting the suzrenity of US bases ISDS tribunals and requiring our IP laws to be kept in lock-step with the US.

    The US Commerce Department asked US businesses trading with the UK what they wanted from s potential US UK trade deal. Their no 1 priority was the UK to stay in the Single Market (I'm guessing also the Customs Union), because that facilitates their trade to Europe and protects their investments. The transatlantic bridge is a meaningful thing.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 46,151
    AndyJS said:

    nunuone said:
    I wonder how many seats and councils Labour would win on a uniform 3.5% swing in London
    Only Barnet would be a new council gain, provided the Jewish vote is not an masse against them
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 25,577

    (1) I’m not sure a Customs *partnership* is such a big deal, other than we don’t yet know exactly what it means. If the U.K. collects tariffs on behalf of the EU for goods landing in the UK for which their final destination is the EU - and vice versa - then i struggle to see the problem. It’s not a union. It’s a practical way of managing rules of origin. We could still set our own tariffs for RoW.
    (2) Anyone who does anything to put Jeremy Corbyn anywhere near power is a muppet. He’ll make Theresa May look like a dream picnic on a Summer’s Day
    (3) Regardless of the above, the pressure on May is probably good for the Brexit negotiations as they don’t want JRM or to reset the clock with Corbyn and nor do they want a “no deal” Brexit, which would also hurt them badly. So expect movement.

    Jeremy Corbyn may or may not be bad for the economy but the Conservatives have delivered an unintended and unplanned Brexit which might cost us £300 billion or gift the NHS £350 million a week depending who you believe. That's the bar.
    There is no ‘may’ about it: he will be.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 46,151
    felix said:

    Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 40% (-)
    LAB: 40% (-1)
    LDEM: 9% (+2)
    UKIP: 5% (+1)
    GRN: 3% (+1)

    Com Res 27-29 April

    Tories up 11% on 2014 when the wards on Thursday were last up, Labour up 9%, LDs down 4%
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 1,521

    I believe TM is in a position that her only option is to play for time and let the vote in tbe HOC take place over the CU and if she wins the vote the whole dynamic will change and EU minds will need to focus on us leaving the or a CU.

    However, if as is more likely the HOC defeats leaving the CU, TM can turn to the HOC and accept the result and negotiate accordingly and let the Brexiteers either accept the reality or try to remove TM. However, even with JRM the Brexiteers would lose.

    For Brexiteers it all depends on the HOC vote, and to a large extent the EU

    This has always been a false analysis. Whatever the HoC does, they cannot actually negotiate a treaty or make the Government negotiate under instruction. If the HoC says we have be in a CU, so what? It is a treaty that has to be negotiated - we can't just vote to remain within it after Brexit. If the Government basically says that whatever the HoC demands they are not going to (or cannot) negotiate a CU treaty, there is nothing that the HoC can do OTHER than bring about a new Government, and nobody else would have a majority. Tory MPs won't support a vote of no confidence so the existing Parliament will remain. Either May leads it or another Tory (a Brexiteer) but there is no other option. The most Parliament can do is refuse to pass the Brexit bill which will simply cause Hard Brexit. They cannot negotiate by proxy. They cannot force the CU to stay in the CU.

    May is just being weak with Parliament because she (or more property Olly Robbins) WANTS to capitulate over the CU because she won't say no to Brussels. So she is bringing this mess about on purpose.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 17,420
    Mortimer said:

    I believe TM is in a position that her only option is to play for time and let the vote in tbe HOC take place over the CU and if she wins the vote the whole dynamic will change and EU minds will need to focus on us leaving the or a CU.

    However, if as is more likely the HOC defeats leaving the CU, TM can turn to the HOC and accept the result and negotiate accordingly and let the Brexiteers either accept the reality or try to remove TM. However, even with JRM the Brexiteers would lose.

    For Brexiteers it all depends on the HOC vote, and to a large extent the EU

    The govt will almost certainly win a vote on leaving the CU. They already have. Twice.
    I wish I had your confidence. It will be a knife edge and it will define Brexit. I believe it is due to take place in the next couple of months but stand to be corrected on the timing
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,585
    Comments like this endear me to Mr Lewis.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,747
    Foxy said:

    Bullying is bad.

    It does not matter if you are in a 'creative' industry or a supermarket; bullying creates a negative environment that prevents people from doing their best work. And the bullies are invariably people who have a greater belief in their abilities than they possess in reality.

    I agree, and bullying is often part of a wider pattern of abusive behaviour, such as with Weinstein.

    Bullying is bad of course but it implies picking on someone. What I was trying to say is that in maany cases the person who might think they are being bullied is just collateral damage. It's never nice to be in the company of someone losing their temper but in my experience it isn't being directed at a person usually inanimate objects and this is the impression I got with Bercow. The man's most heratfelt complaint was that Bercow smashed a mobile phone on a desk near him. Personally I hate being around it but I can understand it.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 17,420

    I believe TM is in a position that her only option is to play for time and let the vote in tbe HOC take place over the CU and if she wins the vote the whole dynamic will change and EU minds will need to focus on us leaving the or a CU.

    However, if as is more likely the HOC defeats leaving the CU, TM can turn to the HOC and accept the result and negotiate accordingly and let the Brexiteers either accept the reality or try to remove TM. However, even with JRM the Brexiteers would lose.

    For Brexiteers it all depends on the HOC vote, and to a large extent the EU

    This has always been a false analysis. Whatever the HoC does, they cannot actually negotiate a treaty or make the Government negotiate under instruction. If the HoC says we have be in a CU, so what? It is a treaty that has to be negotiated - we can't just vote to remain within it after Brexit. If the Government basically says that whatever the HoC demands they are not going to (or cannot) negotiate a CU treaty, there is nothing that the HoC can do OTHER than bring about a new Government, and nobody else would have a majority. Tory MPs won't support a vote of no confidence so the existing Parliament will remain. Either May leads it or another Tory (a Brexiteer) but there is no other option. The most Parliament can do is refuse to pass the Brexit bill which will simply cause Hard Brexit. They cannot negotiate by proxy. They cannot force the CU to stay in the CU.

    May is just being weak with Parliament because she (or more property Olly Robbins) WANTS to capitulate over the CU because she won't say no to Brussels. So she is bringing this mess about on purpose.
    That is a Brexiteer view but in reality the HOC will be the arbiter
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 15,212

    (1) I’m not sure a Customs *partnership* is such a big deal, other than we don’t yet know exactly what it means. If the U.K. collects tariffs on behalf of the EU for goods landing in the UK for which their final destination is the EU - and vice versa - then i struggle to see the problem. It’s not a union. It’s a practical way of managing rules of origin. We could still set our own tariffs for RoW.
    (2) Anyone who does anything to put Jeremy Corbyn anywhere near power is a muppet. He’ll make Theresa May look like a dream picnic on a Summer’s Day
    (3) Regardless of the above, the pressure on May is probably good for the Brexit negotiations as they don’t want JRM or to reset the clock with Corbyn and nor do they want a “no deal” Brexit, which would also hurt them badly. So expect movement.

    On point 1 it cannot work in the way you want. Because unless all your tariffs are permanently aligned with the EU then the RoW can gain cheaper access to the EU by importing via the UK (if UK tariffs are lower) or cheaper access to the UK by importing via the EU (if EU tariffs are cheaper)
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 16,954
    RoyalBlue said:
    The question is, will Owen Jones complain that this is a smear?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 45,509
    Mr. 43, staying in the single market and customs union whilst leaving the EU makes no sense whatsoever.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 9,312
    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    nunuone said:
    I wonder how many seats and councils Labour would win on a uniform 3.5% swing in London
    Only Barnet would be a new council gain, provided the Jewish vote is not an masse against them
    Careful now -- Ken first got into trouble for suggesting Jews vote as a bloc. More seriously, it is money not religion in play here. Barnet has some seriously rich bits which have voted for the blue team, including Mrs Thatcher as MP for Finchley, almost since the dawn of time.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 17,420

    Mr. 43, staying in the single market and customs union whilst leaving the EU makes no sense whatsoever.

    In that case we should stay in the EU
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 21,491
    Roger said:

    Foxy said:

    Bullying is bad.

    It does not matter if you are in a 'creative' industry or a supermarket; bullying creates a negative environment that prevents people from doing their best work. And the bullies are invariably people who have a greater belief in their abilities than they possess in reality.

    I agree, and bullying is often part of a wider pattern of abusive behaviour, such as with Weinstein.

    Bullying is bad of course but it implies picking on someone. What I was trying to say is that in maany cases the person who might think they are being bullied is just collateral damage. It's never nice to be in the company of someone losing their temper but in my experience it isn't being directed at a person usually inanimate objects and this is the impression I got with Bercow. The man's most heratfelt complaint was that Bercow smashed a mobile phone on a desk near him. Personally I hate being around it but I can understand it.
    "What I was trying to say is that in maany cases the person who might think they are being bullied is just collateral damage."

    And there, in a nutshell, is your problem.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 7,326

    Mr. 43, staying in the single market and customs union whilst leaving the EU makes no sense whatsoever.

    Staying in the single market and customs union whilst leaving the EU makes sense to US businesses - in fact all businesses - because it minimises the barriers to trade that come from Brexit. This is entirely in the context of us having voted for Brexit of course. Brexit itself makes no sense, in trade terms at least. Why wouldn't we want to limit the damage? That's the issue Brexiteers fail to address in the sterile debate on customs union etc.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 4,715

    (1) I’m not sure a Customs *partnership* is such a big deal, other than we don’t yet know exactly what it means. If the U.K. collects tariffs on behalf of the EU for goods landing in the UK for which their final destination is the EU - and vice versa - then i struggle to see the problem. It’s not a union. It’s a practical way of managing rules of origin. We could still set our own tariffs for RoW.
    (2) Anyone who does anything to put Jeremy Corbyn anywhere near power is a muppet. He’ll make Theresa May look like a dream picnic on a Summer’s Day
    (3) Regardless of the above, the pressure on May is probably good for the Brexit negotiations as they don’t want JRM or to reset the clock with Corbyn and nor do they want a “no deal” Brexit, which would also hurt them badly. So expect movement.

    Jeremy Corbyn may or may not be bad for the economy but the Conservatives have delivered an unintended and unplanned Brexit which might cost us £300 billion or gift the NHS £350 million a week depending who you believe. That's the bar.
    There is no ‘may’ about it: he will be.
    That may be the view of many haves, but as we know much of the Leave voting WWC are the have nots. People who feel that they have nothing to lose aren't so bothered.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 45,509
    Mr. NorthWales, quite. It's why some want us to get the most contemptible deal possible, then have another referendum whereby they've negotiated us into a horrendous position and we can have that, or the status quo (probably minus the rebate).

    Mr. 43, damage isn't only economic in danger. Voting to leave then having the UK remain subject to the EU in the single market and customs union would cause a grave political situation, the likes of which it seems the fervent EU-philes either cannot grasp or do not care to grasp.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 31,005
    FF43 said:

    Mr. 43, staying in the single market and customs union whilst leaving the EU makes no sense whatsoever.

    the sterile debate on customs union etc.
    The 'sterile debate' is trying to win the argument on economics. It lost last time and would lose again.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 4,715

    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    nunuone said:
    I wonder how many seats and councils Labour would win on a uniform 3.5% swing in London
    Only Barnet would be a new council gain, provided the Jewish vote is not an masse against them
    Careful now -- Ken first got into trouble for suggesting Jews vote as a bloc. More seriously, it is money not religion in play here. Barnet has some seriously rich bits which have voted for the blue team, including Mrs Thatcher as MP for Finchley, almost since the dawn of time.
    looking at the ward breakdown for Barnet, the marginal wards are not particularly Jewish. Nonetheless it is pretty finely balanced. My hunch is on NOC due to some LD gains, and am on this at 12/1, but only for a couple of quid.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 1,726

    FF43 said:

    Mr. 43, staying in the single market and customs union whilst leaving the EU makes no sense whatsoever.

    the sterile debate on customs union etc.
    The 'sterile debate' is trying to win the argument on economics. It lost last time and would lose again.
    It seems to be Hammond and Robbins behind the hare-brained customs partnership scheme, in which we would collect the duties due under the EU's common external tariff from all our imports and then pass on to Brussels that part due for those goods that go on the the EU, meanwhile reimbursing those importers for the goods that are used here.
    Costly bureaucratic nightmare or what? And to what end exactly? To avoid a "hard border" in Ireland. Well tough. There is already a border there, just not one for goods traffic. And that is easily avoided by us abolishing tariffs on imports and having genuinely free trade. But if we choose not to go down that route, then we should just have a "hard border" in the interim until the EU agrees an FTA with us.

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 7,326
    edited May 2

    FF43 said:

    Mr. 43, staying in the single market and customs union whilst leaving the EU makes no sense whatsoever.

    the sterile debate on customs union etc.
    The 'sterile debate' is trying to win the argument on economics. It lost last time and would lose again.
    That's exactly the sterile debate I am talking about. Customs unions, Single Markets and trade have objective concrete implications that affect our prosperity and jobs. Talk of people "losing the argument" cuts no ice with that.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 31,005

    Morning all,

    I must confess I am lost on the customs union stuff. I'm pretty sure that the EU has already rejected both of the options that May is busy spending days making her mind up over.

    Is my memory failing in my mid 50s?


    No, that's my recollection to - mind you, the Irish dismissed the Customs proposal their own Customs people came up with....Mr Varadkar is being very 'brave'....
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 14,828

    TOPPING said:



    Wrong on every level. The reason that Fox has not been negotiating trade deals is because the EU have objected until after Brexit and the UK has agreed to wait, mainly to satisfy the Remainers to whom the very idea of doing something the EU doesn't like is almost unbearable and get quite hysterical whenever it is suggested.

    On US trade, you miss the point of trade deals. WTO rules exist for trade. Trade deals beyond this are therefore only necessary if there is a Win-Win proposition. If the UK-US deal is not beneficial for the UK then there will not be a deal and trade will continue at it does at present. Unfortunately you think just like the EU when you assume that every trade deal is an excuse for imposing your crap on everyone else. But most other countries (except the EU it seems) realise that trade deals benefit both parties and will therefore happily trade off items of equal value to arrive at a deal.

    I thought one of our big "wins" was that we could begin negotiating deals ahead of our departure.

    Although who would negotiate with us ahead of knowing our terms of trade with the EU goodness only knows.
    Well if we had done what the public asked and left without worrying about trying to remain at the same time, there would have been no problem. We could have declared that we were not going to remain in alignment with the EU at all and then started doing trade deals. As always, it was the Remainers who prevented Brexit from being implemented properly.
    Always need someone to blame, eh?

    The government could have done whatever it wanted when it had a majority. Plenty of Cons Remainers have never rebelled against their party.
  • Hertsmere_PubgoerHertsmere_Pubgoer Posts: 3,476
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    nunuone said:
    I wonder how many seats and councils Labour would win on a uniform 3.5% swing in London
    Only Barnet would be a new council gain, provided the Jewish vote is not an masse against them
    Careful now -- Ken first got into trouble for suggesting Jews vote as a bloc. More seriously, it is money not religion in play here. Barnet has some seriously rich bits which have voted for the blue team, including Mrs Thatcher as MP for Finchley, almost since the dawn of time.
    looking at the ward breakdown for Barnet, the marginal wards are not particularly Jewish. Nonetheless it is pretty finely balanced. My hunch is on NOC due to some LD gains, and am on this at 12/1, but only for a couple of quid.
    That's good odds.
    I'm on NOC for the price of a pint, but only got 6/1
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 10,619
    RoyalBlue said:
    He understands touchstone issues. That is very much to his credit.

    He'd be a good GE campaign chairman. I hope he is still in place for it!
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 14,828

    (1) I’m not sure a Customs *partnership* is such a big deal, other than we don’t yet know exactly what it means. If the U.K. collects tariffs on behalf of the EU for goods landing in the UK for which their final destination is the EU - and vice versa - then i struggle to see the problem. It’s not a union. It’s a practical way of managing rules of origin. We could still set our own tariffs for RoW.
    (2) Anyone who does anything to put Jeremy Corbyn anywhere near power is a muppet. He’ll make Theresa May look like a dream picnic on a Summer’s Day
    (3) Regardless of the above, the pressure on May is probably good for the Brexit negotiations as they don’t want JRM or to reset the clock with Corbyn and nor do they want a “no deal” Brexit, which would also hurt them badly. So expect movement.

    On point 1 it cannot work in the way you want. Because unless all your tariffs are permanently aligned with the EU then the RoW can gain cheaper access to the EU by importing via the UK (if UK tariffs are lower) or cheaper access to the UK by importing via the EU (if EU tariffs are cheaper)
    That this transparently simple point needs to be spelled out to some of our most ardent Brexiters explains to a large degree why we are in such a mess today.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 6,353

    Mr. 43, staying in the single market and customs union whilst leaving the EU makes no sense whatsoever.

    In that case we should stay in the EU
    But we voted to leave the EU, so should leave the Customs Union...

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,575
    Sean_F said:

    I nce had a seven bottle lunch with a top ranked City lawyer who departed the restaurant at 5.00 pm to do a series of calls with US clients. I was all over the place, but had managed to get her to sign a £20,000 sponsorship deal. She paid for the lunch, too. Lawyers do drink a shedload.

    There was a fairly recent court case where one solicitor was held to an agreement to buy another solicitor's practice, which she signed while they both drunk.
    Plus the famous story of the Danish foreign minister and the oil fields
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 7,326
    edited May 2

    (1) I’m not sure a Customs *partnership* is such a big deal, other than we don’t yet know exactly what it means. If the U.K. collects tariffs on behalf of the EU for goods landing in the UK for which their final destination is the EU - and vice versa - then i struggle to see the problem. It’s not a union. It’s a practical way of managing rules of origin. We could still set our own tariffs for RoW.
    (2) Anyone who does anything to put Jeremy Corbyn anywhere near power is a muppet. He’ll make Theresa May look like a dream picnic on a Summer’s Day
    (3) Regardless of the above, the pressure on May is probably good for the Brexit negotiations as they don’t want JRM or to reset the clock with Corbyn and nor do they want a “no deal” Brexit, which would also hurt them badly. So expect movement.

    On point 1 it cannot work in the way you want. Because unless all your tariffs are permanently aligned with the EU then the RoW can gain cheaper access to the EU by importing via the UK (if UK tariffs are lower) or cheaper access to the UK by importing via the EU (if EU tariffs are cheaper)
    It's why you can't have a customs union in all but name. A customs union is notified to the WTO as such, so a particular set of rules applies to all trade. It's why you have a customs union. Mrs May is either chasing unicorns with her customs partnership idea or she knows full well that only a proper customs union will work and she's just pretending.
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 1,521

    (1) I’m not sure a Customs *partnership* is such a big deal, other than we don’t yet know exactly what it means. If the U.K. collects tariffs on behalf of the EU for goods landing in the UK for which their final destination is the EU - and vice versa - then i struggle to see the problem. It’s not a union. It’s a practical way of managing rules of origin. We could still set our own tariffs for RoW.
    (2) Anyone who does anything to put Jeremy Corbyn anywhere near power is a muppet. He’ll make Theresa May look like a dream picnic on a Summer’s Day
    (3) Regardless of the above, the pressure on May is probably good for the Brexit negotiations as they don’t want JRM or to reset the clock with Corbyn and nor do they want a “no deal” Brexit, which would also hurt them badly. So expect movement.

    On point 1 it cannot work in the way you want. Because unless all your tariffs are permanently aligned with the EU then the RoW can gain cheaper access to the EU by importing via the UK (if UK tariffs are lower) or cheaper access to the UK by importing via the EU (if EU tariffs are cheaper)
    I think the proposal is that you pay EU tariffs when imported to the UK but if the goods are to remain in the UK and UK tariffs are lower, you get a refund. So no, the whole point is that tariffs are different depending on the destination.

    Have to ask the obvious question which is why is it structured on a pay/refund (eg complete nightmare) basis? Why don't you just declare where the goods are going on import and pay either the UK or EU tariff? Basically, each customs acts as agent for the other. Enforce with spot checks. But how on Earth could you enforce it when you can't track the goods once they are in the customs area? You end up needing border checks at the EU/UK border anyway so MaxFac is a better solution.
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 1,011

    (1) I’m not sure a Customs *partnership* is such a big deal, other than we don’t yet know exactly what it means. If the U.K. collects tariffs on behalf of the EU for goods landing in the UK for which their final destination is the EU - and vice versa - then i struggle to see the problem. It’s not a union. It’s a practical way of managing rules of origin. We could still set our own tariffs for RoW.
    (2) Anyone who does anything to put Jeremy Corbyn anywhere near power is a muppet. He’ll make Theresa May look like a dream picnic on a Summer’s Day
    (3) Regardless of the above, the pressure on May is probably good for the Brexit negotiations as they don’t want JRM or to reset the clock with Corbyn and nor do they want a “no deal” Brexit, which would also hurt them badly. So expect movement.

    On point 1 it cannot work in the way you want. Because unless all your tariffs are permanently aligned with the EU then the RoW can gain cheaper access to the EU by importing via the UK (if UK tariffs are lower) or cheaper access to the UK by importing via the EU (if EU tariffs are cheaper)
    I think the proposal is that you pay EU tariffs when imported to the UK but if the goods are to remain in the UK and UK tariffs are lower, you get a refund. So no, the whole point is that tariffs are different depending on the destination.

    Have to ask the obvious question which is why is it structured on a pay/refund (eg complete nightmare) basis? Why don't you just declare where the goods are going on import and pay either the UK or EU tariff? Basically, each customs acts as agent for the other. Enforce with spot checks. But how on Earth could you enforce it when you can't track the goods once they are in the customs area? You end up needing border checks at the EU/UK border anyway so MaxFac is a better solution.
    But MaxFac doesn’t solve the Irish border problem.

    Have another go.
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 1,521
    TOPPING said:

    (1) I’m not sure a Customs *partnership* is such a big deal, other than we don’t yet know exactly what it means. If the U.K. collects tariffs on behalf of the EU for goods landing in the UK for which their final destination is the EU - and vice versa - then i struggle to see the problem. It’s not a union. It’s a practical way of managing rules of origin. We could still set our own tariffs for RoW.
    (2) Anyone who does anything to put Jeremy Corbyn anywhere near power is a muppet. He’ll make Theresa May look like a dream picnic on a Summer’s Day
    (3) Regardless of the above, the pressure on May is probably good for the Brexit negotiations as they don’t want JRM or to reset the clock with Corbyn and nor do they want a “no deal” Brexit, which would also hurt them badly. So expect movement.

    On point 1 it cannot work in the way you want. Because unless all your tariffs are permanently aligned with the EU then the RoW can gain cheaper access to the EU by importing via the UK (if UK tariffs are lower) or cheaper access to the UK by importing via the EU (if EU tariffs are cheaper)
    That this transparently simple point needs to be spelled out to some of our most ardent Brexiters explains to a large degree why we are in such a mess today.
    Er - Brexiteers don't want this stupid scheme. It is Remainers who are pushing it. Try to keep up.
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 1,521

    (1) I’m not sure a Customs *partnership* is such a big deal, other than we don’t yet know exactly what it means. If the U.K. collects tariffs on behalf of the EU for goods landing in the UK for which their final destination is the EU - and vice versa - then i struggle to see the problem. It’s not a union. It’s a practical way of managing rules of origin. We could still set our own tariffs for RoW.
    (2) Anyone who does anything to put Jeremy Corbyn anywhere near power is a muppet. He’ll make Theresa May look like a dream picnic on a Summer’s Day
    (3) Regardless of the above, the pressure on May is probably good for the Brexit negotiations as they don’t want JRM or to reset the clock with Corbyn and nor do they want a “no deal” Brexit, which would also hurt them badly. So expect movement.

    On point 1 it cannot work in the way you want. Because unless all your tariffs are permanently aligned with the EU then the RoW can gain cheaper access to the EU by importing via the UK (if UK tariffs are lower) or cheaper access to the UK by importing via the EU (if EU tariffs are cheaper)
    I think the proposal is that you pay EU tariffs when imported to the UK but if the goods are to remain in the UK and UK tariffs are lower, you get a refund. So no, the whole point is that tariffs are different depending on the destination.

    Have to ask the obvious question which is why is it structured on a pay/refund (eg complete nightmare) basis? Why don't you just declare where the goods are going on import and pay either the UK or EU tariff? Basically, each customs acts as agent for the other. Enforce with spot checks. But how on Earth could you enforce it when you can't track the goods once they are in the customs area? You end up needing border checks at the EU/UK border anyway so MaxFac is a better solution.
    But MaxFac doesn’t solve the Irish border problem.

    Have another go.
    Of course it does. The EU already released a paper saying how this would work. The Irish started studies on how it could work. It is just that the EU don't want it to work because if it does, we don't need to be aligned with EU regulations and they lose all their power over the UK. Can you explain why MaxFac will not work?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,634
    Mortimer said:

    Roger said:

    ...

    When I was starting out three of the most talented photographers working in London were New Yorkers. Whether by chance or because it's a New York thing they all had such tempers they could wreck a studio in five minutes. I had the good fortune to be the assistant to one of them.

    Quite simply at their level the pressure to succeed everytime was stressful and they didn't bottle it up. It would have been nice if every day had been a trip to Lalaland but there wasn't an aspiring photographer who wouldn't have given their right arm to have worked for one of them.

    I sense the same is the case with the Speaker. I like the idea that the job isn't just the Gentleman's club of our imagining and that behind the pomp there are some seriously creative decisions being made

    Hogwash. People deserve not to be treated in such a way; whether they work in the arts or business, or, more pertinently, politics.
    Well said.
    And if it gets to the stage that you are paying hush money, then I think it's pretty obvious that something is seriously wrong.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 7,326

    (1) I’m not sure a Customs *partnership* is such a big deal, other than we don’t yet know exactly what it means. If the U.K. collects tariffs on behalf of the EU for goods landing in the UK for which their final destination is the EU - and vice versa - then i struggle to see the problem. It’s not a union. It’s a practical way of managing rules of origin. We could still set our own tariffs for RoW.
    (2) Anyone who does anything to put Jeremy Corbyn anywhere near power is a muppet. He’ll make Theresa May look like a dream picnic on a Summer’s Day
    (3) Regardless of the above, the pressure on May is probably good for the Brexit negotiations as they don’t want JRM or to reset the clock with Corbyn and nor do they want a “no deal” Brexit, which would also hurt them badly. So expect movement.

    On point 1 it cannot work in the way you want. Because unless all your tariffs are permanently aligned with the EU then the RoW can gain cheaper access to the EU by importing via the UK (if UK tariffs are lower) or cheaper access to the UK by importing via the EU (if EU tariffs are cheaper)
    I think the proposal is that you pay EU tariffs when imported to the UK but if the goods are to remain in the UK and UK tariffs are lower, you get a refund. So no, the whole point is that tariffs are different depending on the destination.

    Have to ask the obvious question which is why is it structured on a pay/refund (eg complete nightmare) basis? Why don't you just declare where the goods are going on import and pay either the UK or EU tariff? Basically, each customs acts as agent for the other. Enforce with spot checks. But how on Earth could you enforce it when you can't track the goods once they are in the customs area? You end up needing border checks at the EU/UK border anyway so MaxFac is a better solution.
    But MaxFac doesn’t solve the Irish border problem.

    Have another go.
    Of course it does. The EU already released a paper saying how this would work. The Irish started studies on how it could work. It is just that the EU don't want it to work because if it does, we don't need to be aligned with EU regulations and they lose all their power over the UK. Can you explain why MaxFac will not work?
    MaxFac gets some people across a hard border quicker by taking much of the extra red tape offline. It doesn't soften the border itself. The Irish along with the EU representing them have decided the border is an issue of itself. That's up to them. We get to decide whether we accept an Ireland only solution (the backstop), a customs and regulatory arrangement for all of UK, or potentially doing without any agreement or transition with the EU and the rest of the world.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 2,186

    Dr. Foxy, whilst there's great disagreement over the decision to leave, I suspect the vast majority would agree that the execution of that decision has been gravely mishandled by May.

    Even if Brexit were a sound idea, which it clearly isn't, then it was always excruciatingly obvious that delivering a change of that magnitude was beyond the capacities of our political class.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 1,710
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:



    Wrong on every level. The reason that Fox has not been negotiating trade deals is because the EU have objected until after Brexit and the UK has agreed to wait, mainly to satisfy the Remainers to whom the very idea of doing something the EU doesn't like is almost unbearable and get quite hysterical whenever it is suggested.

    On US trade, you miss the point of trade deals. WTO rules exist for trade. Trade deals beyond this are therefore only necessary if there is a Win-Win proposition. If the UK-US deal is not beneficial for the UK then there will not be a deal and trade will continue at it does at present. Unfortunately you think just like the EU when you assume that every trade deal is an excuse for imposing your crap on everyone else. But most other countries (except the EU it seems) realise that trade deals benefit both parties and will therefore happily trade off items of equal value to arrive at a deal.

    I thought one of our big "wins" was that we could begin negotiating deals ahead of our departure.

    Although who would negotiate with us ahead of knowing our terms of trade with the EU goodness only knows.
    Well if we had done what the public asked and left without worrying about trying to remain at the same time, there would have been no problem. We could have declared that we were not going to remain in alignment with the EU at all and then started doing trade deals. As always, it was the Remainers who prevented Brexit from being implemented properly.
    Always need someone to blame, eh?

    The government could have done whatever it wanted when it had a majority. Plenty of Cons Remainers have never rebelled against their party.
    The only people Mrs May needed to mollify were the Remainers within her own Conservative Party. The result is what happens when you try to ride two unlinked horses at the same time. There have been lots of photos published recently of leading Conservative politicians dong most uncomfortable things with their legs. The most recent is Mr Jahid.
This discussion has been closed.