politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With his corn field jape Boris seems to be trying to validate

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With his corn field jape Boris seems to be trying to validate the 57% of voters who say would he “make poor leader”

Boris Johnson 'trolls' Theresa May by running through 'field of wheat' https://t.co/8ys3sebgJk

Read the full story here

JosiasJessop

This is Boris the clown.

Not Boris the PM-in-waiting. That figure doesn't exist except in the febrile imagination of Boris himself.

Edit: and first.

TheScreamingEagles

Testify.

RobD

Douglas

williamglenn

FTP

Charles said:

Leavers viewed it for what it is: a technical issue that can be solved with goodwill and hard work on both sides

We didn’t expect the EU to play politics with peace. Our bad.

You can't have it both ways. Either it's a technical issue that can be solved with goodwill, or customs checks at sea ports are unacceptable.

TGOHF

https://twitter.com/cjsnowdon/status/1046743627383345152

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/magicfishes/status/1046744968004620289

Anazina

Charles said:

JosiasJessop said:

daodao said:

JosiasJessop said:

daodao said:

JosiasJessop said:

daodao said:

JosiasJessop said:

daodao said:

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1046639644937465857

Sums up Boris perfectly. At least May has a plan.

The Maybot doesn't have a FEASIBLE plan. At least Bojo realises this.

But he has no idea about a workable alternative. There have been two years since the vote, and for all his massive intellect, he has not produced something that is any better from terms of acceptance by the GBP or the EU.

This might well be because, unless one side or the other moves, there is nothing better than Chequers in terms of acceptance by the GBP or the EU. In fact, the GBP are so split I doubt there's anything at all, yet alone better.

Boris waffles eloquently. But that's all it is: waffling. He's an entertainer, not a doer.

Bojo supports a Canada-style deal, as does D. Davis. This is a realistic option. The UK cannot be half-in/half-out of the Single Market, which is why the Chequers deal is a non-runner.

"This is a realistic option".

I fear this is a case of "what I wish" == "realistic".

Besides, it's two years too late. And saying "Canada-style deal" is *not* a plan. It's waffle.

A Canada-style deal is realistic and acceptable to the EU, although there would be major economic challenges. Please see:

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-options/stairway-to-brexit-barnier-maps-out-uks-canadian-path-idUKKBN1ED23R

Again, note the word 'style' in your comment. That is not a plan: it is vague waffling. The devil is in the details, and what is, and is not, acceptable to all the parties would depend on those details.

In addition, it's a bit effing late.

But it is a realistic basis for negotiation, unlike the dodo that is Chequers.

A customs border in the Irish Sea is acceptable, provided that is the wish of the people on the island of Ireland, as per the GFA.

"... of the people in the island if Ireland."

I see where your plan fails ...

But again, you ignore "it's a bit effing late."

I repeat a question to all leavers on here: can anyone point out, pre-referendum, any leaver pointed out that the Irish border might be a significant issue?

Leavers viewed it for what it is: a technical issue that can be solved with goodwill and hard work on both sides

We didn’t expect the EU to play politics with peace. Our bad.

This must rank as one of the most airheaded posts on PB today.

JosiasJessop

This does rather look as though Boris thinks it's all over, and is just saying "what the f***."

williamglenn

Is all the bombast from the conference just cover for making further concessions?

https://twitter.com/C_Barraud/status/1046742173834760193

Anazina

The increasingly ludicrous Johnson can't even get a field of wheat right. The crop featured in the photograph is not wheat.

AlastairMeeks

In the end, everything that Boris Johnson does is designed to make people talk about Boris Johnson. This is all of a piece with that.

Danny565

Not quite as bad as another politician's latest photo...

https://twitter.com/AurelieBonal/status/1046707392640143361

TOPPING

williamglenn said:

Is all the bombast from the conference just cover for making further concessions?

https://twitter.com/C_Barraud/status/1046742173834760193

It has seemed that this was looming for a short while and is no surprise if (IF) this is the case. It is the least contentious (ahem, DUP noticing it apart) and will be called something very administrative-y if if happens.

TGOHF

Hammonds speech already filleted

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/the-problem-with-philip-hammonds-speech/

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/philip-hammonds-plan-wont-help-the-tories-defeat-labour/

MarqueeMark

JosiasJessop said:

This does rather look as though Boris thinks it's all over, and is just saying "what the f***."

Alternatively, he was out for his morning run and somebody is trying to conflate an image of him running past some weeds with "a trolling run through a wheat field."

I suspect Boris knows his wheat from his chaff.

It's media wank. But it keeps them happy..... (Although they could better spend their time dipping into a book or two of How to Identify Plants....)

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/agnesfrim/status/1046746922655076352

JosiasJessop

Anazina said:

The increasingly ludicrous Johnson can't even get a field of wheat right. The crop featured in the photograph is not wheat.

Is that meant to be a crop? I though it was him running through his own hair.

Though as it's short, I dread to think *which* hair it is ...

RobD

williamglenn said:

Is all the bombast from the conference just cover for making further concessions?

https://twitter.com/C_Barraud/status/1046742173834760193

Someone should tell him his caps lock is broken.

DavidL

TGOHF said:

https://twitter.com/cjsnowdon/status/1046743627383345152

Err...was this not an inevitable consequence of stopping the big supermarkets undercutting convenience stores? Looking at the group producing the data they seem to be exactly the sort of people who would expect to gain from the policy.

To leap from a differential advantage for a sector to higher alcohol consumption over all seems a pretty remarkable jump. Bob Beamon eat your heart out.

RobD

Anazina said:

The increasingly ludicrous Johnson can't even get a field of wheat right. The crop featured in the photograph is not wheat.

I wonder, which is the most naughty crop to run through?

tpfkar

MarqueeMark said:

JosiasJessop said:

This does rather look as though Boris thinks it's all over, and is just saying "what the f***."

Alternatively, he was out for his morning run and somebody is trying to conflate an image of him running past some weeds with "a trolling run through a wheat field."

I suspect Boris knows his wheat from his chaff.

It's media wank. But it keeps them happy..... (Although they could better spend their time dipping into a book or two of How to Identify Plants....)

Funny how he was photographed at this point of the run then? There seem to be a lot of strange coincidences about Boris these days?

I think he's entering the same decline spiral as UKIP - having to say and do increasingly bizarre and outrageous things to get noticed, with ever-diminishing results. Not least for the country.

JosiasJessop

DavidL said:

TGOHF said:

https://twitter.com/cjsnowdon/status/1046743627383345152

Err...was this not an inevitable consequence of stopping the big supermarkets undercutting convenience stores? Looking at the group producing the data they seem to be exactly the sort of people who would expect to gain from the policy.

To leap from a differential advantage for a sector to higher alcohol consumption over all seems a pretty remarkable jump. Bob Beamon eat your heart out.

I haven't tried the reformulated Irn-Bru, but I do drink a fair amount of Ribena. I've always disliked the sugar-free Ribena, and the new stuff was almost as bad at first. I'm now very used to it and will just guzzle it down.

Richard_Nabavi

williamglenn said:

Is all the bombast from the conference just cover for making further concessions?

https://twitter.com/C_Barraud/status/1046742173834760193

If there is to be a deal, both sides will make concessions on this, and the nature of the concessions is clear. The UK will accept phyto-sanitary and some nominal regulatory checks checks on the sea border (which can be very non-intrusive), and the EU will accept the UK's proposals for non-intrusive enforcement at the land border.

Of course if the EU doesn't want a deal, there won't be one, but this is a largely artificial fuss, because as @Charles says it can be dealt with by technical measures and streamlined admin. That is one of the few points on which the ultra-Brexiteers are right,

Nigelb

~

RobD said:

Anazina said:

The increasingly ludicrous Johnson can't even get a field of wheat right. The crop featured in the photograph is not wheat.

I wonder, which is the most naughty crop to run through?

Is that a crop ?
Looks more like a field of weeds.

I guess weed might be worse.

TheScreamingEagles

RobD said:

Anazina said:

The increasingly ludicrous Johnson can't even get a field of wheat right. The crop featured in the photograph is not wheat.

I wonder, which is the most naughty crop to run through?

Running through a field of spaghetti trees.

williamglenn

Richard_Nabavi said:

... and the EU will accept the UK's proposals for non-intrusive enforcement at the land border

The UK hasn't made any such proposals. The UK is insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border at all.

Nigelb

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

Anazina said:

The increasingly ludicrous Johnson can't even get a field of wheat right. The crop featured in the photograph is not wheat.

I wonder, which is the most naughty crop to run through?

Running through a field of spaghetti trees.

A field of pineapples.

Richard_Nabavi

RobD said:

Anazina said:

The increasingly ludicrous Johnson can't even get a field of wheat right. The crop featured in the photograph is not wheat.

I wonder, which is the most naughty crop to run through?

I think if I were a SPAD I'd advise against oilseed rape or buckwheat.

TheScreamingEagles

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

Anazina said:

The increasingly ludicrous Johnson can't even get a field of wheat right. The crop featured in the photograph is not wheat.

I wonder, which is the most naughty crop to run through?

Running through a field of spaghetti trees.

A field of pineapples.

Ruining the chances of pineapples ever ending up on pizzas is not naughty.

JosiasJessop

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Is all the bombast from the conference just cover for making further concessions?

https://twitter.com/C_Barraud/status/1046742173834760193

If there is to be a deal, both sides will make concessions on this, and the nature of the concessions is clear. The UK will accept phyto-sanitary and some nominal regulatory checks checks on the sea border (which can be very non-intrusive), and the EU will accept the UK's proposals for non-intrusive enforcement at the land border.

Of course if the EU doesn't want a deal, there won't be one, but this is a largely artificial fuss, because as @Charles says it can be dealt with by technical measures and streamlined admin. That is one of the few points on which the ultra-Brexiteers are right,

I'm very wary of 'technical measures' being used as a get-out-of-jail card.

Richard_Nabavi

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

... and the EU will accept the UK's proposals for non-intrusive enforcement at the land border

The UK hasn't made any such proposals. The UK is insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border at all.

Yes, precisely. That's what I meant. (For that matter the Irish government and the EU are also insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border, for which they need a deal according to their own logic).

Anazina

RobD said:

Anazina said:

The increasingly ludicrous Johnson can't even get a field of wheat right. The crop featured in the photograph is not wheat.

I wonder, which is the most naughty crop to run through?

Marijuana?

Richard_Nabavi

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Is all the bombast from the conference just cover for making further concessions?

https://twitter.com/C_Barraud/status/1046742173834760193

If there is to be a deal, both sides will make concessions on this, and the nature of the concessions is clear. The UK will accept phyto-sanitary and some nominal regulatory checks checks on the sea border (which can be very non-intrusive), and the EU will accept the UK's proposals for non-intrusive enforcement at the land border.

Of course if the EU doesn't want a deal, there won't be one, but this is a largely artificial fuss, because as @Charles says it can be dealt with by technical measures and streamlined admin. That is one of the few points on which the ultra-Brexiteers are right,

I'm very wary of 'technical measures' being used as a get-out-of-jail card.

'Technical measures' just means that exporters self-certify, probably on line. It really is no big deal for the small amount of large-scale cross-border commercial trade, and the small guys can simply be excluded from the scope. The only obstacle is the EU pretending it's an obstacle; from what they say you'd think it was some kind of universal law of nature, beyond the power of human agency, which insisted on physical checks at the border.

williamglenn

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

... and the EU will accept the UK's proposals for non-intrusive enforcement at the land border

The UK hasn't made any such proposals. The UK is insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border at all.

Yes, precisely. That's what I meant. (For that matter the Irish government and the EU are also insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border, for which they need a deal according to their own logic).

Here's some more detail on the UK's backstop proposal - a UK wide customs union and an Irish sea regulatory border.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/u-k-is-said-to-plan-brexit-compromise-on-irish-border-rules

Philip_Thompson

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Is all the bombast from the conference just cover for making further concessions?

https://twitter.com/C_Barraud/status/1046742173834760193

If there is to be a deal, both sides will make concessions on this, and the nature of the concessions is clear. The UK will accept phyto-sanitary and some nominal regulatory checks checks on the sea border (which can be very non-intrusive), and the EU will accept the UK's proposals for non-intrusive enforcement at the land border.

Of course if the EU doesn't want a deal, there won't be one, but this is a largely artificial fuss, because as @Charles says it can be dealt with by technical measures and streamlined admin. That is one of the few points on which the ultra-Brexiteers are right,

If that's the case then why not go with Canada instead of Chequers?

philiph

RobD said:

Anazina said:

The increasingly ludicrous Johnson can't even get a field of wheat right. The crop featured in the photograph is not wheat.

I wonder, which is the most naughty crop to run through?

Mine because you will be shredded to bits in minutes

JosiasJessop

Richard_Nabavi said:

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Is all the bombast from the conference just cover for making further concessions?

https://twitter.com/C_Barraud/status/1046742173834760193

If there is to be a deal, both sides will make concessions on this, and the nature of the concessions is clear. The UK will accept phyto-sanitary and some nominal regulatory checks checks on the sea border (which can be very non-intrusive), and the EU will accept the UK's proposals for non-intrusive enforcement at the land border.

Of course if the EU doesn't want a deal, there won't be one, but this is a largely artificial fuss, because as @Charles says it can be dealt with by technical measures and streamlined admin. That is one of the few points on which the ultra-Brexiteers are right,

I'm very wary of 'technical measures' being used as a get-out-of-jail card.

'Technical measures' just means that exporters self-certify, probably on line. It really is no big deal for the small amount of large-scale cross-border commercial trade, and the small guys can simply be excluded from the scope. The only obstacle is the EU pretending it's an obstacle; from what they say you'd think it was some kind of universal law of nature, beyond the power of human agency, which insisted on physical checks at the border.

Again, I'm wary of blithely saying 'it's really no big deal'.

The devil - and pain - is in the details. Besides, we all known governments can take a simple principle and destroy it through complexity - just look at Universal Credit..

Richard_Nabavi

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Is all the bombast from the conference just cover for making further concessions?

https://twitter.com/C_Barraud/status/1046742173834760193

If there is to be a deal, both sides will make concessions on this, and the nature of the concessions is clear. The UK will accept phyto-sanitary and some nominal regulatory checks checks on the sea border (which can be very non-intrusive), and the EU will accept the UK's proposals for non-intrusive enforcement at the land border.

Of course if the EU doesn't want a deal, there won't be one, but this is a largely artificial fuss, because as @Charles says it can be dealt with by technical measures and streamlined admin. That is one of the few points on which the ultra-Brexiteers are right,

If that's the case then why not go with Canada instead of Chequers?

Mainly because of the just-in-time manufacturing issues in the car industry. A secondary consideration is that the looser the arrangement, the more paperwork (or electronic equivalent) will be required on the Irish border. 'Chequers' and 'Canada' are not simple alternatives, they are more like points on a spectrum.

RochdalePioneers

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

... and the EU will accept the UK's proposals for non-intrusive enforcement at the land border

The UK hasn't made any such proposals. The UK is insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border at all.

Yes, precisely. That's what I meant. (For that matter the Irish government and the EU are also insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border, for which they need a deal according to their own logic).

Here's some more detail on the UK's backstop proposal - a UK wide customs union and an Irish sea regulatory border.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/u-k-is-said-to-plan-brexit-compromise-on-irish-border-rules

This is genuis. The compromise plan is:

1 The UK stays in the Customs Union. So goodbye to the fantasy of bigger better trade deals
2 NornIron stays aligned to EU regulations, which means checks between GB and NI. So goodbye to the DUP being on board
3 Practically speaking GB stays aligned to EU regulations in almost all things to avoid the chaos of a red tape mountain and paperwork checks. Goodbye to everyone demanding we stop adhering to the ECJ

This "plan" will either be dead before the end of conference. Or May will be.

Isn't it clear enough? We need to stay in the Single Market and do a customs deal. No other solution avoids the NI border OR GB border issue and avoids burying British business under a red tape and extra costs burden.

Richard_Nabavi

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

... and the EU will accept the UK's proposals for non-intrusive enforcement at the land border

The UK hasn't made any such proposals. The UK is insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border at all.

Yes, precisely. That's what I meant. (For that matter the Irish government and the EU are also insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border, for which they need a deal according to their own logic).

Here's some more detail on the UK's backstop proposal - a UK wide customs union and an Irish sea regulatory border.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/u-k-is-said-to-plan-brexit-compromise-on-irish-border-rules

Yep, makes sense. Note this bit, which is exactly what I predicted:

The proposed compromise revolves around the distinction between customs checks and regulatory checks. May wants to keep the whole U.K. -- including Northern Ireland -- inside the EU tariff regime as part of the backstop plan.

However, as you point out this refers to the backstop proposal, which is a distraction anyway because the whole idea is to avoid having to fall back on to the backstop. It was a mistake for the UK to accept it - arguing about this blind alley has just wasted time when we could have been negotiating the future relationship in which it won't apply.

RobD

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

... and the EU will accept the UK's proposals for non-intrusive enforcement at the land border

The UK hasn't made any such proposals. The UK is insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border at all.

Yes, precisely. That's what I meant. (For that matter the Irish government and the EU are also insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border, for which they need a deal according to their own logic).

Here's some more detail on the UK's backstop proposal - a UK wide customs union and an Irish sea regulatory border.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/u-k-is-said-to-plan-brexit-compromise-on-irish-border-rules

Yep, makes sense. Note this bit, which is exactly what I predicted:

The proposed compromise revolves around the distinction between customs checks and regulatory checks. May wants to keep the whole U.K. -- including Northern Ireland -- inside the EU tariff regime as part of the backstop plan.

However, as you point out this refers to the backstop proposal, which is a distraction anyway because the whole idea is to avoid having to fall back on to the backstop. It was a mistake for the UK to accept it - arguing about this blind alley has just wasted time when we could have been negotiating the future relationship in which it won't apply.

And just how much time and energy has been wasted on this backup plan?

rkrkrk

RochdalePioneers said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

... and the EU will accept the UK's proposals for non-intrusive enforcement at the land border

The UK hasn't made any such proposals. The UK is insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border at all.

Yes, precisely. That's what I meant. (For that matter the Irish government and the EU are also insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border, for which they need a deal according to their own logic).

Here's some more detail on the UK's backstop proposal - a UK wide customs union and an Irish sea regulatory border.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/u-k-is-said-to-plan-brexit-compromise-on-irish-border-rules

This is genuis. The compromise plan is:

1 The UK stays in the Customs Union. So goodbye to the fantasy of bigger better trade deals
2 NornIron stays aligned to EU regulations, which means checks between GB and NI. So goodbye to the DUP being on board
3 Practically speaking GB stays aligned to EU regulations in almost all things to avoid the chaos of a red tape mountain and paperwork checks. Goodbye to everyone demanding we stop adhering to the ECJ

This "plan" will either be dead before the end of conference. Or May will be.

Isn't it clear enough? We need to stay in the Single Market and do a customs deal. No other solution avoids the NI border OR GB border issue and avoids burying British business under a red tape and extra costs burden.

This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?

williamglenn

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

... and the EU will accept the UK's proposals for non-intrusive enforcement at the land border

The UK hasn't made any such proposals. The UK is insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border at all.

Yes, precisely. That's what I meant. (For that matter the Irish government and the EU are also insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border, for which they need a deal according to their own logic).

Here's some more detail on the UK's backstop proposal - a UK wide customs union and an Irish sea regulatory border.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/u-k-is-said-to-plan-brexit-compromise-on-irish-border-rules

Yep, makes sense. Note this bit, which is exactly what I predicted:

The proposed compromise revolves around the distinction between customs checks and regulatory checks. May wants to keep the whole U.K. -- including Northern Ireland -- inside the EU tariff regime as part of the backstop plan.

However, as you point out this refers to the backstop proposal, which is a distraction anyway because the whole idea is to avoid having to fall back on to the backstop. It was a mistake for the UK to accept it - arguing about this blind alley has just wasted time when we could have been negotiating the future relationship in which it won't apply.

You are looking at the backstop the wrong way. The negotiations are a dynamic process and the backstop is not a 'fall back' but an insurance policy against PM Boris or Rees-Mogg. Effectively it anchors the UK-wide future relationship to be at least as close as the content of the backstop. If we concede a UK-wide customs union in the backstop, we are not leaving the customs union.

philiph

rkrkrk said:

RochdalePioneers said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

... and the EU will accept the UK's proposals for non-intrusive enforcement at the land border

The UK hasn't made any such proposals. The UK is insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border at all.

Yes, precisely. That's what I meant. (For that matter the Irish government and the EU are also insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border, for which they need a deal according to their own logic).

Here's some more detail on the UK's backstop proposal - a UK wide customs union and an Irish sea regulatory border.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/u-k-is-said-to-plan-brexit-compromise-on-irish-border-rules

This is genuis. The compromise plan is:

1 The UK stays in the Customs Union. So goodbye to the fantasy of bigger better trade deals
2 NornIron stays aligned to EU regulations, which means checks between GB and NI. So goodbye to the DUP being on board
3 Practically speaking GB stays aligned to EU regulations in almost all things to avoid the chaos of a red tape mountain and paperwork checks. Goodbye to everyone demanding we stop adhering to the ECJ

This "plan" will either be dead before the end of conference. Or May will be.

Isn't it clear enough? We need to stay in the Single Market and do a customs deal. No other solution avoids the NI border OR GB border issue and avoids burying British business under a red tape and extra costs burden.

This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?

The party that just said at conference that they would vote against a May deal?

Mortimer

Pretty sure the DUP won’t support the new checks portion of this new backstop proposal.

99% sure the ERG won’t support the the ‘or we just stay in the customs union’ element of it

So, this is a policy that doesn’t get through Parliament. Which was always the problem with Chequers - it started off as too much of a compromise

Alistair

Now seeing multiple stories of Kavanaugh classmates trying to give info to the FBI and being rebuffed.

It's an investigation designed to find nothing.

I think the 1/3 on Kavanaugh being confirmed looks like a steal and have bet accordingly.

Sean_F

rkrkrk said:

RochdalePioneers said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

... and the EU will accept the UK's proposals for non-intrusive enforcement at the land border

The UK hasn't made any such proposals. The UK is insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border at all.

Yes, precisely. That's what I meant. (For that matter the Irish government and the EU are also insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border, for which they need a deal according to their own logic).

Here's some more detail on the UK's backstop proposal - a UK wide customs union and an Irish sea regulatory border.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/u-k-is-said-to-plan-brexit-compromise-on-irish-border-rules

This is genuis. The compromise plan is:

1 The UK stays in the Customs Union. So goodbye to the fantasy of bigger better trade deals
2 NornIron stays aligned to EU regulations, which means checks between GB and NI. So goodbye to the DUP being on board
3 Practically speaking GB stays aligned to EU regulations in almost all things to avoid the chaos of a red tape mountain and paperwork checks. Goodbye to everyone demanding we stop adhering to the ECJ

This "plan" will either be dead before the end of conference. Or May will be.

Isn't it clear enough? We need to stay in the Single Market and do a customs deal. No other solution avoids the NI border OR GB border issue and avoids burying British business under a red tape and extra costs burden.

This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?

No, Labour will vote against anything the government proposes (though some of their MPs might vote with the government, or abstain).

Philip_Thompson

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Is all the bombast from the conference just cover for making further concessions?

https://twitter.com/C_Barraud/status/1046742173834760193

If there is to be a deal, both sides will make concessions on this, and the nature of the concessions is clear. The UK will accept phyto-sanitary and some nominal regulatory checks checks on the sea border (which can be very non-intrusive), and the EU will accept the UK's proposals for non-intrusive enforcement at the land border.

Of course if the EU doesn't want a deal, there won't be one, but this is a largely artificial fuss, because as @Charles says it can be dealt with by technical measures and streamlined admin. That is one of the few points on which the ultra-Brexiteers are right,

I'm very wary of 'technical measures' being used as a get-out-of-jail card.

'Technical measures' just means that exporters self-certify, probably on line. It really is no big deal for the small amount of large-scale cross-border commercial trade, and the small guys can simply be excluded from the scope. The only obstacle is the EU pretending it's an obstacle; from what they say you'd think it was some kind of universal law of nature, beyond the power of human agency, which insisted on physical checks at the border.

Again, I'm wary of blithely saying 'it's really no big deal'.

The devil - and pain - is in the details. Besides, we all known governments can take a simple principle and destroy it through complexity - just look at Universal Credit..

Universal Credit has the exact opposite problem of what we are talking about.

Universal Credit involves millions of (often vulnerable) people including many but by no means all scammers trying to exploit the system. Its complicated with people starting and stopping and not necessarily trusted.

Customs for large traders though involves not many companies who are operating on a trusted trader basis.

Big_G_NorthWales

philiph said:

rkrkrk said:

RochdalePioneers said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

... and the EU will accept the UK's proposals for non-intrusive enforcement at the land border

The UK hasn't made any such proposals. The UK is insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border at all.

Yes, precisely. That's what I meant. (For that matter the Irish government and the EU are also insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border, for which they need a deal according to their own logic).

Here's some more detail on the UK's backstop proposal - a UK wide customs union and an Irish sea regulatory border.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/u-k-is-said-to-plan-brexit-compromise-on-irish-border-rules

This is genuis. The compromise plan is:

1 The UK stays in the Customs Union. So goodbye to the fantasy of bigger better trade deals
2 NornIron stays aligned to EU regulations, which means checks between GB and NI. So goodbye to the DUP being on board
3 Practically speaking GB stays aligned to EU regulations in almost all things to avoid the chaos of a red tape mountain and paperwork checks. Goodbye to everyone demanding we stop adhering to the ECJ

This "plan" will either be dead before the end of conference. Or May will be.

Isn't it clear enough? We need to stay in the Single Market and do a customs deal. No other solution avoids the NI border OR GB border issue and avoids burying British business under a red tape and extra costs burden.

This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?

The party that just said at conference that they would vote against a May deal?

The party has not said that, the ERG may have. Listening to Anna Soubry earlier she accepted that if TM brought back a deal it would be difficult to vote it down

Edit - sorry - just realised you meant labour

RochdalePioneers

Sean_F said:

rkrkrk said:

RochdalePioneers said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

... and the EU will accept the UK's proposals for non-intrusive enforcement at the land border

The UK hasn't made any such proposals. The UK is insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border at all.

Yes, precisely. That's what I meant. (For that matter the Irish government and the EU are also insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border, for which they need a deal according to their own logic).

Here's some more detail on the UK's backstop proposal - a UK wide customs union and an Irish sea regulatory border.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/u-k-is-said-to-plan-brexit-compromise-on-irish-border-rules

This is genuis. The compromise plan is:

1 The UK stays in the Customs Union. So goodbye to the fantasy of bigger better trade deals
2 NornIron stays aligned to EU regulations, which means checks between GB and NI. So goodbye to the DUP being on board
3 Practically speaking GB stays aligned to EU regulations in almost all things to avoid the chaos of a red tape mountain and paperwork checks. Goodbye to everyone demanding we stop adhering to the ECJ

This "plan" will either be dead before the end of conference. Or May will be.

Isn't it clear enough? We need to stay in the Single Market and do a customs deal. No other solution avoids the NI border OR GB border issue and avoids burying British business under a red tape and extra costs burden.

This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?

No, Labour will vote against anything the government proposes (though some of their MPs might vote with the government, or abstain).

We'd vote for a deal that maintains the customs union and de facto the single market

tpfkar

philiph said:

rkrkrk said:

RochdalePioneers said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

... and the EU will accept the UK's proposals for non-intrusive enforcement at the land border

The UK hasn't made any such proposals. The UK is insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border at all.

Yes, precisely. That's what I meant. (For that matter the Irish government and the EU are also insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border, for which they need a deal according to their own logic).

Here's some more detail on the UK's backstop proposal - a UK wide customs union and an Irish sea regulatory border.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/u-k-is-said-to-plan-brexit-compromise-on-irish-border-rules

This is genuis. The compromise plan is:

1 The UK stays in the Customs Union. So goodbye to the fantasy of bigger better trade deals
2 NornIron stays aligned to EU regulations, which means checks between GB and NI. So goodbye to the DUP being on board
3 Practically speaking GB stays aligned to EU regulations in almost all things to avoid the chaos of a red tape mountain and paperwork checks. Goodbye to everyone demanding we stop adhering to the ECJ

This "plan" will either be dead before the end of conference. Or May will be.

Isn't it clear enough? We need to stay in the Single Market and do a customs deal. No other solution avoids the NI border OR GB border issue and avoids burying British business under a red tape and extra costs burden.

This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?

The party that just said at conference that they would vote against a May deal?

No, you're mistaking them with the Lib Dems.

Corbs said "Let me also reach out to the Prime Minister, who is currently doing the negotiating. Brexit is about the future of our country and our vital interests. It is not about leadership squabbles or parliamentary posturing. If you deliver a deal that includes a customs union and no hard border in Ireland, if you protect jobs, people’s rights at work and environmental and consumer standards – then we will support that sensible deal."

philiph

Mortimer said:

Pretty sure the DUP won’t support the new checks portion of this new backstop proposal.

99% sure the ERG won’t support the the ‘or we just stay in the customs union’ element of it

So, this is a policy that doesn’t get through Parliament. Which was always the problem with Chequers - it started off as too much of a compromise

Which neatly summarises Brexit and the options.

Any negotiated settlement will be too much of a compromise to a significant tranche of voters, be they public, MPs or Lords.

There are two solutions:
Out, leave, cut ties, no CU SM FOM or Courts etc
In, Schengen, Euro, FOM, Budgetary controls etc

or

One of the many many half in half out antagonistic, argumentative and fractious relationships that result from or existing membership or a negotiated withdrawal.

Mortimer

Incidentally, I’ve been thinking about what it might take for a leadership challenge to be triggered.

I think trying to force through staying in the customs union and or single market with the votes of Labour would be one such trigger.

Sean_F

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

rkrkrk said:

RochdalePioneers said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

... and the EU will accept the UK's proposals for non-intrusive enforcement at the land border

The UK hasn't made any such proposals. The UK is insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border at all.

Yes, precisely. That's what I meant. (For that matter the Irish government and the EU are also insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border, for which they need a deal according to their own logic).

Here's some more detail on the UK's backstop proposal - a UK wide customs union and an Irish sea regulatory border.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/u-k-is-said-to-plan-brexit-compromise-on-irish-border-rules

This is genuis. The compromise plan is:

1 The UK stays in the Customs Union. So goodbye to the fantasy of bigger better trade deals
2 NornIron stays aligned to EU regulations, which means checks between GB and NI. So goodbye to the DUP being on board
3 Practically speaking GB stays aligned to EU regulations in almost all things to avoid the chaos of a red tape mountain and paperwork checks. Goodbye to everyone demanding we stop adhering to the ECJ

This "plan" will either be dead before the end of conference. Or May will be.

Isn't it clear enough? We need to stay in the Single Market and do a customs deal. No other solution avoids the NI border OR GB border issue and avoids burying British business under a red tape and extra costs burden.

This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?

No, Labour will vote against anything the government proposes (though some of their MPs might vote with the government, or abstain).

We'd vote for a deal that maintains the customs union and de facto the single market

If they have the chance to defeat the government, surely the temptation will be too great to resist?

rkrkrk

philiph said:

rkrkrk said:

RochdalePioneers said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

... and the EU will accept the UK's proposals for non-intrusive enforcement at the land border

The UK hasn't made any such proposals. The UK is insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border at all.

Yes, precisely. That's what I meant. (For that matter the Irish government and the EU are also insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border, for which they need a deal according to their own logic).

Here's some more detail on the UK's backstop proposal - a UK wide customs union and an Irish sea regulatory border.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/u-k-is-said-to-plan-brexit-compromise-on-irish-border-rules

This is genuis. The compromise plan is:

1 The UK stays in the Customs Union. So goodbye to the fantasy of bigger better trade deals
2 NornIron stays aligned to EU regulations, which means checks between GB and NI. So goodbye to the DUP being on board
3 Practically speaking GB stays aligned to EU regulations in almost all things to avoid the chaos of a red tape mountain and paperwork checks. Goodbye to everyone demanding we stop adhering to the ECJ

This "plan" will either be dead before the end of conference. Or May will be.

Isn't it clear enough? We need to stay in the Single Market and do a customs deal. No other solution avoids the NI border OR GB border issue and avoids burying British business under a red tape and extra costs burden.

This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?

The party that just said at conference that they would vote against a May deal?

Nope. Firstly Labour's 6 tests necessitate what some call BINO. That's basically what the original poster described. Secondly, regardless of whatever Corbyn says, there are a bunch of Labour MPs who will happily ignore him.

Richard_Nabavi

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

... and the EU will accept the UK's proposals for non-intrusive enforcement at the land border

The UK hasn't made any such proposals. The UK is insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border at all.

Yes, precisely. That's what I meant. (For that matter the Irish government and the EU are also insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border, for which they need a deal according to their own logic).

Here's some more detail on the UK's backstop proposal - a UK wide customs union and an Irish sea regulatory border.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/u-k-is-said-to-plan-brexit-compromise-on-irish-border-rules

Yep, makes sense. Note this bit, which is exactly what I predicted:

The proposed compromise revolves around the distinction between customs checks and regulatory checks. May wants to keep the whole U.K. -- including Northern Ireland -- inside the EU tariff regime as part of the backstop plan.

However, as you point out this refers to the backstop proposal, which is a distraction anyway because the whole idea is to avoid having to fall back on to the backstop. It was a mistake for the UK to accept it - arguing about this blind alley has just wasted time when we could have been negotiating the future relationship in which it won't apply.

You are looking at the backstop the wrong way. The negotiations are a dynamic process and the backstop is not a 'fall back' but an insurance policy against PM Boris or Rees-Mogg. Effectively it anchors the UK-wide future relationship to be at least as close as the content of the backstop. If we concede a UK-wide customs union in the backstop, we are not leaving the customs union.

Funny kind of insurance policy which makes the insured risk more likely than it would otherwise be.

rkrkrk

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

rkrkrk said:

RochdalePioneers said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

... and the EU will accept the UK's proposals for non-intrusive enforcement at the land border

The UK hasn't made any such proposals. The UK is insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border at all.

Yes, precisely. That's what I meant. (For that matter the Irish government and the EU are also insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border, for which they need a deal according to their own logic).

Here's some more detail on the UK's backstop proposal - a UK wide customs union and an Irish sea regulatory border.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/u-k-is-said-to-plan-brexit-compromise-on-irish-border-rules

This is genuis. The compromise plan is:

1 The UK stays in the Customs Union. So goodbye to the fantasy of bigger better trade deals
2 NornIron stays aligned to EU regulations, which means checks between GB and NI. So goodbye to the DUP being on board
3 Practically speaking GB stays aligned to EU regulations in almost all things to avoid the chaos of a red tape mountain and paperwork checks. Goodbye to everyone demanding we stop adhering to the ECJ

This "plan" will either be dead before the end of conference. Or May will be.

Isn't it clear enough? We need to stay in the Single Market and do a customs deal. No other solution avoids the NI border OR GB border issue and avoids burying British business under a red tape and extra costs burden.

This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?

No, Labour will vote against anything the government proposes (though some of their MPs might vote with the government, or abstain).

We'd vote for a deal that maintains the customs union and de facto the single market

I agree.

Mortimer

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

... and the EU will accept the UK's proposals for non-intrusive enforcement at the land border

The UK hasn't made any such proposals. The UK is insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border at all.

Yes, precisely. That's what I meant. (For that matter the Irish government and the EU are also insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border, for which they need a deal according to their own logic).

Here's some more detail on the UK's backstop proposal - a UK wide customs union and an Irish sea regulatory border.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/u-k-is-said-to-plan-brexit-compromise-on-irish-border-rules

Yep, makes sense. Note this bit, which is exactly what I predicted:

The proposed compromise revolves around the distinction between customs checks and regulatory checks. May wants to keep the whole U.K. -- including Northern Ireland -- inside the EU tariff regime as part of the backstop plan.

However, as you point out this refers to the backstop proposal, which is a distraction anyway because the whole idea is to avoid having to fall back on to the backstop. It was a mistake for the UK to accept it - arguing about this blind alley has just wasted time when we could have been negotiating the future relationship in which it won't apply.

You are looking at the backstop the wrong way. The negotiations are a dynamic process and the backstop is not a 'fall back' but an insurance policy against PM Boris or Rees-Mogg. Effectively it anchors the UK-wide future relationship to be at least as close as the content of the backstop. If we concede a UK-wide customs union in the backstop, we are not leaving the customs union.

Funny kind of insurance policy which makes the insured risk more likely than it would otherwise be.

Of course, it isn’t designed to be an insurance policy.

It always was a ransom note to ensure that German car makers etc have access to our lucrative markets

The EU are terrified of us succeeding outside of their system.

Wulfrun_Phil

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

rkrkrk said:

RochdalePioneers said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

... and the EU will accept the UK's proposals for non-intrusive enforcement at the land border

The UK hasn't made any such proposals. The UK is insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border at all.

Yes, precisely. That's what I meant. (For that matter the Irish government and the EU are also insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border, for which they need a deal according to their own logic).

Here's some more detail on the UK's backstop proposal - a UK wide customs union and an Irish sea regulatory border.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/u-k-is-said-to-plan-brexit-compromise-on-irish-border-rules

This is genuis. The compromise plan is:

1 The UK stays in the Customs Union. So goodbye to the fantasy of bigger better trade deals
2 NornIron stays aligned to EU regulations, which means checks between GB and NI. So goodbye to the DUP being on board
3 Practically speaking GB stays aligned to EU regulations in almost all things to avoid the chaos of a red tape mountain and paperwork checks. Goodbye to everyone demanding we stop adhering to the ECJ

This "plan" will either be dead before the end of conference. Or May will be.

Isn't it clear enough? We need to stay in the Single Market and do a customs deal. No other solution avoids the NI border OR GB border issue and avoids burying British business under a red tape and extra costs burden.

This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?

No, Labour will vote against anything the government proposes (though some of their MPs might vote with the government, or abstain).

We'd vote for a deal that maintains the customs union and de facto the single market

Corbyn shouldn't be taken at his word. It's all just window dressing. Labour will contrive to vote against whatever the Government comes up with in the interests of trying to secure an early election.

TheWhiteRabbit

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

... and the EU will accept the UK's proposals for non-intrusive enforcement at the land border

The UK hasn't made any such proposals. The UK is insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border at all.

Yes, precisely. That's what I meant. (For that matter the Irish government and the EU are also insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border, for which they need a deal according to their own logic).

Here's some more detail on the UK's backstop proposal - a UK wide customs union and an Irish sea regulatory border.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/u-k-is-said-to-plan-brexit-compromise-on-irish-border-rules

Yep, makes sense. Note this bit, which is exactly what I predicted:

The proposed compromise revolves around the distinction between customs checks and regulatory checks. May wants to keep the whole U.K. -- including Northern Ireland -- inside the EU tariff regime as part of the backstop plan.

However, as you point out this refers to the backstop proposal, which is a distraction anyway because the whole idea is to avoid having to fall back on to the backstop. It was a mistake for the UK to accept it - arguing about this blind alley has just wasted time when we could have been negotiating the future relationship in which it won't apply.

You are looking at the backstop the wrong way. The negotiations are a dynamic process and the backstop is not a 'fall back' but an insurance policy against PM Boris or Rees-Mogg. Effectively it anchors the UK-wide future relationship to be at least as close as the content of the backstop. If we concede a UK-wide customs union in the backstop, we are not leaving the customs union.

Funny kind of insurance policy which makes the insured risk more likely than it would otherwise be.

William is right that logically the backstop should be a 'harder Brexit' than the long term partnership that is supposed to replace, but I see no reason it must be. An interesting twist.

Beverley_C

Anazina said:

Charles said:

Leavers viewed it for what it is: a technical issue that can be solved with goodwill and hard work on both sides

We didn’t expect the EU to play politics with peace. Our bad.

This must rank as one of the most airheaded posts on PB today.

It is early yet.... I'll do my best

felix

RobD said:

Anazina said:

The increasingly ludicrous Johnson can't even get a field of wheat right. The crop featured in the photograph is not wheat.

I wonder, which is the most naughty crop to run through?

Cannabis surely? or maybe opium?

felix

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

Anazina said:

The increasingly ludicrous Johnson can't even get a field of wheat right. The crop featured in the photograph is not wheat.

I wonder, which is the most naughty crop to run through?

Running through a field of spaghetti trees.

No you have to run pasta field of spaghetti trees.

Dura_Ace

Danny565 said:

Not quite as bad as another politician's latest photo...

https://twitter.com/AurelieBonal/status/1046707392640143361

Macron's fist is exactly where he imagined that guy's hammer would be.

tpfkar

Sean_F said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sean_F said:

rkrkrk said:

RochdalePioneers said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

... and the EU will accept the UK's proposals for non-intrusive enforcement at the land border

The UK hasn't made any such proposals. The UK is insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border at all.

Yes, precisely. That's what I meant. (For that matter the Irish government and the EU are also insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border, for which they need a deal according to their own logic).

Here's some more detail on the UK's backstop proposal - a UK wide customs union and an Irish sea regulatory border.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/u-k-is-said-to-plan-brexit-compromise-on-irish-border-rules

This is genuis. The compromise plan is:

1 The UK stays in the Customs Union. So goodbye to the fantasy of bigger better trade deals
2 NornIron stays aligned to EU regulations, which means checks between GB and NI. So goodbye to the DUP being on board
3 Practically speaking GB stays aligned to EU regulations in almost all things to avoid the chaos of a red tape mountain and paperwork checks. Goodbye to everyone demanding we stop adhering to the ECJ

This "plan" will either be dead before the end of conference. Or May will be.

Isn't it clear enough? We need to stay in the Single Market and do a customs deal. No other solution avoids the NI border OR GB border issue and avoids burying British business under a red tape and extra costs burden.

This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?

No, Labour will vote against anything the government proposes (though some of their MPs might vote with the government, or abstain).

We'd vote for a deal that maintains the customs union and de facto the single market

If they have the chance to defeat the government, surely the temptation will be too great to resist?

I imagine that if they voted through a soft Brexit deal in customs union etc, the ERG would do the rest of the work for them, no?

JosiasJessop

Philip_Thompson said:

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Is all the bombast from the conference just cover for making further concessions?

https://twitter.com/C_Barraud/status/1046742173834760193

If there is to be a deal, both sides will make concessions on this, and the nature of the concessions is clear. The UK will accept phyto-sanitary and some nominal regulatory checks checks on the sea border (which can be very non-intrusive), and the EU will accept the UK's proposals for non-intrusive enforcement at the land border.

Of course if the EU doesn't want a deal, there won't be one, but this is a largely artificial fuss, because as @Charles says it can be dealt with by technical measures and streamlined admin. That is one of the few points on which the ultra-Brexiteers are right,

I'm very wary of 'technical measures' being used as a get-out-of-jail card.

'Technical measures' just means that exporters self-certify, probably on line. It really is no big deal for the small amount of large-scale cross-border commercial trade, and the small guys can simply be excluded from the scope. The only obstacle is the EU pretending it's an obstacle; from what they say you'd think it was some kind of universal law of nature, beyond the power of human agency, which insisted on physical checks at the border.

Again, I'm wary of blithely saying 'it's really no big deal'.

The devil - and pain - is in the details. Besides, we all known governments can take a simple principle and destroy it through complexity - just look at Universal Credit..

Universal Credit has the exact opposite problem of what we are talking about.

Universal Credit involves millions of (often vulnerable) people including many but by no means all scammers trying to exploit the system. Its complicated with people starting and stopping and not necessarily trusted.

Customs for large traders though involves not many companies who are operating on a trusted trader basis.

The point stands. It sounds simple but there will be complexities. Blithely applying handwavium won't address them.

Beverley_C

Mortimer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

... and the EU will accept the UK's proposals for non-intrusive enforcement at the land border

The UK hasn't made any such proposals. The UK is insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border at all.

Yes, precisely. That's what I meant. (For that matter the Irish government and the EU are also insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border, for which they need a deal according to their own logic).

Here's some more detail on the UK's backstop proposal - a UK wide customs union and an Irish sea regulatory border.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/u-k-is-said-to-plan-brexit-compromise-on-irish-border-rules

Yep, makes sense. Note this bit, which is exactly what I predicted:

The proposed compromise revolves around the distinction between customs checks and regulatory checks. May wants to keep the whole U.K. -- including Northern Ireland -- inside the EU tariff regime as part of the backstop plan.

However, as you point out this refers to the backstop proposal, which is a distraction anyway because the whole idea is to avoid having to fall back on to the backstop. It was a mistake for the UK to accept it - arguing about this blind alley has just wasted time when we could have been negotiating the future relationship in which it won't apply.

You are looking at the backstop the wrong way. The negotiations are a dynamic process and the backstop is not a 'fall back' but an insurance policy against PM Boris or Rees-Mogg. Effectively it anchors the UK-wide future relationship to be at least as close as the content of the backstop. If we concede a UK-wide customs union in the backstop, we are not leaving the customs union.

Funny kind of insurance policy which makes the insured risk more likely than it would otherwise be.

Of course, it isn’t designed to be an insurance policy.

It always was a ransom note to ensure that German car makers etc have access to our lucrative markets

The EU are terrified of us succeeding outside of their system.

They do not need to worry, with our third-rate politicians setting up trade agreements for us... and starting off by messing up "... the easiest trade deal in history ..."™

Scott_P

JosiasJessop said:

The point stands. It sounds simple but there will be complexities. Blithely applying handwavium won't address them.

Handwavium is our primary Brexit export...

Beverley_C

Scott_P said:

JosiasJessop said:

The point stands. It sounds simple but there will be complexities. Blithely applying handwavium won't address them.

Handwavium is our primary Brexit export...

We do seem to have an unending supply

AllyPally_Rob

philiph said:

Mortimer said:

Pretty sure the DUP won’t support the new checks portion of this new backstop proposal.

99% sure the ERG won’t support the the ‘or we just stay in the customs union’ element of it

So, this is a policy that doesn’t get through Parliament. Which was always the problem with Chequers - it started off as too much of a compromise

Which neatly summarises Brexit and the options.

Any negotiated settlement will be too much of a compromise to a significant tranche of voters, be they public, MPs or Lords.

There are two solutions:
Out, leave, cut ties, no CU SM FOM or Courts etc
In, Schengen, Euro, FOM, Budgetary controls etc

or

One of the many many half in half out antagonistic, argumentative and fractious relationships that result from or existing membership or a negotiated withdrawal.

May's team are like a diner at a restaurant, who can have either a starter and main, or a main and dessert. Rather than choose, the diner has requested if prawn cocktail with custard is possible instead.

Scott_P

AllyPally_Rob said:

the diner has requested if prawn cocktail with custard is possible instead.

Neither of which are on the menu

williamglenn

Scott_P said:

JosiasJessop said:

The point stands. It sounds simple but there will be complexities. Blithely applying handwavium won't address them.

Handwavium is our primary Brexit export...

Group 19 of the periodic table - the ignoble gases - along with Distractium, Whataboutium and Vericlearium.

stodge

Afternoon all

Okay, I'm confused - we are paying over £39 billion to the EU as our divorce settlement and apparently we are going to get a "Brexit dividend". I assume much like the vaunted "Peace Dividend" after the fall of Communism in 1989, we'll throw it away in tax cuts:

https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2018/10/brexit-will-deliver-public-service-dividend-says-hammond?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_term=

Beverley_C

williamglenn said:

Scott_P said:

JosiasJessop said:

The point stands. It sounds simple but there will be complexities. Blithely applying handwavium won't address them.

Handwavium is our primary Brexit export...

Group 19 of the periodic table - the ignoble gases - along with Distractium, Whataboutium and Vericlearium.

Post of the day

anothernick

RochdalePioneers said:

This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?

Very unlikely. If May can't get a deal through her own party do we seriously suggest that she is going to go down on her knees and beg Corbyn (or Umunna for that matter) to save her.

Virtually no one in Labour wants May to get a deal. The leadership don't want her to beccuae they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a general election. The remainers don't want her to because they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a new referendum. And the few caught in the middle (Flint, Snell etc) would have to face down the hostility of their overwhelming pro-remain constituency parties and colleagues.

May will not get more than a small handful of Labour MPs to back her, whatever she does.

RobD

anothernick said:

RochdalePioneers said:

This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?

Very unlikely. If May can't get a deal through her own party do we seriously suggest that she is going to go down on her knees and beg Corbyn (or Umunna for that matter) to save her.

Virtually no one in Labour wants May to get a deal. The leadership don't want her to beccuae they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a general election. The remainers don't want her to because they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a new referendum. And the few caught in the middle (Flint, Snell etc) would have to face down the hostility of their overwhelming pro-remain constituency parties and colleagues.

May will not get more than a small handful of Labour MPs to back her, whatever she does.

Despite what Corbyn said?

RobD

stodge said:

Afternoon all

Okay, I'm confused - we are paying over £39 billion to the EU as our divorce settlement and apparently we are going to get a "Brexit dividend". I assume much like the vaunted "Peace Dividend" after the fall of Communism in 1989, we'll throw it away in tax cuts:

https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2018/10/brexit-will-deliver-public-service-dividend-says-hammond?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_term=

Because that money is going to be paid over the next 25 years, not in one lump sum.

Nigelb

AllyPally_Rob said:

philiph said:

Mortimer said:

Pretty sure the DUP won’t support the new checks portion of this new backstop proposal.

99% sure the ERG won’t support the the ‘or we just stay in the customs union’ element of it

So, this is a policy that doesn’t get through Parliament. Which was always the problem with Chequers - it started off as too much of a compromise

Which neatly summarises Brexit and the options.

Any negotiated settlement will be too much of a compromise to a significant tranche of voters, be they public, MPs or Lords.

There are two solutions:
Out, leave, cut ties, no CU SM FOM or Courts etc
In, Schengen, Euro, FOM, Budgetary controls etc

or

One of the many many half in half out antagonistic, argumentative and fractious relationships that result from or existing membership or a negotiated withdrawal.

May's team are like a diner at a restaurant, who can have either a starter and main, or a main and dessert. Rather than choose, the diner has requested if prawn cocktail with custard is possible instead.

Sounds entirely appropriate for the Great British menu...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/12n7S4KRWK9Q25qRV5tx4YQ/turbot-with-strawberries-and-cream

Richard_Nabavi

anothernick said:

RochdalePioneers said:

This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?

Very unlikely. If May can't get a deal through her own party do we seriously suggest that she is going to go down on her knees and beg Corbyn (or Umunna for that matter) to save her.

Virtually no one in Labour wants May to get a deal. The leadership don't want her to beccuae they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a general election. The remainers don't want her to because they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a new referendum. And the few caught in the middle (Flint, Snell etc) would have to face down the hostility of their overwhelming pro-remain constituency parties and colleagues.

May will not get more than a small handful of Labour MPs to back her, whatever she does.

Hmm, I don't think it's as simple as that. If we assume that she comes back with a deal (admittedly a big 'if'), then there will massive relief from business, the pound will rise and the airwaves will be full of pundits saying that this avoids disaster. If Labour then ally themselves with the extremists in Tory ranks to throw the deal in the bin, they run a massive risk of getting the blame for the disaster, since the alternatives probably don't actually work.

williamglenn

https://twitter.com/mattholehouse/status/1046741645742534656?s=21

RobD

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/mattholehouse/status/1046741645742534656?s=21

They want free money and cheap labour? I’m shocked.

Richard_Nabavi

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/mattholehouse/status/1046741645742534656?s=21

They want free money and cheap labour? I’m shocked.

It was one of the curious features of the referendum that many car workers and farmers - the two groups who have most to lose from Brexit - voted Leave.

anothernick

RobD said:

anothernick said:

RochdalePioneers said:

This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?

Very unlikely. If May can't get a deal through her own party do we seriously suggest that she is going to go down on her knees and beg Corbyn (or Umunna for that matter) to save her.

Virtually no one in Labour wants May to get a deal. The leadership don't want her to beccuae they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a general election. The remainers don't want her to because they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a new referendum. And the few caught in the middle (Flint, Snell etc) would have to face down the hostility of their overwhelming pro-remain constituency parties and colleagues.

May will not get more than a small handful of Labour MPs to back her, whatever she does.

Despite what Corbyn said?

Corbyn said he would support a deal which met the six tests. But since these require the EU to compromise on the four freedoms and the Tories to compromise on ECJ and customs union the chances of any such deal being agreed are somewhere in the region of zero.

Big_G_NorthWales

Great applause and standing ovation for Ruth

RobD

anothernick said:

RobD said:

anothernick said:

RochdalePioneers said:

This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?

Very unlikely. If May can't get a deal through her own party do we seriously suggest that she is going to go down on her knees and beg Corbyn (or Umunna for that matter) to save her.

Virtually no one in Labour wants May to get a deal. The leadership don't want her to beccuae they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a general election. The remainers don't want her to because they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a new referendum. And the few caught in the middle (Flint, Snell etc) would have to face down the hostility of their overwhelming pro-remain constituency parties and colleagues.

May will not get more than a small handful of Labour MPs to back her, whatever she does.

Despite what Corbyn said?

Corbyn said he would support a deal which met the six tests. But since these require the EU to compromise on the four freedoms and the Tories to compromise on ECJ and customs union the chances of any such deal being agreed are somewhere in the region of zero.

Ah, so he was being disingenuous.

Alanbrooke

Richard_Nabavi said:

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/mattholehouse/status/1046741645742534656?s=21

They want free money and cheap labour? I’m shocked.

It was one of the curious features of the referendum that many car workers and farmers - the two groups who have most to lose from Brexit - voted Leave.

why does that surprise you ?

they are two of the groups who have seen their livelihoods melt away while we stay in the EU.

Pulpstar

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/mattholehouse/status/1046741645742534656?s=21

Want cake and eat it you say ... ?

rkrkrk

Richard_Nabavi said:

anothernick said:

RochdalePioneers said:

This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?

Very unlikely. If May can't get a deal through her own party do we seriously suggest that she is going to go down on her knees and beg Corbyn (or Umunna for that matter) to save her.

Virtually no one in Labour wants May to get a deal. The leadership don't want her to beccuae they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a general election. The remainers don't want her to because they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a new referendum. And the few caught in the middle (Flint, Snell etc) would have to face down the hostility of their overwhelming pro-remain constituency parties and colleagues.

May will not get more than a small handful of Labour MPs to back her, whatever she does.

Hmm, I don't think it's as simple as that. If we assume that she comes back with a deal (admittedly a big 'if'), then there will massive relief from business, the pound will rise and the airwaves will be full of pundits saying that this avoids disaster. If Labour then ally themselves with the extremists in Tory ranks to throw the deal in the bin, they run a massive risk of getting the blame for the disaster, since the alternatives probably don't actually work.

There is no way all of Labour are going to vote with JRM in favour of no deal.

TOPPING

Richard_Nabavi said:

anothernick said:

RochdalePioneers said:

This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?

Very unlikely. If May can't get a deal through her own party do we seriously suggest that she is going to go down on her knees and beg Corbyn (or Umunna for that matter) to save her.

Virtually no one in Labour wants May to get a deal. The leadership don't want her to beccuae they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a general election. The remainers don't want her to because they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a new referendum. And the few caught in the middle (Flint, Snell etc) would have to face down the hostility of their overwhelming pro-remain constituency parties and colleagues.

May will not get more than a small handful of Labour MPs to back her, whatever she does.

Hmm, I don't think it's as simple as that. If we assume that she comes back with a deal (admittedly a big 'if'), then there will massive relief from business, the pound will rise and the airwaves will be full of pundits saying that this avoids disaster. If Labour then ally themselves with the extremists in Tory ranks to throw the deal in the bin, they run a massive risk of getting the blame for the disaster, since the alternatives probably don't actually work.

First off, there will be a deal. It is just not feasible for there not to be one.

And secondly, Lab will vote against it as is their duty as HMO. No point in politics if one party says "we have done something for the benefit of our country" and the other party says "yes you're right you have a point" because the former is what every party of Government says about everything all the time.

anothernick

RobD said:

anothernick said:

RobD said:

anothernick said:

RochdalePioneers said:

This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?

Very unlikely. If May can't get a deal through her own party do we seriously suggest that she is going to go down on her knees and beg Corbyn (or Umunna for that matter) to save her.

Virtually no one in Labour wants May to get a deal. The leadership don't want her to beccuae they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a general election. The remainers don't want her to because they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a new referendum. And the few caught in the middle (Flint, Snell etc) would have to face down the hostility of their overwhelming pro-remain constituency parties and colleagues.

May will not get more than a small handful of Labour MPs to back her, whatever she does.

Despite what Corbyn said?

Corbyn said he would support a deal which met the six tests. But since these require the EU to compromise on the four freedoms and the Tories to compromise on ECJ and customs union the chances of any such deal being agreed are somewhere in the region of zero.

Ah, so he was being disingenuous.

Certainly Corbyn was appearing to reach out to May, safe in the knowledge that she could not reach back.

The six tests are consciously modelled on Browns five tests for joining the Euro - in both cases they are designed to ensure that the end in view is never completely ruled out in theory but the conditions for it to come to pass will never be met in practice. And they are highly subjective in part, just to make sure that they will bear a wide range of interpretation.

RobD

TOPPING said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

anothernick said:

RochdalePioneers said:

This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?

Very unlikely. If May can't get a deal through her own party do we seriously suggest that she is going to go down on her knees and beg Corbyn (or Umunna for that matter) to save her.

Virtually no one in Labour wants May to get a deal. The leadership don't want her to beccuae they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a general election. The remainers don't want her to because they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a new referendum. And the few caught in the middle (Flint, Snell etc) would have to face down the hostility of their overwhelming pro-remain constituency parties and colleagues.

May will not get more than a small handful of Labour MPs to back her, whatever she does.

Hmm, I don't think it's as simple as that. If we assume that she comes back with a deal (admittedly a big 'if'), then there will massive relief from business, the pound will rise and the airwaves will be full of pundits saying that this avoids disaster. If Labour then ally themselves with the extremists in Tory ranks to throw the deal in the bin, they run a massive risk of getting the blame for the disaster, since the alternatives probably don't actually work.

First off, there will be a deal. It is just not feasible for there not to be one.

And secondly, Lab will vote against it as is their duty as HMO. No point in politics if one party says "we have done something for the benefit of our country" and the other party says "yes you're right you have a point" because the former is what every party of Government says about everything all the time.

Implying votes should be opposed by the Opposition. I don’t think that’s necessarily true.

rcs1000

Sean_F said:

rkrkrk said:

RochdalePioneers said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

... and the EU will accept the UK's proposals for non-intrusive enforcement at the land border

The UK hasn't made any such proposals. The UK is insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border at all.

Yes, precisely. That's what I meant. (For that matter the Irish government and the EU are also insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border, for which they need a deal according to their own logic).

Here's some more detail on the UK's backstop proposal - a UK wide customs union and an Irish sea regulatory border.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/u-k-is-said-to-plan-brexit-compromise-on-irish-border-rules

This is genuis. The compromise plan is:

1 The UK stays in the Customs Union. So goodbye to the fantasy of bigger better trade deals
2 NornIron stays aligned to EU regulations, which means checks between GB and NI. So goodbye to the DUP being on board
3 Practically speaking GB stays aligned to EU regulations in almost all things to avoid the chaos of a red tape mountain and paperwork checks. Goodbye to everyone demanding we stop adhering to the ECJ

This "plan" will either be dead before the end of conference. Or May will be.

Isn't it clear enough? We need to stay in the Single Market and do a customs deal. No other solution avoids the NI border OR GB border issue and avoids burying British business under a red tape and extra costs burden.

This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?

No, Labour will vote against anything the government proposes (though some of their MPs might vote with the government, or abstain).

Corbyn cares only about the government falling.

PClipp

tpfkar said:

Corbs said "Let me also reach out to the Prime Minister, who is currently doing the negotiating. Brexit is about the future of our country and our vital interests. It is not about leadership squabbles or parliamentary posturing. If you deliver a deal that includes a customs union and no hard border in Ireland, if you protect jobs, people’s rights at work and environmental and consumer standards – then we will support that sensible deal."

The only problem with that is that May would never get it past the Tory MPs. And Corbyn knows it. How cynical can you get?

TOPPING

RobD said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

anothernick said:

RochdalePioneers said:

This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?

Very unlikely. If May can't get a deal through her own party do we seriously suggest that she is going to go down on her knees and beg Corbyn (or Umunna for that matter) to save her.

Virtually no one in Labour wants May to get a deal. The leadership don't want her to beccuae they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a general election. The remainers don't want her to because they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a new referendum. And the few caught in the middle (Flint, Snell etc) would have to face down the hostility of their overwhelming pro-remain constituency parties and colleagues.

May will not get more than a small handful of Labour MPs to back her, whatever she does.

Hmm, I don't think it's as simple as that. If we assume that she comes back with a deal (admittedly a big 'if'), then there will massive relief from business, the pound will rise and the airwaves will be full of pundits saying that this avoids disaster. If Labour then ally themselves with the extremists in Tory ranks to throw the deal in the bin, they run a massive risk of getting the blame for the disaster, since the alternatives probably don't actually work.

First off, there will be a deal. It is just not feasible for there not to be one.

And secondly, Lab will vote against it as is their duty as HMO. No point in politics if one party says "we have done something for the benefit of our country" and the other party says "yes you're right you have a point" because the former is what every party of Government says about everything all the time.

Implying votes should be opposed by the Opposition. I don’t think that’s necessarily true.

If there is the slightest chance of bringing the government down, or even bringing about constitutional chaos maybe leading to a change in government, then Lab will grab it. That is their job. If the Cons had said that such important times constitute a national emergency and decided to form cross-party committees to address Brexit then that is or would have been one thing. But they didn't and Brexit, like nationalisation of Tescos for Lab, is all their own and no Opposition is required to or indeed should support their handling of it.

anothernick

rkrkrk said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

anothernick said:

RochdalePioneers said:

This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?

Very unlikely. If May can't get a deal through her own party do we seriously suggest that she is going to go down on her knees and beg Corbyn (or Umunna for that matter) to save her.

Virtually no one in Labour wants May to get a deal. The leadership don't want her to beccuae they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a general election. The remainers don't want her to because they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a new referendum. And the few caught in the middle (Flint, Snell etc) would have to face down the hostility of their overwhelming pro-remain constituency parties and colleagues.

May will not get more than a small handful of Labour MPs to back her, whatever she does.

Hmm, I don't think it's as simple as that. If we assume that she comes back with a deal (admittedly a big 'if'), then there will massive relief from business, the pound will rise and the airwaves will be full of pundits saying that this avoids disaster. If Labour then ally themselves with the extremists in Tory ranks to throw the deal in the bin, they run a massive risk of getting the blame for the disaster, since the alternatives probably don't actually work.

There is no way all of Labour are going to vote with JRM in favour of no deal.

But the vote will be for or against Mays deal ( if there is one). Labour will vote against. They will then say that May should go and let Labour negotiate a better deal, if necessary by extending A50 as Thronberry said last week.

Richard_Nabavi

TOPPING said:

First off, there will be a deal. It is just not feasible for there not to be one.

And secondly, Lab will vote against it as is their duty as HMO. No point in politics if one party says "we have done something for the benefit of our country" and the other party says "yes you're right you have a point" because the former is what every party of Government says about everything all the time.

This is a bit different from most such votes, because it has direct consequences. They can't just oppose for the sake of it whilst hoping (Miliband-style) that the government won't be defeated, and they can't defeat the government and then say that the ensuing chaos was nothing to do with them. What's more, there are still a few Labour MPs who actually care what happens to the country. So I don't think it's clear-cut, especially when you look at who their bedfellows would be.

williamglenn

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:

rkrkrk said:

RochdalePioneers said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

... and the EU will accept the UK's proposals for non-intrusive enforcement at the land border

The UK hasn't made any such proposals. The UK is insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border at all.

Yes, precisely. That's what I meant. (For that matter the Irish government and the EU are also insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border, for which they need a deal according to their own logic).

Here's some more detail on the UK's backstop proposal - a UK wide customs union and an Irish sea regulatory border.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/u-k-is-said-to-plan-brexit-compromise-on-irish-border-rules

This is genuis. The compromise plan is:

1 The UK stays in the Customs Union. So goodbye to the fantasy of bigger better trade deals
2 NornIron stays aligned to EU regulations, which means checks between GB and NI. So goodbye to the DUP being on board
3 Practically speaking GB stays aligned to EU regulations in almost all things to avoid the chaos of a red tape mountain and paperwork checks. Goodbye to everyone demanding we stop adhering to the ECJ

This "plan" will either be dead before the end of conference. Or May will be.

Isn't it clear enough? We need to stay in the Single Market and do a customs deal. No other solution avoids the NI border OR GB border issue and avoids burying British business under a red tape and extra costs burden.

This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?

No, Labour will vote against anything the government proposes (though some of their MPs might vote with the government, or abstain).

Corbyn cares only about the government falling.

And that's his Achilles heel. He has to escalate when we get to the crisis over the WA ratification but he can always be outbid by a second referendum.

TGOHF

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:

rkrkrk said:

RochdalePioneers said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

... and the EU will accept the UK's proposals for non-intrusive enforcement at the land border

The UK hasn't made any such proposals. The UK is insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border at all.

Yes, precisely. That's what I meant. (For that matter the Irish government and the EU are also insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border, for which they need a deal according to their own logic).

Here's some more detail on the UK's backstop proposal - a UK wide customs union and an Irish sea regulatory border.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/u-k-is-said-to-plan-brexit-compromise-on-irish-border-rules

This is genuis. The compromise plan is:

1 The UK stays in the Customs Union. So goodbye to the fantasy of bigger better trade deals
2 NornIron stays aligned to EU regulations, which means checks between GB and NI. So goodbye to the DUP being on board
3 Practically speaking GB stays aligned to EU regulations in almost all things to avoid the chaos of a red tape mountain and paperwork checks. Goodbye to everyone demanding we stop adhering to the ECJ

This "plan" will either be dead before the end of conference. Or May will be.

Isn't it clear enough? We need to stay in the Single Market and do a customs deal. No other solution avoids the NI border OR GB border issue and avoids burying British business under a red tape and extra costs burden.

This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?

No, Labour will vote against anything the government proposes (though some of their MPs might vote with the government, or abstain).

Corbyn cares only about the government falling.

And that's his Achilles heel. He has to escalate when we get to the crisis over the WA ratification but he can always be outbid by a second referendum.

Why would the EU want Corbyn to vote down a deal they are prepared to sign with May ?

Spoiler - they wont.

So the guns of the EU will be trained on Labour. As Mrs May has found out - that can make for discomfort in the media.

Richard_Nabavi

I get the impression that the conference delegates are failing to live up to their billing as extreme Brexiteers, with both Phil Hammond and Ruth Davidson getting a good reception.

williamglenn

Richard_Nabavi said:

TOPPING said:

First off, there will be a deal. It is just not feasible for there not to be one.

And secondly, Lab will vote against it as is their duty as HMO. No point in politics if one party says "we have done something for the benefit of our country" and the other party says "yes you're right you have a point" because the former is what every party of Government says about everything all the time.

This is a bit different from most such votes, because it has direct consequences. They can't just oppose for the sake of it whilst hoping (Miliband-style) that the government won't be defeated, and they can't defeat the government and then say that the ensuing chaos was nothing to do with them. What's more, there are still a few Labour MPs who actually care what happens to the country. So I don't think it's clear-cut, especially when you look at who their bedfellows would be.

The consequences are not as direct as people imagine. Voting against the WA merely increases the political crisis but it doesn't automatically mean we leave with no deal, nor does it take the WA off the table.