Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » May’s Straw Man

SystemSystem Posts: 6,199
edited July 7 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » May’s Straw Man

Works away days invariably disappoint their participants and for all the beauty of the surroundings, the cabinet’s day out at Chequers won’t have been much different. Twelve hours of intensive discussions in literal hot-house conditions, to hammer out a Brexit policy that they could all stick to is surely no-one’s idea of fun.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,293
    The best outcome from yesterday is the end of BoZo's career. He gambled on losing the referendum to win the leadership, and now both sides don't trust him.

    Result!
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,564
    JRM scrambled.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,993
    This all sounds plausible.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,822
    edited July 7
    F1: in case it was missed earlier (I was up a bit earlier than usual), backed Raikkonen for fastest qualifier, each way, at 21 or so. He's actually outqualified Vettel at Silverstone every year they've been team mates, which is a bit surprising.

    May also be worth considering him to win, each way, at around 17.

    And I put a little on Mr. B's suggestion from yesterday of there being under 16 classified finishers, at 2.2 (which I think just about squeezes into value).

    Edited extra bit: potential for a DNF or two due to these:
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,564
    The government will get the blame, that is what governments are for.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 2,001
    Jonathan said:

    The government will get the blame, that is what governments are for.

    True. But it's their own fault.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,528
    edited July 7
    Predictable.

    We voted to leave the EU. The EU's stance has always been they cannot compromise on FOM. If they stick to that, negotiation is futile.

    "Tell us what you want?"

    "This, this and this together with controls on immigration"

    "No, now tell us what you want."

    The sub-text is they cannot compromise on FOM without the other countries piling in too. That will unravel the whole cunning plan - a united or federal country.

    Had they made it plain in 1975 that they always intended uniting Europe into a single country, we would never have voted to go in. That's why they downplayed any such suggestion at the time. Before anyone bothers suggesting they always made it clear, I was in my mid-twenties then and far more politically aware than I am now. I admit I believed the lies, and lies they were.


  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,131
    Scott_P said:
    That's good for May - shows Barnier/EU that she's gone too far for som ultras and any further will collapse the government
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,822
    Mr. P, got to say it's a dumb idea. Reminds me of this:
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,012
    edited July 7
    This is clearly as far as any Tory government could go to get a deal with the EU. Harmonisation on goods regulations, reciprocal arrangements on services, a 'migration framework', a 'combined customs territory' and mirroring ECJ jurisdiction on shared rules. If the EU rejects even this then a harder line Brexiteer will replace May and we can prepare for No Deal Brexit with the government reasonably able to say it did all it could to deal with the EU.

    Even if this is not enough for the EU to confirm a FTA with the UK it should be enough in my view to enable the EU to confirm the transition period from the end of March 2019 and technical Brexit until December 2020 with FTA details worked on further during that time.

    In terms of the political implications the main question is will many Tory Leave voters switch to UKIP when the next polls come out, while a few are bound to provided May can contain any defections and the Tories are still largely tied with Labour she will have avoided too much fallout there as well
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,017
    Mogg and his ERG friends are just as hopeless at coups as the Labour MPs who instigated the Chicken Coup.Maybe he's got Portland Comms involved or has Lord Oakeshott as his personal adviser.I thought they were hard too and would have gone all Peaky Blinders and nailed Philip Hammond to a tree,or at least have chopped a few fingers off by now.As my dad used to say,they couldn't knock the skin off a rice pudding.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 8,992
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,012
    Scott_P said:
    So there it is, if the EU rejects this it risks a JRM premiership and instant No Deal and WTO terms as soon as Brexit begins next March as well as the tariffs Trump will impose on EU goods or would then face UK tariffs too
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,604
    And so this weekend England play a huge match, F1, cricket v India, Wimbledon and hot weather continues.

    Politics will take a back seat as sport takes over

    Anyone betting on World cup viewing figures - 24 million last match, will it reach 30 million today

    And how many weddings will have absentee brides/grooms between 3.00pm and 5.00pm

    All good fun
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,621
    Interesting, but I disagree. I think Barnier will say politely that it's progress but there is further work to do, and it will get chipped away at the edges. In the end there will be a fudged deal. The inconsistencies relate to hypotheticals:

    * Parliament COULD decide on deviation. Barnier will say sure, but build in the collapse of free trade if that happens. Parliament can in principle always decide to affiliate to Brazil or ban pubs, but in practice it doesn't happen.
    * The "mobility framework" will be FoM in all but name - perhaps, as with Switzerland, allowing movement only if jobs have been advertised domestically first
    * The MaxFac idea will certainly be implemented when it's been shown to be technically feasible to everyone's satisfaction, i.e. probably never.
    * Britain can certainly agree trade deals with other countries if we can find a way to make them meaningful, yet consistent with the package, i.e. probably never.

    I think the difficult one is the first, being harmonised on goods but not services. The Continent might be tempted as they can require a price of marginalising the City, but it breaches a fundamental principle. Expect some hard bargaining here with an outcome that we could in theory deviate for services, but with a massive effect which will mean we won't.

    Will May get away with it? Yes, I think so. Most voters aren't really that interested in these arcane details. So long as we're leaving and there's some sort of deal that doesn't wreck Britain, they'll feel that's not too bad.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,822
    Mr. P, looks more like a barrage balloon.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,604

    Interesting, but I disagree. I think Barnier will say politely that it's progress but there is further work to do, and it will get chipped away at the edges. In the end there will be a fudged deal. The inconsistencies relate to hypotheticals:

    * Parliament COULD decide on deviation. Barnier will say sure, but build in the collapse of free trade if that happens. Parliament can in principle always decide to affiliate to Brazil or ban pubs, but in practice it doesn't happen.
    * The "mobility framework" will be FoM in all but name - perhaps, as with Switzerland, allowing movement only if jobs have been advertised domestically first
    * The MaxFac idea will certainly be implemented when it's been shown to be technically feasible to everyone's satisfaction, i.e. probably never.
    * Britain can certainly agree trade deals with other countries if we can find a way to make them meaningful, yet consistent with the package, i.e. probably never.

    I think the difficult one is the first, being harmonised on goods but not services. The Continent might be tempted as they can require a price of marginalising the City, but it breaches a fundamental principle. Expect some hard bargaining here with an outcome that we could in theory deviate for services, but with a massive effect which will mean we won't.

    Will May get away with it? Yes, I think so. Most voters aren't really that interested in these arcane details. So long as we're leaving and there's some sort of deal that doesn't wreck Britain, they'll feel that's not too bad.

    As fair and honest as ever Nick
  • LordOfReasonLordOfReason Posts: 95
    Simon. Boris. David. Michael. Liam. Jacob. Sun. Mail. Express. Telegraph. Times. 17,410,742 million Britons.

    https://makeagif.com/i/iMfglo
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 43,012
    CD13 said:

    Predictable.

    We voted to leave the EU. The EU's stance has always been they cannot compromise on FOM. If they stick to that, negotiation is futile.

    "Tell us what you want?"

    "This, this and this together with controls on immigration"

    "No, now tell us what you want."

    The sub-text is they cannot compromise on FOM without the other countries piling in too. That will unravel the whole cunning plan - a united or federal country.

    Had they made it plain in 1975 that they always intended uniting Europe into a single country, we would never have voted to go in. That's why they downplayed any such suggestion at the time. Before anyone bothers suggesting they always made it clear, I was in my mid-twenties then and far more politically aware than I am now. I admit I believed the lies, and lies they were.


    We are still owed transition control equivalents from 2004 om FOM from most of Eastern Europe by the EU as Blair refused to take them
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,528
    edited July 7
    Dr P,

    I bow to your superior knowledge of politics, but anyone like me who voted leave out of annoyance at being misled in 1975 won't be inclined to take politicians at their word. What you describe is a probably BINO. Unfortunately, that's what it smells like already and I can see Barnier do the double-glazing act here.

    "With a few tweaks, I could sell it to the boss, but it's a great deal for you and I'll do my best."
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,187
    So, the EU will be given May's take it or leave it option, that the Cabinet is now collectively tied to.

    It is possible that behind the scenes, the EU has accepted this is the best that it can achieve and there is a tacit nod that it will be enough. Far more likely, though, is it will leave it, thank you. It is still far too worried that other nations will say "you know what - that will do us nicely too. Here's our Article 50 notice...." It would rather be £40 billion down, but keep the business going as is.

    In which case, the PM needs the FM to takeover planning for No Deal Brexit. It's his preferred route to that on the table. Boris must be made to make it work.

    Or take the flak if basic supplies grind to a halt.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,555

    And so this weekend England play a huge match, F1, cricket v India, Wimbledon and hot weather continues.

    Politics will take a back seat as sport takes over

    Anyone betting on World cup viewing figures - 24 million last match, will it reach 30 million today

    And how many weddings will have absentee brides/grooms between 3.00pm and 5.00pm

    All good fun

    And the Tour de France starts.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,604
    CD13 said:

    Dr P,

    I bow to your superior knowledge of politics, but anyone like me who voted leave out of annoyance at being misled in 1975 won't be inclined to take politicians at their word. What you describe is a probably BINO. Unfortunately, that's what it smells like already and I can see Barnier do the double-glazing act here.

    "With a few tweaks, I could sell it to the boss, but it's a great deal for you and I'll do my best."

    I can understand the anger of Brexiteers but sometimes you have to be prepared to compromise and in this case there are not the parliamentary numbers for a hard Brexit. Furthermore there is a danger that Brexit get's overturned to remain and that does not respect the vote to leave
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,604

    And so this weekend England play a huge match, F1, cricket v India, Wimbledon and hot weather continues.

    Politics will take a back seat as sport takes over

    Anyone betting on World cup viewing figures - 24 million last match, will it reach 30 million today

    And how many weddings will have absentee brides/grooms between 3.00pm and 5.00pm

    All good fun

    And the Tour de France starts.
    Yes, I forgot that
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,293
    There’s an old and doubtless apocryphal cartoon featuring a group of explorers who, cut off from their base camp, have been confronted by a rampaging bear. One of them is facing it.

    The others have retreated to a safe distance. The man facing the bear calls out to his fellow explorers: “We’re on our own!” From behind some trees the others call back: “Yes you are, aren’t you!” I cannot remove from my mind the picture of a tousle-headed comrade who is discovering tonight that, for the moment at least, his mates have scampered off into the undergrowth.

    It will suit Theresa May very well to isolate her foreign secretary from his natural allies. She aims to pick off an already wounded beast and has chosen well. She will hope the spectacle of his agonies will discourage his natural allies from joining him. She appears to have struck first and, for the moment at least, to have the advantage.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/chequers-summit-may-has-chosen-her-prey-well-boris-johnson-is-already-wounded-klbs0lgx5
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 13,868
    HYUFD said:

    CD13 said:

    Predictable.

    We voted to leave the EU. The EU's stance has always been they cannot compromise on FOM. If they stick to that, negotiation is futile.

    "Tell us what you want?"

    "This, this and this together with controls on immigration"

    "No, now tell us what you want."

    The sub-text is they cannot compromise on FOM without the other countries piling in too. That will unravel the whole cunning plan - a united or federal country.

    Had they made it plain in 1975 that they always intended uniting Europe into a single country, we would never have voted to go in. That's why they downplayed any such suggestion at the time. Before anyone bothers suggesting they always made it clear, I was in my mid-twenties then and far more politically aware than I am now. I admit I believed the lies, and lies they were.


    We are still owed transition control equivalents from 2004 om FOM from most of Eastern Europe by the EU as Blair refused to take them
    No we are not. That option has expired.

    That's like saying I'm still owed a pick and mix offer from Woolworths.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,505
    It shows remarkable good faith and willingness to compromise on behalf of the Brexiteers that they have accepted this position. Not only does it go against their beliefs and the vision of full self-rule proposed in the referendum but also the Tory manifesto. But clearly they have put the needs of the government and the country to be united first. That deserves credit.

    I hope that Remainers now respect that spirit of compromise and don't try to water down this deal further. I see charlatans like Chuka Umunna, who have got all their voiced concerns about rules and customs addressed, are still complaining. It just shows that there is a major contingent of Europhiles that will never be reconciled to anything less than full EU membership. May should stop trying to pacify them.

    Having given a major concession to the EU, it's important May draws a red line on issues like reciprocity. The guarantor of this deal can not be the highly political ECJ, but should be a new international panel, perhaps with third parties as the swing votes. It's also important there's a mechanism for disputes to be resolved that can take into account domestic politics. Perhaps any breach should have a year or two to come to agreement before trade is halted etc.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,907
    edited July 7
    Per the previous thread, I think Theresa May might have basis of something. We get continued access to the EU's market and regulatory system for traded goods. In exchange the EU takes over a large part of our services business. Does that sound like the basis of a deal?

    It satisfies our need for continuity and for the outcome to be clearly and permanently worse for us than membership, which the EU requires. The EU will still want to constrain us on services so that equation holds. That would part of the negotiations.
    FF43 said:

    Expert opinion is that the EU will turn down this proposal, but I wonder. The EU gets the win/win on traded goods where they already have a balance of trade advantage. They can help themselves to our lucrative services trade. Member states must be tempted surely?

    Technically, we lose our Mode 1 trade (cross border supply - the blue bars in the chart), which become the much less valuable Mode 3 (commercial presence in territory - the green bars) or disappear. Less valuable because we lose the associated employment. That's why Mode 3 access is easy to negotiate and Mode 1 isn't.

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,604
    edited July 7
    Elliot said:

    It shows remarkable good faith and willingness to compromise on behalf of the Brexiteers that they have accepted this position. Not only does it go against their beliefs and the vision of full self-rule proposed in the referendum but also the Tory manifesto. But clearly they have put the needs of the government and the country to be united first. That deserves credit.

    I hope that Remainers now respect that spirit of compromise and don't try to water down this deal further. I see charlatans like Chuka Umunna, who have got all their voiced concerns about rules and customs addressed, are still complaining. It just shows that there is a major contingent of Europhiles that will never be reconciled to anything less than full EU membership. May should stop trying to pacify them.

    Having given a major concession to the EU, it's important May draws a red line on issues like reciprocity. The guarantor of this deal can not be the highly political ECJ, but should be a new international panel, perhaps with third parties as the swing votes. It's also important there's a mechanism for disputes to be resolved that can take into account domestic politics. Perhaps any breach should have a year or two to come to agreement before trade is halted etc.

    Chuka Umunna has lost and he is sore. He is going to rubbish this with as much vigour as he can as he and his fellow travellers must realise that their desire to remain is over just as is a hard Brexit.

    I am content that this deal reflects the 52/48 vote and hopefully will see a deal by the end of the year and the conservatives can re focus urgently on domestic issues
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,601
    I don't share DavidH's wholeheartedly pessimistic outlook.

    The Treaties do give a measure of flexibility. Even within the EU, these have given rise to numerous questions of what is or is not consistent with the creation of a single market.

    So for example, the 2006 services directive is much less a question of full harmonisation than its goods counterparts. And even within goods, there are wide enough areas of member states' competence to make something stick.

    At times, the EU has sought to hold the Brexit-ing UK to a higher standard of harmonisation than currently deployed across the EU. That is because, fundamentally, the EU institutions see harmonisation (services as a good example) as either "done" to "currently doing". It is all abou endgame.

    There is enough latitude to give the UK a perfectly viable deal along the lines of what has been agreed at Chequers, the question is whether (a) the EU is going to give it to us and/or (b) Member States will give it to us.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,818
    Interesting that we have people like Southam and NickPalmer presuming this is a solid basis for a deal, that the EU will recognise that and bend a little even as they ask for more, while Mr Herdson is in the 'it's a nonsense deal , it's not even intended to be a deal' camp.

    It woukd help explain the Brexiteers all being on board.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,505
    HYUFD said:

    Scott_P said:
    So there it is, if the EU rejects this it risks a JRM premiership and instant No Deal and WTO terms as soon as Brexit begins next March as well as the tariffs Trump will impose on EU goods or would then face UK tariffs too
    The problem is the EU overestimates itself. It thought the Euro was stronger than it was. It thought the ECB minor cut would be enough to solve the crisis. It thought the crumbs it gave Cameron before the referendum would be enough.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,528
    Mr G,

    "Furthermore there is a danger that Brexit get's overturned to remain and that does not respect the vote to leave."

    A danger?

    To be honest, I trust none of them. I believed the reassurances in 1975 probably because I wanted to. With politics, people do usually believe what they want to believe. (it happens occasionally in science too).

    This benefit of the doubt for politicians can wear thin, though. Mine is showing the lining now.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,756
    We will be formally aligned on goods while for eg financial services we will be de facto aligned and certainly a rule taker if we want to continue to do business as we do today.

    Take back control!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,818
    Pulpstar said:

    Scott_P said:
    That's good for May - shows Barnier/EU that she's gone too far for som ultras and any further will collapse the government
    But if the fundamentals are that they cannot shift on FoM that remains irrelevant. The EU still seems to believe it does not need to concede anything (making negotiating pointless), and therefore it doesn't matter if May cannot go further. They still believe demanding we split our country is reasonable for example, it doesn't matter that we are not going to do that.

    I think the EU adopted an all or nothing approach a long time ago. For all their love of fudge to fudge now would involve shifting on what they claim are red lines.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,206
    TOPPING said:

    We will be formally aligned on goods while for eg financial services we will be de facto aligned and certainly a rule taker if we want to continue to do business as we do today.

    Take back control!

    And yet, this deal is a non starter, the EU has never and will never compromise on free movement. I pointed it out last night, it will insist on the full fat 100% "EU citizen" concept.

    However, there is definitely scope for divergence on services, as I said yesterday it will result in capitalised subsidiaries in smaller EU countries with 95% of the work carried out in the UK. That's the Nomura model (though I thought I was Luxembourg, not Tallinn) and it looks very much like what JP are doing with their "dozens" of people moving and the rest being given guarantees of not moving to Europe.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,666
    The negotiations have not yet begun. What we have now is an initial UK position from which a deal will be put together: A few points:

    * The Cabinet Brexiteers have been humiliated and emasculated - the Brexit they guaranteed is not deliverable and it turns out they have no workable plans to create the Bucanerring Britain freed from the shackles of Brussels. They have been revealed to be lazy, ignorant and/or mendacious. I would not underestimate just how important that is for both the Commission and the EU27. It is their blue passports - symbolically crucial.

    * With this statement, the government has made a No Deal Brexit much more problematic domestically for each of the EU27 member states. That. too, is very important. The UK has made a very large number of significant concessions. A No Deal can no longer be blamed on British intransigence. Few, if any, of the EU27 leaders have the political capital to see such a No Deal scenario through from this point.

    * The statement recognises that the UK's future prosperity is tied - and that is the right word - to Europe's. The TPP bit is also interesting. We have looked at the globe's three spheres of trading influence and we have decided that one of them is not for us. There will be no all-encompassing trade deal with the US.

    * Freedom of movement will end. It will be replaced by freedom of movement in all but name.

    * This is because we are going to need to look very carefully at services - especially as they are so intertwined with goods (if you sell machinery into Europe, part of that is supplying post-sales engineering support, for example).

    * All this could and should have been done before Mrs May triggered Article 50 and drew her red lines. Nick Timothy has a hell of a lot to answer for.

    * We are going to end up with an arrangement that looks pretty much like the one we have now, except we will have much less say in deciding the rules that we have to implement, our growth will be lower than it otherwise would have been, we'll be able to do some limited trade deals with second tier, non-EU countries and we will have blue passports.

    * As Nick Palmer says, most people will be fine with all this - who notices growth that's lower than it should have been? And blue passports really do matter.

    One final observation, this puts Labour in one hell of a bind. I am struggling to see how it can respond in any meaningful way. Its ambiguity worked for as long as the Tories had no position, now they do.
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,697
    Arguably JC might now be tempted by a harder Brexit approach - of course the MPs won't wear it but when did he care what they think.
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,697
    We have two threads running - an old one on the main site and this one on Vanilla!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,818


    * With this statement, the government has made a No Deal Brexit much more problematic domestically for each of the EU27 member states. That. too, is very important. The UK has made a very large number of significant concessions. A No Deal can no longer be blamed on British intransigence.

    Of course it can. We'll blame them even when at fault, they'll blame us even when at fault. They can say our purported concessions did not go far enough, or weren't really concessions, that they tried over and over to tell us that certain things were not possible but we persisted because we were unreaslitic and in thrall to populists etc etc.

    Why would the domestic populations of the member states be inclined to be upset at their own governments or the EU for sparking a no deal, when it it still so easy to say our intransigence was the cause? If they say we need to move 100m before a deal can be struck and we move 50m, sure we've made some movement, but they will still be able to claim it was our fault, and since when do people get angry at their own side for sticking to principle (even when those principles are unreasonably immovable)?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,818


    One final observation, this puts Labour in one hell of a bind. I am struggling to see how it can respond in any meaningful way. Its ambiguity worked for as long as the Tories had no position, now they do.

    If the EU reject it they say the chaos and division in the Tories has ensured no deal and no time for Labour to fix it. If the EU accept it they say that it gives too much to the EU for not enough because the chaos and division of the Tories meant the gov didn't make any progress earlier. If it is accepted Labour claim they would have gotten a better deal on services etc etc.

    How big a hit the Tories take from this will not become clear for a while, but there's likely to be too many genuinely angry in the base for there to be no hit. Therefore Labour will play it safe and continue to say merely that they would have done a better job. What kind of a better job? They'll be pretty vague, which will not make it as effective a claim as it might be, but it will be enough to garner some level of support from the angry.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,822
    Mr. P, Wollaston's comment is strange.

    Remaining in the EU would dissatisfy a majority. If upsetting the majority is something she wants to avoid then we can neither leave nor remain.

    Still, if it distracts her from taxing tasty food or otherwise pursuing her puritanical crusade, fine.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 29,102
    felix said:

    Arguably JC might now be tempted by a harder Brexit approach - of course the MPs won't wear it but when did he care what they think.

    I did think the “no divergence on state subsidy rules” might have had more than the EU as an audience....
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 29,102
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,666
    kle4 said:


    * With this statement, the government has made a No Deal Brexit much more problematic domestically for each of the EU27 member states. That. too, is very important. The UK has made a very large number of significant concessions. A No Deal can no longer be blamed on British intransigence.

    Of course it can. We'll blame them even when at fault, they'll blame us even when at fault. They can say our purported concessions did not go far enough, or weren't really concessions, that they tried over and over to tell us that certain things were not possible but we persisted because we were unreaslitic and in thrall to populists etc etc.

    Why would the domestic populations of the member states be inclined to be upset at their own governments or the EU for sparking a no deal, when it it still so easy to say our intransigence was the cause? If they say we need to move 100m before a deal can be struck and we move 50m, sure we've made some movement, but they will still be able to claim it was our fault, and since when do people get angry at their own side for sticking to principle (even when those principles are unreasonably immovable)?

    Because the domestic populations of most EU27 states are already upset with their governments. A No Deal hurts us most, but it hurts others, too - some quite a bit. If political leaders say no to an agreement made feasible by British concessions and that creates hardships that would otherwise have been avoided there will be a political price to pay. The populations of the EU27 are not wedded to the four freedoms as a matter of ideology - and each of those countries has opposition parties and opposition leaders who will see opportunities to make hay.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,818
    edited July 7

    kle4 said:


    * With this statement, the government has made a No Deal Brexit much more problematic domestically for each of the EU27 member states. That. too, is very important. The UK has made a very large number of significant concessions. A No Deal can no longer be blamed on British intransigence.

    Of course it can. We'll blame them even when at fault, they'll blame us even when at fault. They can say our purported concessions did not go far enough, or weren't really concessions, that they tried over and over to tell us that certain things were not possible but we persisted because we were unreaslitic and in thrall to populists etc etc.

    Why would the domestic populations of the member states be inclined to be upset at their own governments or the EU for sparking a no deal, when it it still so easy to say our intransigence was the cause? If they say we need to move 100m before a deal can be struck and we move 50m, sure we've made some movement, but they will still be able to claim it was our fault, and since when do people get angry at their own side for sticking to principle (even when those principles are unreasonably immovable)?

    Because the domestic populations of most EU27 states are already upset with their governments. A No Deal hurts us most, but it hurts others, too - some quite a bit. If political leaders say no to an agreement made feasible by British concessions and that creates hardships that would otherwise have been avoided there will be a political price to pay. The populations of the EU27 are not wedded to the four freedoms as a matter of ideology - and each of those countries has opposition parties and opposition leaders who will see opportunities to make hay.

    I just don't see how it creates enough of a problem to cause genuine difficulty when all they have to do is make the case that our concessions did not, in fact, make it feasible. We already have people on our side of things like Mr Herdson arguing our concessions are not feasible, I don't really see that the EU and governments cannot argue that as well, and much easier since there is the factor of us being the opposing side to add to it.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,822
    Miss Vance, if accepted, the deal would cause a massive strategic shift in UK politics, I feel.

    A Farage-Banks I Can't Believe It's Not UKIP political vehicle would arise. I don't think it'd have much impact at the next election, but at the one after that it could redraw the electoral map.

    What concerns me is that further right parties might spring up. Between the far left's capture of Labour, the potential for Conservative woe, and a gnawing sense of betrayal, we could see things take an unpredictable turn (again), almost certainly not for the better.

    Being complacent about 'upsetting the right people' reminds me 'fruitcakes, nutters, and closet racists'. Which transmogrified to 'Little Englanders'. And then the majority.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 29,102
    May herself has written a letter to Conservative MPs that carries on, in a more adult way, where that voice from Downing Street left off. She has, it says, allowed “cabinet colleagues to express their individual views” up to now, but “agreement on this proposal marks the point where that is no longer the case and collective responsibility is now fully restored”. That is a horse’s head in Johnson’s bed; an Aston’s card in Davis’s in-tray – and, by implication, a menace to Tory MPs more grave that Nick Boles’ recent one of isolation in the tearoom. Within the Party, for the best part of 25 years, Conservative Brexiteers have ruled the waves. Yesterday could just mark the point where that tide turned – where May, with Nick Timothy no longer present to steer her, has returned to her natural course.

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/07/the-governments-chequers-brexit-agreement-from-canada-plus-plus-plus-to-brexit-minus-minus-minus.html
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 29,102
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:


    * With this statement, the government has made a No Deal Brexit much more problematic domestically for each of the EU27 member states. That. too, is very important. The UK has made a very large number of significant concessions. A No Deal can no longer be blamed on British intransigence.

    Of course it can. We'll blame them even when at fault, they'll blame us even when at fault. They can say our purported concessions did not go far enough, or weren't really concessions, that they tried over and over to tell us that certain things were not possible but we persisted because we were unreaslitic and in thrall to populists etc etc.

    Why would the domestic populations of the member states be inclined to be upset at their own governments or the EU for sparking a no deal, when it it still so easy to say our intransigence was the cause? If they say we need to move 100m before a deal can be struck and we move 50m, sure we've made some movement, but they will still be able to claim it was our fault, and since when do people get angry at their own side for sticking to principle (even when those principles are unreasonably immovable)?

    Because the domestic populations of most EU27 states are already upset with their governments. A No Deal hurts us most, but it hurts others, too - some quite a bit. If political leaders say no to an agreement made feasible by British concessions and that creates hardships that would otherwise have been avoided there will be a political price to pay. The populations of the EU27 are not wedded to the four freedoms as a matter of ideology - and each of those countries has opposition parties and opposition leaders who will see opportunities to make hay.

    I just don't see how it creates enough of a problem to cause genuine difficulty when all they have to do is make the case that our concessions did not, in fact, make it feasible. We already have people on our side of things like Mr Herdson arguing our concessions are not feasible, I don't really see that the EU and governments cannot argue that as well, and much easier since there is the factor of us being the opposing side to add to it.
    I’m not sure “The EU turned down something you want too” is the strongest of selling points....
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,666
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:


    * With this statement, the government has made a No Deal Brexit much more problematic domestically for each of the EU27 member states. That. too, is very important. The UK has made a very large number of significant concessions. A No Deal can no longer be blamed on British intransigence.

    Of course it can. We'll blame them even when at fault, they'll blame us even when at fault. They can say our purported concessions did not go far enough, or weren't really concessions, that they tried over and over to tell us that certain things were not possible but we persisted because we were unreaslitic and in thrall to populists etc etc.

    Why would the domestic populations of the member states be inclined to be upset at their own governments or the EU for sparking a no deal, when it it still so easy to say our intransigence was the cause? If they say we need to move 100m before a deal can be struck and we move 50m, sure we've made some movement, but they will still be able to claim it was our fault, and since when do people get angry at their own side for sticking to principle (even when those principles are unreasonably immovable)?

    Because the domestic populations of most EU27 states are already upset with their governments. A No Deal hurts us most, but it hurts others, too - some quite a bit. If political leaders say no to an agreement made feasible by British concessions and that creates hardships that would otherwise have been avoided there will be a political price to pay. The populations of the EU27 are not wedded to the four freedoms as a matter of ideology - and each of those countries has opposition parties and opposition leaders who will see opportunities to make hay.

    I just don't see how it creates enough of a problem to cause genuine difficulty when all they have to do is make the case that our concessions did not, in fact, make it feasible. We already have people on our side of things like Mr Herdson arguing our concessions are not feasible, I don't really see that the EU and governments cannot argue that as well, and much easier since there is the factor of us being the opposing side to add to it.

    Because a No Deal has serious, real life implications across the EU27, not only in the UK. There are very few EU governments that are strong and stable enough to face down those implications. It's the easiest thing in the world for oppositions in each of those countries to say the reason those jobs have been lost, these services cut is because the government said No to big concessions made by the UK and we would have said Yes. That's the way politics works.

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,823
    Watch out, the hard-Left Muslim boogieman is gonna get choo.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,666
    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    We will be formally aligned on goods while for eg financial services we will be de facto aligned and certainly a rule taker if we want to continue to do business as we do today.

    Take back control!

    And yet, this deal is a non starter, the EU has never and will never compromise on free movement. I pointed it out last night, it will insist on the full fat 100% "EU citizen" concept.

    However, there is definitely scope for divergence on services, as I said yesterday it will result in capitalised subsidiaries in smaller EU countries with 95% of the work carried out in the UK. That's the Nomura model (though I thought I was Luxembourg, not Tallinn) and it looks very much like what JP are doing with their "dozens" of people moving and the rest being given guarantees of not moving to Europe.

    Services are a whole lot bigger than the finance sector. If this were just the City you might have a point, but it isn't. Without a deal on services there is no UK-based after-care for machinery sold into the EU27, for example.

  • surbysurby Posts: 767
    David Herdson's analysis above is very cogent. And coming from a Tory . He has no axe to grind.

    It is clear the audience is the UK public. When the EU rejects it, as it will, the "blame" will be theirs , at least, for domestic consumption.

    In a sense, this was yet another can kicking exercise. No real acceptable solution was offered because there is none which can hold the Conservative Party together save a few headbangers.

    There is therefore a resignation that we will either get Canada or WTO. The Conservative Party has enough links to the business community to know what the latter means. I think we will end up with Canada [ without the plus ] and this is just preparing the public. Basically, it is trying to say: "We tried but those nasty Euro's wanted to punish us".

    As Max observed, this is essentially EU_Switzerland. But I don't think the EU will want to replicate Switzerland again. What will we do ? Go to the ECJ to complain ? That will be the supreme irony.

    Ironically, this could be close to Corbyn's own vision. Not the Labour Party's.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,818



    I’m not sure “The EU turned down something you want too” is the strongest of selling points....

    It's just a question of claiming our concessions weren't feasible, then it's 'They gave us no choice but to say no, because the alternative would have been worse'. I'm not convinced by the 'it will have serious implications' for them too line of argument, since it's the same reasoning that is used to suggest no deal is simply impossible, when there are any number of ways we could all sleepwalk into such a position, since negative implications are not immediate and politicians all over are content to kick the can down the road and take a hit later rather than make too many concessions today.

    I hope a deal is done, but I think it is expecting too much to think the populations of the EU will see something bad happening down the line and go 'Well, it's my government's fault', particularly when the EU 27 will probably be united, in that scenario, to saying it was ours. Sure, some oppositions may make something of it, but as factor in forcing the EU to concede on some pretty major points? It might happen, but I don't think it is as effective as some think.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,822
    To ramble further: people are focusing on economics.

    The economy is important. But economic factors alone are not the whole story, and perhaps not even the most important aspect. Identity is a key component of why we voted to leave. It's also why migration and integration (or lack thereof) is so high on the agenda.

    I'm not sure the political or media class understand this.

    When a Newcastle Pakistani Muslim rape gang was sent down it got less coverage than the nonsense about Julia Hartley-Brewer's knee and it being touched a couple of decades ago. It'd be laughable if it weren't so serious.

    There's a danger that the economic focus, which is comfortable for the political and media class to focus on, leads to the matter of identity being neglected. If people feel anxious enough about it, to quote a Dutch citizen who said he was voting for Wilders despite thinking he went too far, they'll prefer 'strong medicine' to no medicine at all.

    Of course, I hope I'm wrong. The wretched far left already squats on the front bench of Labour. The rise of the far right would be horrifying.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 29,102

    Miss Vance, if accepted, the deal would cause a massive strategic shift in UK politics, I feel.

    A Farage-Banks I Can't Believe It's Not UKIP political vehicle would arise. I don't think it'd have much impact at the next election, but at the one after that it could redraw the electoral map.

    What concerns me is that further right parties might spring up. Between the far left's capture of Labour, the potential for Conservative woe, and a gnawing sense of betrayal, we could see things take an unpredictable turn (again), almost certainly not for the better.

    Being complacent about 'upsetting the right people' reminds me 'fruitcakes, nutters, and closet racists'. Which transmogrified to 'Little Englanders'. And then the majority.

    If accepted (and I think Immigration remains the elephant in the room) then I think many will go “fair enough, it’ll do I suppose” and get on with their lives. They will then turn their concerns to employment, the NHS and Laura Norder and normal politics will resume.

    It really boils down to immigration - if the government can quickly get to a point where EU citizens are treated no differently to Australian, Canadian or New Zealand for example, then I suspect the issue will be defused - if they retain “preferential access” then that may not be so easily wished away.
  • surbysurby Posts: 767
    Carlotta, which side you are on ? Normally, you go with the Tory leadership. I have not read the whole thread to know your "current" feelings.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,756
    edited July 7
    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    We will be formally aligned on goods while for eg financial services we will be de facto aligned and certainly a rule taker if we want to continue to do business as we do today.

    Take back control!

    And yet, this deal is a non starter, the EU has never and will never compromise on free movement. I pointed it out last night, it will insist on the full fat 100% "EU citizen" concept.

    However, there is definitely scope for divergence on services, as I said yesterday it will result in capitalised subsidiaries in smaller EU countries with 95% of the work carried out in the UK. That's the Nomura model (though I thought I was Luxembourg, not Tallinn) and it looks very much like what JP are doing with their "dozens" of people moving and the rest being given guarantees of not moving to Europe.
    Without passporting that's a non starter because each entity will need to be registered in its respective jurisdiction.

    A UK entity or subsidiary would need to be FCA-registered and as such the FCA would need to align regulations with the EU if that subsidiary wanted to transact client business in the EU. Which to be fair the FCA has said it will do.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,206
    surby said:

    David Herdson's analysis above is very cogent. And coming from a Tory . He has no axe to grind.

    It is clear the audience is the UK public. When the EU rejects it, as it will, the "blame" will be theirs , at least, for domestic consumption.

    In a sense, this was yet another can kicking exercise. No real acceptable solution was offered because there is none which can hold the Conservative Party together save a few headbangers.

    There is therefore a resignation that we will either get Canada or WTO. The Conservative Party has enough links to the business community to know what the latter means. I think we will end up with Canada [ without the plus ] and this is just preparing the public. Basically, it is trying to say: "We tried but those nasty Euro's wanted to punish us".

    As Max observed, this is essentially EU_Switzerland. But I don't think the EU will want to replicate Switzerland again. What will we do ? Go to the ECJ to complain ? That will be the supreme irony.

    Ironically, this could be close to Corbyn's own vision. Not the Labour Party's.

    Surby, this is EU-Switzerland without free movement, if the UK had included free movement then I think the EU would just live with it but they didn't which is why the whole thing will get rejected.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,907
    The Chequers statement is a dog that didn't bark. Everyone in the room accepted no deal isn't an option and, implicitly, that a deal will be made on the EU's terms. No-one stormed out. No-one proclaimed a dissenting view. The paper makes no reference to the concessions that need to be made to get to a deal. The point is those concessions are now priced in. We're where we should have been two years ago. Reality has a habit of catching up in the end.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,822
    Mr. 43, May has prevaricated to the point where the choice for the Cabinet is no deal, capitulation, or a second referendum.

    I do wonder if this will add to the impetus for the latter.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 29,102
    surby said:

    Carlotta, which side you are on ? Normally, you go with the Tory leadership. I have not read the whole thread to know your "current" feelings.
    We’re not in the school playground!

    I’d have preferred Remain to have won, but once LEAVE did respect for democracy trumps that. On first glance what May has cobbled together seems to meet that - provided the immigration question is answered adequately. I still suspect we’ll have a major drama in October.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,818
    edited July 7

    Mr. 43, May has prevaricated to the point where the choice for the Cabinet is no deal, capitulation, or a second referendum.

    I do wonder if this will add to the impetus for the latter.

    Probably - the question remains what options would be on the table in such a scenario. There are harder brexiters who would prefer a no deal, and remainers who want to, well, remain, who might need to make common cause.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,666
    edited July 7
    kle4 said:



    I’m not sure “The EU turned down something you want too” is the strongest of selling points....

    It's just a question of claiming our concessions weren't feasible, then it's 'They gave us no choice but to say no, because the alternative would have been worse'. I'm not convinced by the 'it will have serious implications' for them too line of argument, since it's the same reasoning that is used to suggest no deal is simply impossible, when there are any number of ways we could all sleepwalk into such a position, since negative implications are not immediate and politicians all over are content to kick the can down the road and take a hit later rather than make too many concessions today.

    I hope a deal is done, but I think it is expecting too much to think the populations of the EU will see something bad happening down the line and go 'Well, it's my government's fault', particularly when the EU 27 will probably be united, in that scenario, to saying it was ours. Sure, some oppositions may make something of it, but as factor in forcing the EU to concede on some pretty major points? It might happen, but I don't think it is as effective as some think.

    If there is a No Deal then bad things will happen, of that there is no doubt. That's when the blame will be apportioned - not before. It's the knowledge of the bad things and their consequences that will drive both sides. As David observes, the UK government has now done enough to manage - at least to some extent - how a No Deal will be received in the UK. From here, given the concessions that have been made, the EU27 governments are going to have to start thinking about it, too.

    Where I think David is wrong is that this is as far as the government will go. There is more to come.

  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,352
    Nice article. Is Mr Herdson arguing a hard brexit is more likely now?

    I've cashed out of Mr Meeks tip on brexit before March 2019 for a decent profit. Have decided I have no idea what's going on with Brexit, best to get out while ahead.

    On the football, fancy De Bruyne for golden ball at 11-1.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,907

    Mr. 43, May has prevaricated to the point where the choice for the Cabinet is no deal, capitulation, or a second referendum.

    I do wonder if this will add to the impetus for the latter.

    No Deal was never an option. It's just that Brexiteers are belatedly accepting this to be so. Which leaves capitulation as the other option on your formula, short of staying in the EU.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,666
    Yep - this is why yesterday's statement is the starting point only.

  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,368

    May herself has written a letter to Conservative MPs that carries on, in a more adult way, where that voice from Downing Street left off. She has, it says, allowed “cabinet colleagues to express their individual views” up to now, but “agreement on this proposal marks the point where that is no longer the case and collective responsibility is now fully restored”. That is a horse’s head in Johnson’s bed; an Aston’s card in Davis’s in-tray – and, by implication, a menace to Tory MPs more grave that Nick Boles’ recent one of isolation in the tearoom. Within the Party, for the best part of 25 years, Conservative Brexiteers have ruled the waves. Yesterday could just mark the point where that tide turned – where May, with Nick Timothy no longer present to steer her, has returned to her natural course.

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/07/the-governments-chequers-brexit-agreement-from-canada-plus-plus-plus-to-brexit-minus-minus-minus.html

    The Tory party is coming home at last some sense on the EU.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,394
    It will become Orwellian:

    The mantra of 'No deal is better than a bad deal' will become 'Remaining is better than a bad deal' and May will offer a second referendum. She'll get it through parliament on opposition votes and it will be 60% Remain.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 20,022
    Looks like May’s managed to keep the DUP on board too.

  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,798
    What's the story with the 6 counties in yesterday's bollocks? Is that all sorted?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,822
    Mr. kle4, could be a three option vote, but I agree with your (and everything else's, it seems) implied suggestion it's got to be binary.

    The deal has to be on the table. So the question would be whether leaving with no deal or remaining would be the alternative.

    The former (deal/no deal) would be construed as a referendum on the deal but also the Government. The latter would be framed more as a re-run, being either contempt for democracy or giving people the final say (provided they vote the way the political class want).

    Bit of a guess, but I think remain would be on the ballot. There are significant obstacles to returning (Schengen, euro, etc) which make it much easier to just stay in rather than leave and try to get back in.

    Remain would also have the advantage of being able to pick apart the deal. It wouldn't be a case of liking the EU or not, but comparing the concrete positions of the status quo and a negotiated, agreed upon deal (assuming there is one).

    Of course, there could fail to be any deal agreed, and then we'd have a no deal/remain scenario.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,818

    Yep - this is why yesterday's statement is the starting point only.

    Surely it won't move any more in our favour though, eg with services, given plenty of people such as Mr Herdson already think what we are asking for is too much for the EU?
  • surbysurby Posts: 767

    kle4 said:



    I’m not sure “The EU turned down something you want too” is the strongest of selling points....

    It's just a question of claiming our concessions weren't feasible, then it's 'They gave us no choice but to say no, because the alternative would have been worse'. I'm not convinced by the 'it will have serious implications' for them too line of argument, since it's the same reasoning that is used to suggest no deal is simply impossible, when there are any number of ways we could all sleepwalk into such a position, since negative implications are not immediate and politicians all over are content to kick the can down the road and take a hit later rather than make too many concessions today.

    I hope a deal is done, but I think it is expecting too much to think the populations of the EU will see something bad happening down the line and go 'Well, it's my government's fault', particularly when the EU 27 will probably be united, in that scenario, to saying it was ours. Sure, some oppositions may make something of it, but as factor in forcing the EU to concede on some pretty major points? It might happen, but I don't think it is as effective as some think.

    If there is a No Deal then bad things will happen, of that there is no doubt. That's when the blame will be apportioned - not before. It's the knowledge of the bad things and their consequences that will drive both sides. As David observes, the UK government has now done enough to manage - at least to some extent - how a No Deal will be received in the UK. From here, given the concessions that have been made, the EU27 governments are going to have to start thinking about it, too.

    Where I think David is wrong is that this is as far as the government will go. There is more to come.

    Before we get into who will get hurt most, let's take in the figures: We trade with the EU as a whole and roughly 50% of our exports go there [ including gold re-shipments ]. For each of the EU27 countries, only the UK will be leaving, the other EU26 remain in the single market. The "cost" [ in lost trade ] to each of the EU27 separately is tiny compared to the UK [ particularly, as a percentage of their total exports ].
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,818
    Dura_Ace said:

    What's the story with the 6 counties in yesterday's bollocks? Is that all sorted?

    If you believe williamglenn we have essentially agreed to the principle of a border in the Irish sea as the backstop. The text does not say that, and the whole point of a deal is that the backstop won't be needed, but it does mention that abackstop will still be signed.

    So no, I think.
  • surbysurby Posts: 767
    Dura_Ace said:

    What's the story with the 6 counties in yesterday's bollocks? Is that all sorted?

    Whatever name has been given to it, effectively, we will be in the Customs Union by another name. So, yes!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,822
    Mr. Surby, that worked so well with the Constitution and Lisbon Treaty...
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,528
    I'm in Boston next week visiting family - it should be interesting. FOM is great for farmers - an immigrant workforce that works hard and thinks the wages are great. Yet the racist locals aren't happy.

    "In 1833, six men from Tolpuddle in Dorset founded the Friendly Society of Agricultural Labourers to protest against the gradual lowering of agricultural wages." heroes of the Labour Party.

    How times change, but some things never change. Politicians are untrustworthy. As the vanguard of the elite, they would say they practice the art of the possible. That means dissembling is allowed.

    Why bother voting?

    I'll carry on happily without pointless trips to the ballot box.


  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,907
    Dura_Ace said:

    What's the story with the 6 counties in yesterday's bollocks? Is that all sorted?

    Hmm. The Northern Ireland backstop will still be in the Withdrawal Agreement, unless the EU removes it by December. The Chequers document refers to the Political Statement on the future relationship which accompanies the Withdrawal Agreement. The WA is a hard treaty while the Political Statement is guff the negotiators might refer to when the substantive negotiations start after Brexit.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 66,960
    Remember that 5% lead with YouGov that got many excited and I said was an outlier.

  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,528
    Mr Surby,

    What's your view of the Boston referendum result? I'm not looking for an argument, just curious.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,368

    Remember that 5% lead with YouGov that got many excited and I said was an outlier.

    I do , how did you go on at the last GE TSE ?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 66,960
    Yorkcity said:

    Remember that 5% lead with YouGov that got many excited and I said was an outlier.

    I do , how did you go on at the last GE TSE ?
    I thought Mrs May would do worse than expected but thought she’d still get a smallish majority.

    I did very well in Scotland.
  • surbysurby Posts: 767
    edited July 7
    kle4 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    What's the story with the 6 counties in yesterday's bollocks? Is that all sorted?

    If you believe williamglenn we have essentially agreed to the principle of a border in the Irish sea as the backstop. The text does not say that, and the whole point of a deal is that the backstop won't be needed, but it does mention that abackstop will still be signed.

    So no, I think.
    That's not correct. We have agreed to be in the Customs Union by another name. So, if this is carried out, there will be no hard border in Ireland as well as no border in the Irish Sea. That is also the DUPs interpretation. They must have clarified this with No.10

    The additional words "including agricultural goods" to goods was deliberately inserted in the common rulebook regarding quality [ or, whatever it is called ]. This means chlorinated chicken cannot be imported as any import of agricultural produce must conform to EU standards.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 1,071
    The proposal that’s come out from the government was always going to be the sort of Brexit this was going to be (if the EU accept it, which, let’s be honest, we can’t guarantee). The referendum and the election showed that there is not the sort of majority in the country for the vision of Brexit pushed by the hardliners. If they want to stand in future elections on a platform of breaking from harmonisation of standards etc well that’s up to them but at the moment with the clock ticking this seems, remarkably, a sensible middle ground.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 2,353
    kle4 said:


    One final observation, this puts Labour in one hell of a bind. I am struggling to see how it can respond in any meaningful way. Its ambiguity worked for as long as the Tories had no position, now they do.

    If the EU reject it they say the chaos and division in the Tories has ensured no deal and no time for Labour to fix it. If the EU accept it they say that it gives too much to the EU for not enough because the chaos and division of the Tories meant the gov didn't make any progress earlier. If it is accepted Labour claim they would have gotten a better deal on services etc etc.

    How big a hit the Tories take from this will not become clear for a while, but there's likely to be too many genuinely angry in the base for there to be no hit. Therefore Labour will play it safe and continue to say merely that they would have done a better job. What kind of a better job? They'll be pretty vague, which will not make it as effective a claim as it might be, but it will be enough to garner some level of support from the angry.
    Labour, of course, does not need to garner any support from this. 40% has been plenty to win a majority. They need May's electoral coalition to begin to peel away.
    The loss of the angry 1 in 10, or even 1 in 15 of the Tory GE 2017 vote to NOTA, UKIP or just stay at home, would radically alter the electoral position.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,818
    surby said:

    kle4 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    What's the story with the 6 counties in yesterday's bollocks? Is that all sorted?

    If you believe williamglenn we have essentially agreed to the principle of a border in the Irish sea as the backstop. The text does not say that, and the whole point of a deal is that the backstop won't be needed, but it does mention that abackstop will still be signed.

    So no, I think.
    That's not correct. We have agreed to be in the Customs Union by another name. So, if this is carried out, there will be no hard border in Ireland as well as no border in the Irish Sea. That is also the DUPs interpretation. They must have clarified this with No.10

    I was referring to the backstop, and pointed out that the text assumes the backstop won't be needed if the deal is signed. But that it will nonetheless sign one. Where I disagree with william is what the agreeing to sign a backstop means.
  • surbysurby Posts: 767
    edited July 7
    CD13 said:

    Mr Surby,

    What's your view of the Boston referendum result? I'm not looking for an argument, just curious.

    Sorry! You need to elaborate. Boston overwhelmingly voted to Leave but that is not what you are asking, right ?
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 1,071
    Oh, and finally, a no deal Brexit is dead. We will have another election/referendum way before any of that is allowed to happen.
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,697

    Remember that 5% lead with YouGov that got many excited and I said was an outlier.

    Maybe this is the outlier.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,197

    And so this weekend England play a huge match, F1, cricket v India, Wimbledon and hot weather continues.

    Politics will take a back seat as sport takes over

    Anyone betting on World cup viewing figures - 24 million last match, will it reach 30 million today

    And how many weddings will have absentee brides/grooms between 3.00pm and 5.00pm

    All good fun

    I do have a sport-related thread next. Politics for now though.
This discussion has been closed.