Craig needs to read what is being proposed, it literally is the government proposing "let's have this Brexit cake and eat it" with a bit of flourish.
Plus signing the UK away. They're agreeing to a sea border in principle which is huge.
Where does it say that?
It doesn't that I can see. They commit to a backstop, the 'operational legal text' of which hasn't been agreed yet afaik, and William seems to be assuming said backstop we'll agree to will include a sea border.
If something like this is agreed, there will be no need for the backstop.
Well yes, but it is clear we still need to agree on a backstop just in case something like this is not agreed, and whether we have accepted a principle of splitting our own country is pretty significant.
NI was created by splitting a country. One day which may be soon or years away it will be reunited again.
What a silly way of looking at it. You could equally say ROI was created by a splitting a country and therefore it is inevitable that it will reunite with the UK. There are now circa 200 countries in the world, far more than there were 100 years ago, and I doubt most of those that were split will reunite.
The issue is about the splitting of an existing country, the UK.
How many have reunited as a point of interest ?
East and West Germany North and South Vietnam Errr Is that it ?
So far the stagecraft and expectation management from no10 has been first rate. We'll know in a couple of days if it has worked.
Yes, a welcome change from the PM's earlier record on stagecraft.
The biggest question now is whether the EU side were informed in advance of the fudge and are buying into it. Michel Barnier seems to have been much more conciliatory in tone today than he has been over the last couple of weeks. It's all reminiscent of the December 2017 shenanigans, so I expect it all has been choreographed in advance.
May Merkel summit yesterday may have been significant
Craig needs to read what is being proposed, it literally is the government proposing "let's have this Brexit cake and eat it" with a bit of flourish.
Plus signing the UK away. They're agreeing to a sea border in principle which is huge.
Where does it say that?
It doesn't that I can see. They commit to a backstop, the 'operational legal text' of which hasn't been agreed yet afaik, and William seems to be assuming said backstop we'll agree to will include a sea border.
If something like this is agreed, there will be no need for the backstop.
Well yes, but it is clear we still need to agree on a backstop just in case something like this is not agreed, and whether we have accepted a principle of splitting our own country is pretty significant.
NI was created by splitting a country. One day which may be soon or years away it will be reunited again.
What a silly way of looking at it. You could equally say ROI was created by a splitting a country and therefore it is inevitable that it will reunite with the UK. There are now circa 200 countries in the world, far more than there were 100 years ago, and I doubt most of those that were split will reunite.
The issue is about the splitting of an existing country, the UK.
Indeed, I am not clear from which country NI was "split" except from the Irish Free State to which it belonged for less than 24 hours, between 6 December 1922 and 7 December 1922.
The Kingdom of Ireland - it was even separately recognised as one entity in the title of the U.K. Post the 1801 act of union until 1922 whereas England, Wales and Scotland were just lumped together as GB. To deny that Ireland was a separate and single entity pre 1922 is ridiculous.
Craig needs to read what is being proposed, it literally is the government proposing "let's have this Brexit cake and eat it" with a bit of flourish.
Plus signing the UK away. They're agreeing to a sea border in principle which is huge.
Where does it say that?
It doesn't that I can see. They commit to a backstop, the 'operational legal text' of which hasn't been agreed yet afaik, and William seems to be assuming said backstop we'll agree to will include a sea border.
If something like this is agreed, there will be no need for the backstop.
Well yes, but it is clear we still need to agree on a backstop just in case something like this is not agreed, and whether we have accepted a principle of splitting our own country is pretty significant.
NI was created by splitting a country. One day which may be soon or years away it will be reunited again.
What a silly way of looking at it. You could equally say ROI was created by a splitting a country and therefore it is inevitable that it will reunite with the UK. There are now circa 200 countries in the world, far more than there were 100 years ago, and I doubt most of those that were split will reunite.
The issue is about the splitting of an existing country, the UK.
How many have reunited as a point of interest ?
East and West Germany North and South Vietnam Errr Is that it ?
Craig needs to read what is being proposed, it literally is the government proposing "let's have this Brexit cake and eat it" with a bit of flourish.
Plus signing the UK away. They're agreeing to a sea border in principle which is huge.
Where does it say that?
It doesn't that I can see. They commit to a backstop, the 'operational legal text' of which hasn't been agreed yet afaik, and William seems to be assuming said backstop we'll agree to will include a sea border.
If something like this is agreed, there will be no need for the backstop.
Well yes, but it is clear we still need to agree on a backstop just in case something like this is not agreed, and whether we have accepted a principle of splitting our own country is pretty significant.
NI was created by splitting a country. One day which may be soon or years away it will be reunited again.
What a silly way of looking at it. You could equally say ROI was created by a splitting a country and therefore it is inevitable that it will reunite with the UK. There are now circa 200 countries in the world, far more than there were 100 years ago, and I doubt most of those that were split will reunite.
The issue is about the splitting of an existing country, the UK.
How many have reunited as a point of interest ?
East and West Germany North and South Vietnam Errr Is that it ?
Yemen
India and Pakistan and Bangladesh (in my wildest dreams!)
Clearly the "mobility framework" is going to end up as something so close to free movement that you won't be able to tell the difference, except that the UK will honestly, this time we mean it voters, enforce the 90-day deadline for finding work.
Just look at the document. Every red line laid out in detail, with the only thing missing being actual red text. And then the following paragraph is a huge qualification and watering down of the preceding red line.
Even then the EU has never compromised on free movement, they have always insisted on 100%. Also, you're reading things that are not in there. Taken at face value the government has copied the Swiss-EU deal, taken out free movement and proposed it to the EU as the long term solution. To my mind it would be a reasonably good deal, I don't see how Brussels would agree. The danger is that if they reject this then no deal really does come into play and the commission will look incredibly unreasonable.
There comes a point where domestic political considerations kick in. Now that the UK has so publicly conceded so many points and principles, the No Deal scenario becomes a lot more dangerous for the leaders of the EU27, because even though the UK suffers most there are also serious downsides for their countries. Those would now be a whole lot harder to sell given how much ground the UK has conceded, so sticking absolutely to the four freedoms in such circumstances would invite serious opposition. Very few leaders in the EU are in strong enough positions to face that down. There’ll be a negotiation, lines will be blurred further and a deal will be done. We’ll Brexit and not much will change.
I agree with your sentiments, however, there is no precedent where the EU has watered down or fudged free movement even a single iota. To do so would break one of the EU's golden rules. As I said just now, I'm open to the idea of them doing it, but sceptical. If they compromise on free movement then it opens the door to for a lot of other countries to start forcing similar compromises, even within the EU.
The deal being proposed is basically lifted from the existing Switzerland-EU treaty. I mean it's almost identical.
I was always told the EU regretted the Swiss Treaties as they thought the Swiss had outmanoeuvred them in the negotiation.
Perhaps we should have hired the Swiss to do the negotiating.
If they don't mind sending their soldiers to defend the Pope maybe they would send their diplomats to help the UK.
Didn't the New Zealanders offer some FTA negotiators to the UK and were told no thanks, Dr Fox and his pals can handle it all themselves?
I could say I stand second to none in my contempt for Liam Fox but I'm sure there are many, many people who are able to exceed even my level of contempt which I have for Fox.
So there we have it, 'Brexit means Brexit' or we leave the EU and the single market but maintain harmonisation on trade rules on goods and 'strong reciprocal arrangements in services', freedom of movement still ends but is replaced by a 'mobility framework', we leave the customs union but will stay in 'a combined customs territory', ECJ jurisdiction ends but the UK 'will pay regard to its decisions in areas where common rules were in force' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44747444
Congrats. As I have been saying for months, the Tory party always betrays the UK in Europe. Now, how are you going to cope with the ‘mobility framework’ which is just FOM by another name? Endless rationalisation?
Or you could just try a principled resignation from the Tory party!
By not being in the EU we won’t be bound by welfare rules for EU citizens. Probably reciprocal healthcare will be negotiated.
The latter doesn't make sense at all. If anything it would be better for us not to, given that the NHS is completely free. Making EU citizens buy some kind of insurance for NHS cover would be a huge disincentive for unskilled and low wage workers to come. If the oldies in Europe have to pay for insurance in the EU then that's really not our problem.
Oh in theory of course. But if you talk to anyone in the NHS you’ll see why I say it. Hospitals will never charge or be set up for insurance.
Clearly the "mobility framework" is going to end up as something so close to free movement that you won't be able to tell the difference, except that the UK will honestly, this time we mean it voters, enforce the 90-day deadline for finding work.
Just look at the document. Every red line laid out in detail, with the only thing missing being actual red text. And then the following paragraph is a huge qualification and watering down of the preceding red line.
Even then the EU has never compromised on free movement, they have always insisted on 100%. Also, you're reading things that are not in there. Taken at face value the government has copied the Swiss-EU deal, taken out free movement and proposed it to the EU as the long term solution. To my mind it would be a reasonably good deal, I don't see how Brussels would agree. The danger is that if they reject this then no deal really does come into play and the commission will look incredibly unreasonable.
Trust me, the "mobility framework" will be FM in all but name. Just as "due regard" will be CJEU jurisdiction in all but name, and the "customs facilitation agreement" will be CU membership in all but name.
Due regard is pretty much how the Swiss treaty works, and more often than not it amounts to nothing and the Swiss just do what they want. Customs facilitation looks like pre-clearance, again pretty much lifted from Switzerland. Mobility framework could mean anything right now, it's a blank piece of paper, the issue, as I said is that the EU has form in insisting 100% free movement with trade deals of this type, no fudges, no 90%, you must sign up to the concept of EU citizenship and them being equivalent to one's own citizens.
I remain open to the idea that the EU would fudge on free movement, but very, very sceptical. To do so would be allowing some form of cakeism and would lead to other nations looking for similar deals on free movement.
Is EU immigration specifically a political hot potato anywhere in the EU27?
The bloody difficult woman seems at last to have put her foot down and disloyal cabinet ministers will be out.
She has seen off a hard Brexit, steared towards a path that Parliament are more likely to approve, a softish Brexit and no doubt in years to come, depending on what happens in the EU, a probable move to re-join.
As far as I am concerned I am content tonight
A Brexit that sees us leave the single market, customs union and ECJ is now considers soft Brexit. What, pray, is hard Brexit now defined as?
We won’t be rejoining BigG. We’d lose our opt outs.
"as if a combined customs territory" looks like a customs union and quacks like a customs union to me. Plus "Due regard" to the CJEU and what seems pretty like the SM in goods
It all seems pretty damn soft to me.
I hope we win at football tomorrow! Then May can go even softer. The Golden Rule of Brexit is that whatever Young Brexit Fogies say is the prognosis, the opposite is true.
Did May's team deliberately choose this Friday? No voter will remember any of this beyond 3pm tomorrow afternoon.
So there we have it, 'Brexit means Brexit' or we leave the EU and the single market but maintain harmonisation on trade rules on goods and 'strong reciprocal arrangements in services', freedom of movement still ends but is replaced by a 'mobility framework', we leave the customs union but will stay in 'a combined customs territory', ECJ jurisdiction ends but the UK 'will pay regard to its decisions in areas where common rules were in force' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44747444
This could have all been avoided if 'Associate Membership' of the EU had existed 10 years ago perhaps? Too little done too late to deal with the unpopularity of the institution, but work much earlier would have dealt with it.
It is ultimately a move towards associate membership of the EU in the longer term
Craig needs to read what is being proposed, it literally is the government proposing "let's have this Brexit cake and eat it" with a bit of flourish.
Plus signing the UK away. They're agreeing to a sea border in principle which is huge.
Where does it say that?
It doesn't that I can see. They commit to a backstop, the 'operational legal text' of which hasn't been agreed yet afaik, and William seems to be assuming said backstop we'll agree to will include a sea border.
If something like this is agreed, there will be no need for the backstop.
Well yes, but it is clear we still need to agree on a backstop just in case something like this is not agreed, and whether we have accepted a principle of splitting our own country is pretty significant.
NI was created by splitting a country. One day which may be soon or years away it will be reunited again.
What a silly way of looking at it. You could equally say ROI was created by a splitting a country and therefore it is inevitable that it will reunite with the UK. There are now circa 200 countries in the world, far more than there were 100 years ago, and I doubt most of those that were split will reunite.
The issue is about the splitting of an existing country, the UK.
How many have reunited as a point of interest ?
East and West Germany North and South Vietnam Errr Is that it ?
So there we have it, 'Brexit means Brexit' or we leave the EU and the single market but maintain harmonisation on trade rules on goods and 'strong reciprocal arrangements in services', freedom of movement still ends but is replaced by a 'mobility framework', we leave the customs union but will stay in 'a combined customs territory', ECJ jurisdiction ends but the UK 'will pay regard to its decisions in areas where common rules were in force' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44747444
Congrats. As I have been saying for months, the Tory party always betrays the UK in Europe. Now, how are you going to cope with the ‘mobility framework’ which is just FOM by another name? Endless rationalisation?
Or you could just try a principled resignation from the Tory party!
As you may or may not recall I did vote Remain, as long as we technically leave the EU, the single market, the customs union and end free movement then any deal is fine by me and this deal still technically does all of that.
The main issue with FOM for me is to get some reflection of the transition controls we could have taken in 2004 and a 'mobility framework' will likely do that
Craig needs to read what is being proposed, it literally is the government proposing "let's have this Brexit cake and eat it" with a bit of flourish.
Plus signing the UK away. They're agreeing to a sea border in principle which is huge.
Where does it say that?
It doesn't that I can see. They commit to a backstop, the 'operational legal text' of which hasn't been agreed yet afaik, and William seems to be assuming said backstop we'll agree to will include a sea border.
If something like this is agreed, there will be no need for the backstop.
Well yes, but it is clear we still need to agree on a backstop just in case something like this is not agreed, and whether we have accepted a principle of splitting our own country is pretty significant.
NI was created by splitting a country. One day which may be soon or years away it will be reunited again.
What a silly way of looking at it. You could equally say ROI was created by a splitting a country and therefore it is inevitable that it will reunite with the UK. There are now circa 200 countries in the world, far more than there were 100 years ago, and I doubt most of those that were split will reunite.
The issue is about the splitting of an existing country, the UK.
How many have reunited as a point of interest ?
East and West Germany North and South Vietnam Errr Is that it ?
North and Southern Yemen.
Not an auspicious example though!
Tanganyika and Zanzibar.
I thought about Tanzania but were they ever one country before being split up and then reuniting ?
Or were they two different states which decided to become one ?
Craig needs to read what is being proposed, it literally is the government proposing "let's have this Brexit cake and eat it" with a bit of flourish.
Plus signing the UK away. They're agreeing to a sea border in principle which is huge.
Where does it say that?
It doesn't that I can see. They commit to a backstop, the 'operational legal text' of which hasn't been agreed yet afaik, and William seems to be assuming said backstop we'll agree to will include a sea border.
If something like this is agreed, there will be no need for the backstop.
Well yes, but it is clear we still need to agree on a backstop just in case something like this is not agreed, and whether we have accepted a principle of splitting our own country is pretty significant.
NI was created by splitting a country. One day which may be soon or years away it will be reunited again.
What a silly way of looking at it. You could equally say ROI was created by a splitting a country and therefore it is inevitable that it will reunite with the UK. There are now circa 200 countries in the world, far more than there were 100 years ago, and I doubt most of those that were split will reunite.
The issue is about the splitting of an existing country, the UK.
How many have reunited as a point of interest ?
East and West Germany North and South Vietnam Errr Is that it ?
Craig needs to read what is being proposed, it literally is the government proposing "let's have this Brexit cake and eat it" with a bit of flourish.
Plus signing the UK away. They're agreeing to a sea border in principle which is huge.
Where does it say that?
It doesn't that I can see. They commit to a backstop, the 'operational legal text' of which hasn't been agreed yet afaik, and William seems to be assuming said backstop we'll agree to will include a sea border.
If something like this is agreed, there will be no need for the backstop.
Well yes, but it is clear we still need to agree on a backstop just in case something like this is not agreed, and whether we have accepted a principle of splitting our own country is pretty significant.
NI was created by splitting a country. One day which may be soon or years away it will be reunited again.
What a silly way of looking at it. You could equally say ROI was created by a splitting a country and therefore it is inevitable that it will reunite with the UK. There are now circa 200 countries in the world, far more than there were 100 years ago, and I doubt most of those that were split will reunite.
The issue is about the splitting of an existing country, the UK.
How many have reunited as a point of interest ?
East and West Germany North and South Vietnam Errr Is that it ?
Saarland and West Germany? Biafra and Nigeria? CSA and USA?
Is EU immigration specifically a political hot potato anywhere in the EU27?
Not sure (though the phrase Polish plumber originates from France), my point was that they would be watering down one of their four freedoms, the UK would basically be saying we want 2.75 freedoms and "yeah, sure we'll listen to the ECJ, we promise..."
It's cakeism dressed up in EU language. I'm genuinely surprised that so many ardent remainers are happy with it. It completely takes staying in the EU off the table and rejoin off the table and it begins a decade long divergence from the EU.
However, the fact that it has the likes of yourself and myself on board means it's probably a reasonably good compromise.
I've seen it all tonight, Eastenders actually managed to produce a very moving episode ! I hope Sadiq was watching.
I forgot it was Shakil's funeral tonight - I understood they were planning to include appearances by friends and families of real life victims which I presume they did. I will catch up on iplayer.
It is certainly a better show when it's not centred around Danny Dyer and his psycho friend Stuart.
Clearly the "mobility framework" is going to end up as something so close to free movement that you won't be able to tell the difference, except that the UK will honestly, this time we mean it voters, enforce the 90-day deadline for finding work.
Just look at the document. Every red line laid out in detail, with the only thing missing being actual red text. And then the following paragraph is a huge qualification and watering down of the preceding red line.
Even then the EU has never compromised on free movement, they have always insisted on 100%. Also, you're reading things that are not in there. Taken at face value the government has copied the Swiss-EU deal, taken out free movement and proposed it to the EU as the long term solution. To my mind it would be a reasonably good deal, I don't see how Brussels would agree. The danger is that if they reject this then no deal really does come into play and the commission will look incredibly unreasonable.
There comes a point where domestic political considerations kick in. Now that the UK has so publicly conceded so many points and principles, the No Deal scenario becomes a lot more dangerous for the leaders of the EU27, because even though the UK suffers most there are also serious downsides for their countries. Those would now be a whole lot harder to sell given how much ground the UK has conceded, so sticking absolutely to the four freedoms in such circumstances would invite serious opposition. Very few leaders in the EU are in strong enough positions to face that down. There’ll be a negotiation, lines will be blurred further and a deal will be done. We’ll Brexit and not much will change.
I agree with your sentiments, however, there is no precedent where the EU has watered down or fudged free movement even a single iota. To do so would break one of the EU's golden rules. As I said just now, I'm open to the idea of them doing it, but sceptical. If they compromise on free movement then it opens the door to for a lot of other countries to start forcing similar compromises, even within the EU.
Shock horror it might have to respond to what it’s voters want- something looser I’d say - rather than ever closer union driven by a fanatical elite.
So there we have it, 'Brexit means Brexit' or we leave the EU and the single market but maintain harmonisation on trade rules on goods and 'strong reciprocal arrangements in services', freedom of movement still ends but is replaced by a 'mobility framework', we leave the customs union but will stay in 'a combined customs territory', ECJ jurisdiction ends but the UK 'will pay regard to its decisions in areas where common rules were in force' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44747444
Congrats. As I have been saying for months, the Tory party always betrays the UK in Europe. Now, how are you going to cope with the ‘mobility framework’ which is just FOM by another name? Endless rationalisation?
Or you could just try a principled resignation from the Tory party!
HYUFD will support whatever the Tory party tells him to support.
I never voted for Brexit in the first place so I am certainly not going to resign over a sensible compromise
The deal being proposed is basically lifted from the existing Switzerland-EU treaty. I mean it's almost identical.
I was always told the EU regretted the Swiss Treaties as they thought the Swiss had outmanoeuvred them in the negotiation.
Perhaps we should have hired the Swiss to do the negotiating.
If they don't mind sending their soldiers to defend the Pope maybe they would send their diplomats to help the UK.
Didn't the New Zealanders offer some FTA negotiators to the UK and were told no thanks, Dr Fox and his pals can handle it all themselves?
I could say I stand second to none in my contempt for Liam Fox but I'm sure there are many, many people who are able to exceed even my level of contempt which I have for Fox.
So there we have it, 'Brexit means Brexit' or we leave the EU and the single market but maintain harmonisation on trade rules on goods and 'strong reciprocal arrangements in services', freedom of movement still ends but is replaced by a 'mobility framework', we leave the customs union but will stay in 'a combined customs territory', ECJ jurisdiction ends but the UK 'will pay regard to its decisions in areas where common rules were in force' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44747444
Congrats. As I have been saying for months, the Tory party always betrays the UK in Europe. Now, how are you going to cope with the ‘mobility framework’ which is just FOM by another name? Endless rationalisation?
Or you could just try a principled resignation from the Tory party!
By not being in the EU we won’t be bound by welfare rules for EU citizens. Probably reciprocal healthcare will be negotiated.
The latter doesn't make sense at all. If anything it would be better for us not to, given that the NHS is completely free. Making EU citizens buy some kind of insurance for NHS cover would be a huge disincentive for unskilled and low wage workers to come. If the oldies in Europe have to pay for insurance in the EU then that's really not our problem.
Oh in theory of course. But if you talk to anyone in the NHS you’ll see why I say it. Hospitals will never charge or be set up for insurance.
No need, just use PAYE to charge an additional NHS insurance contribution. Self employed must pay it with their self assessment tax bill. Getting the hospitals to charge for it doesn't make sense anyway.
Craig needs to read what is being proposed, it literally is the government proposing "let's have this Brexit cake and eat it" with a bit of flourish.
Plus signing the UK away. They're agreeing to a sea border in principle which is huge.
Where does it say that?
It doesn't that I can see. They commit to a backstop, the 'operational legal text' of which hasn't been agreed yet afaik, and William seems to be assuming said backstop we'll agree to will include a sea border.
If something like this is agreed, there will be no need for the backstop.
Well yes, but it is clear we still need to agree on a backstop just in case something like this is not agreed, and whether we have accepted a principle of splitting our own country is pretty significant.
NI was created by splitting a country. One day which may be soon or years away it will be reunited again.
What a silly way of looking at it. You could equally say ROI was created by a splitting a country and therefore it is inevitable that it will reunite with the UK. There are now circa 200 countries in the world, far more than there were 100 years ago, and I doubt most of those that were split will reunite.
The issue is about the splitting of an existing country, the UK.
How many have reunited as a point of interest ?
East and West Germany North and South Vietnam Errr Is that it ?
North and Southern Yemen.
Not an auspicious example though!
Tanganyika and Zanzibar.
I thought about Tanzania but were they ever one country before being split up and then reuniting ?
Or were they two different states which decided to become one ?
I too am not sure of the time course.
Nigeria and Biafra too, but perhaps that would raise issues over exactly what we mean.
Certainly fission is more common than fusion, though mutinational trade blocks do seem to be proliferating.
Clearly the "mobility framework" is going to end up as something so close to free movement that you won't be able to tell the difference, except that the UK will honestly, this time we mean it voters, enforce the 90-day deadline for finding work.
Just look at the document. Every red line laid out in detail, with the only thing missing being actual red text. And then the following paragraph is a huge qualification and watering down of the preceding red line.
Even then the EU has never compromised on free movement, they have always insisted on 100%. Also, you're reading things that are not in there. Taken at face value the government has copied the Swiss-EU deal, taken out free movement and proposed it to the EU as the long term solution. To my mind it would be a reasonably good deal, I don't see how Brussels would agree. The danger is that if they reject this then no deal really does come into play and the commission will look incredibly unreasonable.
Trust me, the "mobility framework" will be FM in all but name. Just as "due regard" will be CJEU jurisdiction in all but name, and the "customs facilitation agreement" will be CU membership in all but name.
Due regard is pretty much how the Swiss treaty works, and more often than not it amounts to nothing and the Swiss just do what they want. Customs facilitation looks like pre-clearance, again pretty much lifted from Switzerland. Mobility framework could mean anything right now, it's a blank piece of paper, the issue, as I said is that the EU has form in insisting 100% free movement with trade deals of this type, no fudges, no 90%, you must sign up to the concept of EU citizenship and them being equivalent to one's own citizens.
I remain open to the idea that the EU would fudge on free movement, but very, very sceptical. To do so would be allowing some form of cakeism and would lead to other nations looking for similar deals on free movement.
Is EU immigration specifically a political hot potato anywhere in the EU27?
Yes posted workers is an issue in France and Germany, undercutting wages and social conditions.
Is EU immigration specifically a political hot potato anywhere in the EU27?
Not sure (though the phrase Polish plumber originates from France), my point was that they would be watering down one of their four freedoms, the UK would basically be saying we want 2.75 freedoms and "yeah, sure we'll listen to the ECJ, we promise..."
It's cakeism dressed up in EU language. I'm genuinely surprised that so many ardent remainers are happy with it. It completely takes staying in the EU off the table and rejoin off the table and it begins a decade long divergence from the EU.
However, the fact that it has the likes of yourself and myself on board means it's probably a reasonably good compromise.
I think that where we end up from here will be fine for most people. If the EU27 or Commission end up knocking it back, then they will be making a very big mistake. I just can’t see that happening. The UK has gone a long way, it will no doubt go a little further. That should be enough.
Don’t get me wrong - leaving is not going to be good for us, but we’re not staying so the best we can do is to go in the least harmful manner possible.
Is EU immigration specifically a political hot potato anywhere in the EU27?
Not sure (though the phrase Polish plumber originates from France), my point was that they would be watering down one of their four freedoms, the UK would basically be saying we want 2.75 freedoms and "yeah, sure we'll listen to the ECJ, we promise..."
It's cakeism dressed up in EU language. I'm genuinely surprised that so many ardent remainers are happy with it. It completely takes staying in the EU off the table and rejoin off the table and it begins a decade long divergence from the EU.
However, the fact that it has the likes of yourself and myself on board means it's probably a reasonably good compromise.
So there we have it, 'Brexit means Brexit' or we leave the EU and the single market but maintain harmonisation on trade rules on goods and 'strong reciprocal arrangements in services', freedom of movement still ends but is replaced by a 'mobility framework', we leave the customs union but will stay in 'a combined customs territory', ECJ jurisdiction ends but the UK 'will pay regard to its decisions in areas where common rules were in force' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44747444
Congrats. As I have been saying for months, the Tory party always betrays the UK in Europe. Now, how are you going to cope with the ‘mobility framework’ which is just FOM by another name? Endless rationalisation?
Or you could just try a principled resignation from the Tory party!
By not being in the EU we won’t be bound by welfare rules for EU citizens. Probably reciprocal healthcare will be negotiated.
The latter doesn't make sense at all. If anything it would be better for us not to, given that the NHS is completely free. Making EU citizens buy some kind of insurance for NHS cover would be a huge disincentive for unskilled and low wage workers to come. If the oldies in Europe have to pay for insurance in the EU then that's really not our problem.
Oh in theory of course. But if you talk to anyone in the NHS you’ll see why I say it. Hospitals will never charge or be set up for insurance.
Make it a requirement for employment.
And bring in a employment charge on businesses for each immigrant they employ - charge to be zero for all immigrants who earn more than average earnings so as not to impact higher value workers.
Its about time those companies which rely on taxpayer subsidised minimum wage migrant labour start to pay a contribution for the financial and social costs their business model causes this country.
Clearly the "mobility framework" is going to end up as something so close to free movement that you won't be able to tell the difference, except that the UK will honestly, this time we mean it voters, enforce the 90-day deadline for finding work.
Just look at the document. Every red line laid out in detail, with the only thing missing being actual red text. And then the following paragraph is a huge qualification and watering down of the preceding red line.
Even then the EU has never compromised on free movement, they have always insisted on 100%. Also, you're reading things that are not in there. Taken at face value the government has copied the Swiss-EU deal, taken out free movement and proposed it to the EU as the long term solution. To my mind it would be a reasonably good deal, I don't see how Brussels would agree. The danger is that if they reject this then no deal really does come into play and the commission will look incredibly unreasonable.
There comes a point where domestic political considerations kick in. Now that the UK has so publicly conceded so many points and principles, the No Deal scenario becomes a lot more dangerous for the leaders of the EU27, because even though the UK suffers most there are also serious downsides for their countries. Those would now be a whole lot harder to sell given how much ground the UK has conceded, so sticking absolutely to the four freedoms in such circumstances would invite serious opposition. Very few leaders in the EU are in strong enough positions to face that down. There’ll be a negotiation, lines will be blurred further and a deal will be done. We’ll Brexit and not much will change.
I agree with your sentiments, however, there is no precedent where the EU has watered down or fudged free movement even a single iota. To do so would break one of the EU's golden rules. As I said just now, I'm open to the idea of them doing it, but sceptical. If they compromise on free movement then it opens the door to for a lot of other countries to start forcing similar compromises, even within the EU.
Remember though only the UK and Sweden and Ireland of nations within the EU/EEA allowed full free movement from the main first wave of the new accession nations to the EU from Eastern Europe without transition controls from 2004 to 2011, so in a sense we are 'owed' a concession on free movement considering we have agreed to have more of it than almost any other EU/EEA nation
Well a few things to take away from this disgraceful but totally predictable betrayal:
- Javid returned to form, backing a Remainer plan again as soon as he saw the way the wind was blowing. He is now finished as a candidate for next leader. Tory members only backed him because he pretended to be a Leaver. - None of the Cabinet leavers will ever become Tory leader. They will now be ridiculed for the rest of their careers. - The deal will not be rejected by the EU. However, they will just chip away at every piece until all the provisions match whatever they want. There will be no resistance from May. Free movement, payments into the budget and ECJ jurisdiction will all be conceded. The backstop will be agreed per the EU text. The money will be handed over with no links to the trade agreement. The idea that this will go away because the EU will reject it misses the point - May and Robbins are involved in a conspiracy with the EU. This meeting was all about provIng that the Leavers will never resign, nothing else. - If the Government plan to put this White Paper before Parliament, how are they going pass it? Labour support? - Or shall we just watch the Tory Leavers mumble but sit on their hands. It truly is a party of invertebrates. - The Tories have condemned themselves to a massive defeat at the next GE. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch. The Tory Party has been betraying the country to the EU for 50 years.
So there we have it, 'Brexit means Brexit' or we leave the EU and the single market but maintain harmonisation on trade rules on goods and 'strong reciprocal arrangements in services', freedom of movement still ends but is replaced by a 'mobility framework', we leave the customs union but will stay in 'a combined customs territory', ECJ jurisdiction ends but the UK 'will pay regard to its decisions in areas where common rules were in force' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44747444
Congrats. As I have been saying for months, the Tory party always betrays the UK in Europe. Now, how are you going to cope with the ‘mobility framework’ which is just FOM by another name? Endless rationalisation?
Or you could just try a principled resignation from the Tory party!
By not being in the EU we won’t be bound by welfare rules for EU citizens. Probably reciprocal healthcare will be negotiated.
The latter doesn't make sense at all. If anything it would be better for us not to, given that the NHS is completely free. Making EU citizens buy some kind of insurance for NHS cover would be a huge disincentive for unskilled and low wage workers to come. If the oldies in Europe have to pay for insurance in the EU then that's really not our problem.
Oh in theory of course. But if you talk to anyone in the NHS you’ll see why I say it. Hospitals will never charge or be set up for insurance.
No need, just use PAYE to charge an additional NHS insurance contribution. Self employed must pay it with their self assessment tax bill. Getting the hospitals to charge for it doesn't make sense anyway.
Good idea.
Too much wine imbibed and sun absorbed at Tory event this evening to have creative thoughts. Well done sir.
Craig needs to read what is being proposed, it literally is the government proposing "let's have this Brexit cake and eat it" with a bit of flourish.
Plus signing the UK away. They're agreeing to a sea border in principle which is huge.
Where does it say that?
It doesn't that I can see. They commit to a backstop, the 'operational legal text' of which hasn't been agreed yet afaik, and William seems to be assuming said backstop we'll agree to will include a sea border.
If something like this is agreed, there will be no need for the backstop.
Well yes, but it is clear we still need to agree on a backstop just in case something like this is not agreed, and whether we have accepted a principle of splitting our own country is pretty significant.
NI was created by splitting a country. One day which may be soon or years away it will be reunited again.
What a silly way of looking at it. You could equally say ROI was created by a splitting a country and therefore it is inevitable that it will reunite with the UK. There are now circa 200 countries in the world, far more than there were 100 years ago, and I doubt most of those that were split will reunite.
The issue is about the splitting of an existing country, the UK.
How many have reunited as a point of interest ?
East and West Germany North and South Vietnam Errr Is that it ?
Saarland and West Germany? Biafra and Nigeria? CSA and USA?
North and South Yemen. Although, that is not a model for anybody to follow. Especially having North Yemen and South Yemen military units not integrated - but in adjacent barracks. What could possibly go wrong?
Is EU immigration specifically a political hot potato anywhere in the EU27?
Not sure (though the phrase Polish plumber originates from France), my point was that they would be watering down one of their four freedoms, the UK would basically be saying we want 2.75 freedoms and "yeah, sure we'll listen to the ECJ, we promise..."
It's cakeism dressed up in EU language. I'm genuinely surprised that so many ardent remainers are happy with it. It completely takes staying in the EU off the table and rejoin off the table and it begins a decade long divergence from the EU.
However, the fact that it has the likes of yourself and myself on board means it's probably a reasonably good compromise.
Even better, they think it is soft Brexit.
I think they are right. Regulatory alignment for goods, customs facilitation and "due regard" (whatever that means) for the ECJ. It is a soft Brexit, however, it's definitely not an EEA/Customs Union Brexit that so many were after, it's also not going to be easy to reverse once it's in place which is why I'm surprised that the remainers are jumping on board so easily.
So there we have it, 'Brexit means Brexit' or we leave the EU and the single market but maintain harmonisation on trade rules on goods and 'strong reciprocal arrangements in services', freedom of movement still ends but is replaced by a 'mobility framework', we leave the customs union but will stay in 'a combined customs territory', ECJ jurisdiction ends but the UK 'will pay regard to its decisions in areas where common rules were in force' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44747444
Congrats. As I have been saying for months, the Tory party always betrays the UK in Europe. Now, how are you going to cope with the ‘mobility framework’ which is just FOM by another name? Endless rationalisation?
Or you could just try a principled resignation from the Tory party!
By not being in the EU we won’t be bound by welfare rules for EU citizens. Probably reciprocal healthcare will be negotiated.
The latter doesn't make sense at all. If anything it would be better for us not to, given that the NHS is completely free. Making EU citizens buy some kind of insurance for NHS cover would be a huge disincentive for unskilled and low wage workers to come. If the oldies in Europe have to pay for insurance in the EU then that's really not our problem.
Oh in theory of course. But if you talk to anyone in the NHS you’ll see why I say it. Hospitals will never charge or be set up for insurance.
Make it a requirement for employment.
And bring in a employment charge on businesses for each immigrant they employ - charge to be zero for all immigrants who earn more than average earnings so as not to impact higher value workers.
Its about time those companies which rely on taxpayer subsidised minimum wage migrant labour start to pay a contribution for the financial and social costs their business model causes this country.
Craig needs to read what is being proposed, it literally is the government proposing "let's have this Brexit cake and eat it" with a bit of flourish.
Plus signing the UK away. They're agreeing to a sea border in principle which is huge.
Where does it say that?
It doesn't that I can see. They commit to a backstop, the 'operational legal text' of which hasn't been agreed yet afaik, and William seems to be assuming said backstop we'll agree to will include a sea border.
If something like this is agreed, there will be no need for the backstop.
Well yes, but it is clear we still need to agree on a backstop just in case something like this is not agreed, and whether we have accepted a principle of splitting our own country is pretty significant.
NI was created by splitting a country. One day which may be soon or years away it will be reunited again.
What a silly way of looking at it. You could equally say ROI was created by a splitting a country and therefore it is inevitable that it will reunite with the UK. There are now circa 200 countries in the world, far more than there were 100 years ago, and I doubt most of those that were split will reunite.
The issue is about the splitting of an existing country, the UK.
How many have reunited as a point of interest ?
East and West Germany North and South Vietnam Errr Is that it ?
Yemen
China and Tibet Russia and Eastern Donbass Germany and Austria, Danzig, Pozen.
Remember Cameron and that whole regnegotiation palaver? If he'd come back with something like what has been agreed by the cabinet today most people would have been delighted and called it a great success.
Now the EU still needs to agree to it, but I've long felt we'll probably end up where we should have started from. A bit less free movement, outside the EU, still able to trade, and able to diverge if it suits us.
So there we have it, 'Brexit means Brexit' or we leave the EU and the single market but maintain harmonisation on trade rules on goods and 'strong reciprocal arrangements in services', freedom of movement still ends but is replaced by a 'mobility framework', we leave the customs union but will stay in 'a combined customs territory', ECJ jurisdiction ends but the UK 'will pay regard to its decisions in areas where common rules were in force' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44747444
Congrats. As I have been saying for months, the Tory party always betrays the UK in Europe. Now, how are you going to cope with the ‘mobility framework’ which is just FOM by another name? Endless rationalisation?
Or you could just try a principled resignation from the Tory party!
By not being in the EU we won’t be bound by welfare rules for EU citizens. Probably reciprocal healthcare will be negotiated.
The latter doesn't make sense at all. If anything it would be better for us not to, given that the NHS is completely free. Making EU citizens buy some kind of insurance for NHS cover would be a huge disincentive for unskilled and low wage workers to come. If the oldies in Europe have to pay for insurance in the EU then that's really not our problem.
Oh in theory of course. But if you talk to anyone in the NHS you’ll see why I say it. Hospitals will never charge or be set up for insurance.
No need, just use PAYE to charge an additional NHS insurance contribution. Self employed must pay it with their self assessment tax bill. Getting the hospitals to charge for it doesn't make sense anyway.
Craig needs to read what is being proposed, it literally is the government proposing "let's have this Brexit cake and eat it" with a bit of flourish.
Plus signing the UK away. They're agreeing to a sea border in principle which is huge.
Where does it say that?
It doesn't that I can see. They commit to a backstop, the 'operational legal text' of which hasn't been agreed yet afaik, and William seems to be assuming said backstop we'll agree to will include a sea border.
If something like this is agreed, there will be no need for the backstop.
Well yes, but it is clear we still need to agree on a backstop just in case something like this is not agreed, and whether we have accepted a principle of splitting our own country is pretty significant.
NI was created by splitting a country. One day which may be soon or years away it will be reunited again.
What a silly way of looking at it. You could equally say ROI was created by a splitting a country and therefore it is inevitable that it will reunite with the UK. There are now circa 200 countries in the world, far more than there were 100 years ago, and I doubt most of those that were split will reunite.
The issue is about the splitting of an existing country, the UK.
How many have reunited as a point of interest ?
East and West Germany North and South Vietnam Errr Is that it ?
North and Southern Yemen.
Not an auspicious example though!
Tanganyika and Zanzibar.
I thought about Tanzania but were they ever one country before being split up and then reuniting ?
Or were they two different states which decided to become one ?
You can count Germany multiple times. Holy Roman Empire - petty states - German Empire/Weimar/Nazis - E/W Germany - reunified Germany.
Russia kind of counts as well. It was a single Rus originally but had already broken up to a substantial extent before the Mongols shattered it and the Princes of Moscow subsequently reunited it.
Is EU immigration specifically a political hot potato anywhere in the EU27?
Not sure (though the phrase Polish plumber originates from France), my point was that they would be watering down one of their four freedoms, the UK would basically be saying we want 2.75 freedoms and "yeah, sure we'll listen to the ECJ, we promise..."
It's cakeism dressed up in EU language. I'm genuinely surprised that so many ardent remainers are happy with it. It completely takes staying in the EU off the table and rejoin off the table and it begins a decade long divergence from the EU.
However, the fact that it has the likes of yourself and myself on board means it's probably a reasonably good compromise.
I think that where we end up from here will be fine for most people. If the EU27 or Commission end up knocking it back, then they will be making a very big mistake. I just can’t see that happening. The UK has gone a long way, it will no doubt go a little further. That should be enough.
Don’t get me wrong - leaving is not going to be good for us, but we’re not staying so the best we can do is to go in the least harmful manner possible.
You're probably right, I just think the commission are much less flexible with the four freedoms than we'd like.
Is EU immigration specifically a political hot potato anywhere in the EU27?
Not sure (though the phrase Polish plumber originates from France), my point was that they would be watering down one of their four freedoms, the UK would basically be saying we want 2.75 freedoms and "yeah, sure we'll listen to the ECJ, we promise..."
It's cakeism dressed up in EU language. I'm genuinely surprised that so many ardent remainers are happy with it. It completely takes staying in the EU off the table and rejoin off the table and it begins a decade long divergence from the EU.
However, the fact that it has the likes of yourself and myself on board means it's probably a reasonably good compromise.
Even better, they think it is soft Brexit.
Aren’t we all supposed to be pulling together. If you’re happy and I’m happy haven’t we both won?
Very good tactics by May to get them all to Chequers and then make a show of reimposing collective responsibility, especially if they’ve agreed to something down the line that will be explosive. There’ll be a kind of omertà hanging over them.
Is EU immigration specifically a political hot potato anywhere in the EU27?
Not sure (though the phrase Polish plumber originates from France), my point was that they would be watering down one of their four freedoms, the UK would basically be saying we want 2.75 freedoms and "yeah, sure we'll listen to the ECJ, we promise..."
It's cakeism dressed up in EU language. I'm genuinely surprised that so many ardent remainers are happy with it. It completely takes staying in the EU off the table and rejoin off the table and it begins a decade long divergence from the EU.
However, the fact that it has the likes of yourself and myself on board means it's probably a reasonably good compromise.
Even better, they think it is soft Brexit.
Too much wine for you. This is the opening of the flood gates. The rest of the red lines whatever they were will now crumble.
Is EU immigration specifically a political hot potato anywhere in the EU27?
Not sure (though the phrase Polish plumber originates from France), my point was that they would be watering down one of their four freedoms, the UK would basically be saying we want 2.75 freedoms and "yeah, sure we'll listen to the ECJ, we promise..."
It's cakeism dressed up in EU language. I'm genuinely surprised that so many ardent remainers are happy with it. It completely takes staying in the EU off the table and rejoin off the table and it begins a decade long divergence from the EU.
However, the fact that it has the likes of yourself and myself on board means it's probably a reasonably good compromise.
Even better, they think it is soft Brexit.
Aren’t we all supposed to be pulling together. If you’re happy and I’m happy haven’t we both won?
Of course. It just makes me chuckle.
I mentioned it last night but not sure you saw - congrats on business news!
The bloody difficult woman seems at last to have put her foot down and disloyal cabinet ministers will be out.
She has seen off a hard Brexit, steared towards a path that Parliament are more likely to approve, a softish Brexit and no doubt in years to come, depending on what happens in the EU, a probable move to re-join.
As far as I am concerned I am content tonight
A Brexit that sees us leave the single market, customs union and ECJ is now considers soft Brexit. What, pray, is hard Brexit now defined as?
We won’t be rejoining BigG. We’d lose our opt outs.
"as if a combined customs territory" looks like a customs union and quacks like a customs union to me. Plus "Due regard" to the CJEU and what seems pretty like the SM in goods
It all seems pretty damn soft to me.
I hope we win at football tomorrow! Then May can go even softer. The Golden Rule of Brexit is that whatever Young Brexit Fogies say is the prognosis, the opposite is true.
Did May's team deliberately choose this Friday? No voter will remember any of this beyond 3pm tomorrow afternoon.
I dare say her scheduling staff identified a window of opportunity
Is EU immigration specifically a political hot potato anywhere in the EU27?
Not sure (though the phrase Polish plumber originates from France), my point was that they would be watering down one of their four freedoms, the UK would basically be saying we want 2.75 freedoms and "yeah, sure we'll listen to the ECJ, we promise..."
It's cakeism dressed up in EU language. I'm genuinely surprised that so many ardent remainers are happy with it. It completely takes staying in the EU off the table and rejoin off the table and it begins a decade long divergence from the EU.
However, the fact that it has the likes of yourself and myself on board means it's probably a reasonably good compromise.
Even better, they think it is soft Brexit.
I think they are right. Regulatory alignment for goods, customs facilitation and "due regard" (whatever that means) for the ECJ. It is a soft Brexit, however, it's definitely not an EEA/Customs Union Brexit that so many were after, it's also not going to be easy to reverse once it's in place which is why I'm surprised that the remainers are jumping on board so easily.
The same path to divergence attracts me.
Now, if we can find some way to stop the EU trying to pass this silly antiques bill...
May won't be able to lock down dissent if the EU says no. She has basically been put in the position of telling the EU "take it or leave it - but if you leave it, there will be no deal on offer from my successor..."
Is EU immigration specifically a political hot potato anywhere in the EU27?
Not sure (though the phrase Polish plumber originates from France), my point was that they would be watering down one of their four freedoms, the UK would basically be saying we want 2.75 freedoms and "yeah, sure we'll listen to the ECJ, we promise..."
It's cakeism dressed up in EU language. I'm genuinely surprised that so many ardent remainers are happy with it. It completely takes staying in the EU off the table and rejoin off the table and it begins a decade long divergence from the EU.
However, the fact that it has the likes of yourself and myself on board means it's probably a reasonably good compromise.
Even better, they think it is soft Brexit.
Aren’t we all supposed to be pulling together. If you’re happy and I’m happy haven’t we both won?
Of course. It just makes me chuckle.
I mentioned it last night but not sure you saw - congrats on business news!
Is EU immigration specifically a political hot potato anywhere in the EU27?
Not sure (though the phrase Polish plumber originates from France), my point was that they would be watering down one of their four freedoms, the UK would basically be saying we want 2.75 freedoms and "yeah, sure we'll listen to the ECJ, we promise..."
It's cakeism dressed up in EU language. I'm genuinely surprised that so many ardent remainers are happy with it. It completely takes staying in the EU off the table and rejoin off the table and it begins a decade long divergence from the EU.
However, the fact that it has the likes of yourself and myself on board means it's probably a reasonably good compromise.
I think that where we end up from here will be fine for most people. If the EU27 or Commission end up knocking it back, then they will be making a very big mistake. I just can’t see that happening. The UK has gone a long way, it will no doubt go a little further. That should be enough.
Don’t get me wrong - leaving is not going to be good for us, but we’re not staying so the best we can do is to go in the least harmful manner possible.
I think that's overoptimistic. I think this proposal will be rejected out of hand (though I'd be happy to be proved wrong).
Craig needs to read what is being proposed, it literally is the government proposing "let's have this Brexit cake and eat it" with a bit of flourish.
Plus signing the UK away. They're agreeing to a sea border in principle which is huge.
Where does it say that?
It doesn't that I can see. They commit to a backstop, the 'operational legal text' of which hasn't been agreed yet afaik, and William seems to be assuming said backstop we'll agree to will include a sea border.
If something like this is agreed, there will be no need for the backstop.
Well yes, but it is clear we still need to agree on a backstop just in case something like this is not agreed, and whether we have accepted a principle of splitting our own country is pretty significant.
NI was created by splitting a country. One day which may be soon or years away it will be reunited again.
What a silly way of looking at it. You could equally say ROI was created by a splitting a country and therefore it is inevitable that it will reunite with the UK. There are now circa 200 countries in the world, far more than there were 100 years ago, and I doubt most of those that were split will reunite.
The issue is about the splitting of an existing country, the UK.
How many have reunited as a point of interest ?
East and West Germany North and South Vietnam Errr Is that it ?
North and Southern Yemen.
Not an auspicious example though!
Tanganyika and Zanzibar.
I thought about Tanzania but were they ever one country before being split up and then reuniting ?
Or were they two different states which decided to become one ?
You can count Germany multiple times. Holy Roman Empire - petty states - German Empire/Weimar/Nazis - E/W Germany - reunified Germany.
Russia kind of counts as well. It was a single Rus originally but had already broken up to a substantial extent before the Mongols shattered it and the Princes of Moscow subsequently reunited it.
China has done so many times. Fragmented, re-united, fragmented.
The bloody difficult woman seems at last to have put her foot down and disloyal cabinet ministers will be out.
She has seen off a hard Brexit, steared towards a path that Parliament are more likely to approve, a softish Brexit and no doubt in years to come, depending on what happens in the EU, a probable move to re-join.
As far as I am concerned I am content tonight
A Brexit that sees us leave the single market, customs union and ECJ is now considers soft Brexit. What, pray, is hard Brexit now defined as?
We won’t be rejoining BigG. We’d lose our opt outs.
"as if a combined customs territory" looks like a customs union and quacks like a customs union to me. Plus "Due regard" to the CJEU and what seems pretty like the SM in goods
It all seems pretty damn soft to me.
I hope we win at football tomorrow! Then May can go even softer. The Golden Rule of Brexit is that whatever Young Brexit Fogies say is the prognosis, the opposite is true.
Did May's team deliberately choose this Friday? No voter will remember any of this beyond 3pm tomorrow afternoon.
I dare say her scheduling staff identified a window of opportunity
And if England win, then any huffing and puffing from JRM will be lost on the front pages with Southgate worship.
The deal being proposed is basically lifted from the existing Switzerland-EU treaty. I mean it's almost identical.
I was always told the EU regretted the Swiss Treaties as they thought the Swiss had outmanoeuvred them in the negotiation.
Perhaps we should have hired the Swiss to do the negotiating.
If they don't mind sending their soldiers to defend the Pope maybe they would send their diplomats to help the UK.
Didn't the New Zealanders offer some FTA negotiators to the UK and were told no thanks, Dr Fox and his pals can handle it all themselves?
I could say I stand second to none in my contempt for Liam Fox but I'm sure there are many, many people who are able to exceed even my level of contempt which I have for Fox.
FWIW Stephen Harper and Liam Fox gave speeches at the IFT last week (I couldn’t go so a colleague took my place). Fox was embarrassingly poor. Harper was great as was Hannan.
May won't be able to lock down dissent if the EU says no. She has basically been put in the position of telling the EU "take it or leave it - but if you leave it, there will be no deal on offer from my successor..."
May won't be able to lock down dissent if the EU says no. She has basically been put in the position of telling the EU "take it or leave it - but if you leave it, there will be no deal on offer from my successor..."
Yes, she's definitely put the commission in a tough spot here, she's come across as very reasonable, facing down the ERG and uniting behind a single vision for Brexit while making it sound acceptable. There's a glaring hole in the shape of free movement, however, the commission knows that if they turn this down without any consideration or negotiation then May is gone and we really do move towards a no deal Brexit on their insistence.
Is EU immigration specifically a political hot potato anywhere in the EU27?
Not sure (though the phrase Polish plumber originates from France), my point was that they would be watering down one of their four freedoms, the UK would basically be saying we want 2.75 freedoms and "yeah, sure we'll listen to the ECJ, we promise..."
It's cakeism dressed up in EU language. I'm genuinely surprised that so many ardent remainers are happy with it. It completely takes staying in the EU off the table and rejoin off the table and it begins a decade long divergence from the EU.
However, the fact that it has the likes of yourself and myself on board means it's probably a reasonably good compromise.
I think that where we end up from here will be fine for most people. If the EU27 or Commission end up knocking it back, then they will be making a very big mistake. I just can’t see that happening. The UK has gone a long way, it will no doubt go a little further. That should be enough.
Don’t get me wrong - leaving is not going to be good for us, but we’re not staying so the best we can do is to go in the least harmful manner possible.
I think that's overoptimistic. I think this proposal will be rejected out of hand (though I'd be happy to be proved wrong).
I think it's going to be a "yes, but we must insist that EU citizens have the same rights as British citizens".
The bloody difficult woman seems at last to have put her foot down and disloyal cabinet ministers will be out.
She has seen off a hard Brexit, steared towards a path that Parliament are more likely to approve, a softish Brexit and no doubt in years to come, depending on what happens in the EU, a probable move to re-join.
As far as I am concerned I am content tonight
A Brexit that sees us leave the single market, customs union and ECJ is now considers soft Brexit. What, pray, is hard Brexit now defined as?
We won’t be rejoining BigG. We’d lose our opt outs.
"as if a combined customs territory" looks like a customs union and quacks like a customs union to me. Plus "Due regard" to the CJEU and what seems pretty like the SM in goods
It all seems pretty damn soft to me.
I hope we win at football tomorrow! Then May can go even softer. The Golden Rule of Brexit is that whatever Young Brexit Fogies say is the prognosis, the opposite is true.
Did May's team deliberately choose this Friday? No voter will remember any of this beyond 3pm tomorrow afternoon.
I dare say her scheduling staff identified a window of opportunity
And if England win, then any huffing and puffing from JRM will be lost on the front pages with Southgate worship.
Brilliant politics from May? Or just luck?
Of course, May is fucked if Southgate comes out as a no-deal Brexiteer.....
May won't be able to lock down dissent if the EU says no. She has basically been put in the position of telling the EU "take it or leave it - but if you leave it, there will be no deal on offer from my successor..."
Yes, she's definitely put the commission in a tough spot here, she's come across as very reasonable, facing down the ERG and uniting behind a single vision for Brexit while making it sound acceptable. There's a glaring hole in the shape of free movement, however, the commission knows that if they turn this down without any consideration or negotiation then May is gone and we really do move towards a no deal Brexit on their insistence.
Nonsense. May will win a confidence vote unless someone in the cabinet is trying to oust her, and they’ve just proven she has the measure of them.
May won't be able to lock down dissent if the EU says no. She has basically been put in the position of telling the EU "take it or leave it - but if you leave it, there will be no deal on offer from my successor..."
EU may say, "Yes, but..." and around we go again.
Indeed. However, if they reject it out of hand then the commission will be blamed for no deal and it gives the government licence to get on with a hostile Brexit which includes tax cuts, deregulation and specific country deals (bribes) service industries.
Is EU immigration specifically a political hot potato anywhere in the EU27?
Not sure (though the phrase Polish plumber originates from France), my point was that they would be watering down one of their four freedoms, the UK would basically be saying we want 2.75 freedoms and "yeah, sure we'll listen to the ECJ, we promise..."
It's cakeism dressed up in EU language. I'm genuinely surprised that so many ardent remainers are happy with it. It completely takes staying in the EU off the table and rejoin off the table and it begins a decade long divergence from the EU.
However, the fact that it has the likes of yourself and myself on board means it's probably a reasonably good compromise.
I think that where we end up from here will be fine for most people. If the EU27 or Commission end up knocking it back, then they will be making a very big mistake. I just can’t see that happening. The UK has gone a long way, it will no doubt go a little further. That should be enough.
Don’t get me wrong - leaving is not going to be good for us, but we’re not staying so the best we can do is to go in the least harmful manner possible.
I think that's overoptimistic. I think this proposal will be rejected out of hand (though I'd be happy to be proved wrong).
That would be very foolish by the EU - and It looks like May has already discussed it with Merkel. If they do reject it May will fall then heavens only knows who they’ll have opposite them.
Comments
Not an auspicious example though!
Tanganyika and Zanzibar.
The main issue with FOM for me is to get some reflection of the transition controls we could have taken in 2004 and a 'mobility framework' will likely do that
Or were they two different states which decided to become one ?
Brexiteer backbenchers not happy.
Twat. x2
Biafra and Nigeria?
CSA and USA?
It's cakeism dressed up in EU language. I'm genuinely surprised that so many ardent remainers are happy with it. It completely takes staying in the EU off the table and rejoin off the table and it begins a decade long divergence from the EU.
However, the fact that it has the likes of yourself and myself on board means it's probably a reasonably good compromise.
It is certainly a better show when it's not centred around Danny Dyer and his psycho friend Stuart.
Nigeria and Biafra too, but perhaps that would raise issues over exactly what we mean.
Certainly fission is more common than fusion, though mutinational trade blocks do seem to be proliferating.
Don’t get me wrong - leaving is not going to be good for us, but we’re not staying so the best we can do is to go in the least harmful manner possible.
And bring in a employment charge on businesses for each immigrant they employ - charge to be zero for all immigrants who earn more than average earnings so as not to impact higher value workers.
Its about time those companies which rely on taxpayer subsidised minimum wage migrant labour start to pay a contribution for the financial and social costs their business model causes this country.
You wish...
Too much wine imbibed and sun absorbed at Tory event this evening to have creative thoughts. Well done sir.
Russia and Eastern Donbass
Germany and Austria, Danzig, Pozen.
If he bottles it too, the Brexiteers will be as sad as Nadine at BoZo's pity party
Now the EU still needs to agree to it, but I've long felt we'll probably end up where we should have started from. A bit less free movement, outside the EU, still able to trade, and able to diverge if it suits us.
Russia kind of counts as well. It was a single Rus originally but had already broken up to a substantial extent before the Mongols shattered it and the Princes of Moscow subsequently reunited it.
Can I add my congratulations and if you'd like to give details for any PBers who didn't know.
I mentioned it last night but not sure you saw - congrats on business news!
Now, if we can find some way to stop the EU trying to pass this silly antiques bill...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJpMMma5U5s
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5925045/Donald-Trumps-three-day-UK-trip-cost-30m-include-nuclear-powered-aircraft-carrier.html
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1015358241256169472
*buffs nails*
Brilliant politics from May? Or just luck?
England.
https://www.globebmg.com/law-business-research-combine-globe-business-media-group-create-leading-provider-legal-business-information/
Were any of the senior folk at the 'gutter' press mentioned by Corbyn's 96 'they're all like Nazis' EDM Jewish?
If they were, doesn't that make all of the signatories official antisemites?
@europeelects
Sweden, Sentio poll:
SD-ECR: 26%
S-S&D: 21% (-1)
M-EPP: 18% (+1)
V-LEFT: 11% (+1)
C-ALDE: 7%
L-ALDE: 6% (-1)
MP-G/EFA: 4% (-1)
KD-EPP: 4% (+1)
PIRAT-G/EFA: 1%
Fi-S&D: 1%
MS-*: 0%
Field work: 28/06/18 – 3/07/18
Sample size: 743
#val2018"