Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the ERG plotters get their 48 letters today and TMay loses

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited November 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the ERG plotters get their 48 letters today and TMay loses the vote she’ll likely still be there at the end of the year

At one stage in my career I used to advise Betfair on the precise market rules for its political markets. These are critically important because an exchange like Betfair stands in between those who are laying bets and those who are backing and needs to have something to fall back on should there be a disagreement. So anytime you want to make a political bet it is important for your own protection to check the market rules.

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • It depends surely if May remains in post (most likely) or chooses to step aside immediately and allow an acting leader to take charge, as happened after Ed Miliband stepped down
  • It depends surely if May remains in post (most likely) or chooses to step aside immediately and allow an acting leader to take charge, as happened after Ed Miliband stepped down

    She ain't going to go voluntarily - she'll serve until the last possible day
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 12,453

    It depends surely if May remains in post (most likely) or chooses to step aside immediately and allow an acting leader to take charge, as happened after Ed Miliband stepped down

    She ain't going to go voluntarily - she'll serve until the last possible day
    I'm sure that's right. "Oh, never mind, I give up" is not a sentence in her vocabulary.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 10,893

    It depends surely if May remains in post (most likely) or chooses to step aside immediately and allow an acting leader to take charge, as happened after Ed Miliband stepped down

    She stays on as PM but someone takes over the leadership of the party on an interim basis? Who'd want to do that, and for what reason?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,384
    I hope you're right, as I'm 'Upside down' as Diana Ross once observed in this market !
  • It also depends on the wider membership being consulted at all -- this did not happen in two of the last three contests.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 28,754
    FPT

    geoffw said:

    No Deal (exit to WTO rules) is the default if the May Deal falls.

    If we'd spent the last years preparing for no deal and stating that it was the default, and that we'd like a deal, but weren't particularly fussed because we'd be fine either way, we would both not need a deal, and also have a fabulous one.
    You can either prepare for No Deal or deny the consequences of No Deal, but not both.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,384

    It depends surely if May remains in post (most likely) or chooses to step aside immediately and allow an acting leader to take charge, as happened after Ed Miliband stepped down

    She ain't going to go voluntarily - she'll serve until the last possible day
    I'm sure that's right. "Oh, never mind, I give up" is not a sentence in her vocabulary.
    She's not a quitter, I think her press conference when all others around her were resigning, writing letters showed real political courage and fight.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 28,754
    Pulpstar said:

    I hope you're right, as I'm 'Upside down' as Diana Ross once observed in this market !

    We’re in the middle of a chain reaction. :)
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 22,725
    edited November 2018
    Mike is quite right. Even if there is an immediate VONC which the PM loses, there is going to have to be some kind of contest. An undisputed coronation is simply not going to happen when the party is engaged in civil war. I suppose it's conceivable that, at the end of the MPs' part of the contest, one candidate might drop out à la Leadsom so that a members' vote is skipped, but even that looks very unlikely to me.

    In any case, the indications are that either no VONC will take place, or that Theresa May will win it. So I've laid 2018.
  • It depends surely if May remains in post (most likely) or chooses to step aside immediately and allow an acting leader to take charge, as happened after Ed Miliband stepped down

    She ain't going to go voluntarily - she'll serve until the last possible day
    As I said that is most likely but there is a not-insignificant chance she would see her duty having lost a vote of no confidence as being to stand down immediately. She wouldn't view it as voluntary. It isn't likely but if you're gambling on something being a sure thing it is surely important to consider all eventualities.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 28,754

    Mike is quite right. Even if there is an immediate VONC which the PM loses, there is going to have to be some kind of contest. An undisputed coronation is simply not going to happen when the party is engaged in civil war. I suppose it's conceivable that, at the end of the MPs' part of the contest, one candidate might drop out à la Leadsom so that a members' vote is skipped, but even that looks very unlikely to me.

    In any case, the indications are that either no VONC will take place, or that Theresa May will win it. So I've laid 2018.

    Leadsom could be the unity candidate, as she spans the full range of opinion from “leaving the EU would be a disaster” to “believe in Brexit”.
  • tlg86 said:

    It depends surely if May remains in post (most likely) or chooses to step aside immediately and allow an acting leader to take charge, as happened after Ed Miliband stepped down

    She stays on as PM but someone takes over the leadership of the party on an interim basis? Who'd want to do that, and for what reason?
    In that scenario we the acting leader would likely become acting PM.
  • FPT

    geoffw said:

    No Deal (exit to WTO rules) is the default if the May Deal falls.

    If we'd spent the last years preparing for no deal and stating that it was the default, and that we'd like a deal, but weren't particularly fussed because we'd be fine either way, we would both not need a deal, and also have a fabulous one.
    You can either prepare for No Deal or deny the consequences of No Deal, but not both.
    I don't deny the temporary inconvenience, but I'm referring primarily to reassuring the public.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,384

    It depends surely if May remains in post (most likely) or chooses to step aside immediately and allow an acting leader to take charge, as happened after Ed Miliband stepped down

    She ain't going to go voluntarily - she'll serve until the last possible day
    As I said that is most likely but there is a not-insignificant chance she would see her duty having lost a vote of no confidence as being to stand down immediately. She wouldn't view it as voluntary. It isn't likely but if you're gambling on something being a sure thing it is surely important to consider all eventualities.
    Hmm No, I think her sense of duty would at least extend to manning the ship as PM till a new succesor is decided from within the ranks..
  • Pulpstar said:

    It depends surely if May remains in post (most likely) or chooses to step aside immediately and allow an acting leader to take charge, as happened after Ed Miliband stepped down

    She ain't going to go voluntarily - she'll serve until the last possible day
    As I said that is most likely but there is a not-insignificant chance she would see her duty having lost a vote of no confidence as being to stand down immediately. She wouldn't view it as voluntary. It isn't likely but if you're gambling on something being a sure thing it is surely important to consider all eventualities.
    Hmm No, I think her sense of duty would at least extend to manning the ship as PM till a new succesor is decided from within the ranks..
    Precisely.
  • FPT

    geoffw said:

    No Deal (exit to WTO rules) is the default if the May Deal falls.

    If we'd spent the last years preparing for no deal and stating that it was the default, and that we'd like a deal, but weren't particularly fussed because we'd be fine either way, we would both not need a deal, and also have a fabulous one.
    You can either prepare for No Deal or deny the consequences of No Deal, but not both.
    You can if you are not a Chicken Little pessimist who thinks that No Deal after 2 years of preparations would be a disaster.
  • great analysis, surely the vote in the HoC will also have an impact, if if there is a massive defeat in the Commons for the deal.....good point about the Xmas post as well. I cant see there being a single candidate (a la Ledsom standing aside) surely the members will demand a say?
  • Pulpstar said:

    It depends surely if May remains in post (most likely) or chooses to step aside immediately and allow an acting leader to take charge, as happened after Ed Miliband stepped down

    She ain't going to go voluntarily - she'll serve until the last possible day
    As I said that is most likely but there is a not-insignificant chance she would see her duty having lost a vote of no confidence as being to stand down immediately. She wouldn't view it as voluntary. It isn't likely but if you're gambling on something being a sure thing it is surely important to consider all eventualities.
    Hmm No, I think her sense of duty would at least extend to manning the ship as PM till a new succesor is decided from within the ranks..
    I think so too, hence why I said it is most likely, but is theoretically possible. Gambling is about odds isn't it not what is most likely.
  • I may be wrong but TM deal does the following

    Controls immigration
    Guarantees EU and UK citizens rights
    Keeps trade flowing while negotiating a trade deal
    Exits the CFP and Farming policy
    Ensures visa free travel
    Keeps EHIC
    Keeps free roaming in the EU
    And no doubt more.

    Gisela Stuart disagrees with you:

    "It is also hard to trust Downing Street to want or be able to deliver on its supposedly desired outcome, or improve on the backstop from such a weak position. Meanwhile, it is also asking us to believe that in the next phase of negotiations it can secure an agreement that ends free movement, exits the customs union, leaves the jurisdiction of the ECJ, controls our fisheries, exits the common agricultural policy and ends payments to the EU budget. Based on the track record of the negotiations, this is wishful thinking. The future treaty will also require approval by 27 member states in accordance with their parliamentary structures at a time when we have already handed over £39 billion and we are bound to a backstop that delivers the EU’s preferred solution to the Irish border...... Leave voters no longer believe that Downing Street can keep its word, and no longer trust the EU to negotiate in good faith. The next stage of negotiations are full of risk that what we were promised will disappear."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/11/20/government-wants-us-trust-brexit-given-us-no-reason-do/
  • great analysis, surely the vote in the HoC will also have an impact, if if there is a massive defeat in the Commons for the deal.....good point about the Xmas post as well. I cant see there being a single candidate (a la Ledsom standing aside) surely the members will demand a say?

    The members can want a say they can't demand it.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 28,754

    FPT

    geoffw said:

    No Deal (exit to WTO rules) is the default if the May Deal falls.

    If we'd spent the last years preparing for no deal and stating that it was the default, and that we'd like a deal, but weren't particularly fussed because we'd be fine either way, we would both not need a deal, and also have a fabulous one.
    You can either prepare for No Deal or deny the consequences of No Deal, but not both.
    You can if you are not a Chicken Little pessimist who thinks that No Deal after 2 years of preparations would be a disaster.
    What should the plan for the Irish border under no deal have been two years ago? What about Dover-Calais?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 14,832
    It's kind of ironic because out of all the Trump's Ivanka always seemed to be the sensible one...
  • XenonXenon Posts: 471

    I may be wrong but TM deal does the following

    Controls immigration
    Guarantees EU and UK citizens rights
    Keeps trade flowing while negotiating a trade deal
    Exits the CFP and Farming policy
    Ensures visa free travel
    Keeps EHIC
    Keeps free roaming in the EU
    And no doubt more.

    Gisela Stuart disagrees with you:

    "It is also hard to trust Downing Street to want or be able to deliver on its supposedly desired outcome, or improve on the backstop from such a weak position. Meanwhile, it is also asking us to believe that in the next phase of negotiations it can secure an agreement that ends free movement, exits the customs union, leaves the jurisdiction of the ECJ, controls our fisheries, exits the common agricultural policy and ends payments to the EU budget. Based on the track record of the negotiations, this is wishful thinking. The future treaty will also require approval by 27 member states in accordance with their parliamentary structures at a time when we have already handed over £39 billion and we are bound to a backstop that delivers the EU’s preferred solution to the Irish border...... Leave voters no longer believe that Downing Street can keep its word, and no longer trust the EU to negotiate in good faith. The next stage of negotiations are full of risk that what we were promised will disappear."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/11/20/government-wants-us-trust-brexit-given-us-no-reason-do/
    If that is true then there is no way we could sign that deal. I'd rather remain frankly than that situation.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 22,725
    edited November 2018

    FPT

    geoffw said:

    No Deal (exit to WTO rules) is the default if the May Deal falls.

    If we'd spent the last years preparing for no deal and stating that it was the default, and that we'd like a deal, but weren't particularly fussed because we'd be fine either way, we would both not need a deal, and also have a fabulous one.
    You can either prepare for No Deal or deny the consequences of No Deal, but not both.
    You can if you are not a Chicken Little pessimist who thinks that No Deal after 2 years of preparations would be a disaster.
    Repeating a question I asked of Xenon yesterday (never got a reply from him or anyone else) - what sort of preparations should have been done? Obviously I don't expect you to be able to cover the entire range of all economic activity, but a few examples will suffice, say on on medical exports to the EU, on agricultural exports to the EU, on governing law for derivative contracts, on the regulatory framework for aerospace manufacturing, on the open skies agreements, on how we avoid customs delays at Calais, that sort of thing.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,384

    Pulpstar said:

    It depends surely if May remains in post (most likely) or chooses to step aside immediately and allow an acting leader to take charge, as happened after Ed Miliband stepped down

    She ain't going to go voluntarily - she'll serve until the last possible day
    As I said that is most likely but there is a not-insignificant chance she would see her duty having lost a vote of no confidence as being to stand down immediately. She wouldn't view it as voluntary. It isn't likely but if you're gambling on something being a sure thing it is surely important to consider all eventualities.
    Hmm No, I think her sense of duty would at least extend to manning the ship as PM till a new succesor is decided from within the ranks..
    I think so too, hence why I said it is most likely, but is theoretically possible. Gambling is about odds isn't it not what is most likely.
    Sure, but there are several routes to winning this bet now:

    i) No VoNC before the year end
    ii) May wins VoNC before year end
    iii) May loses VoNC or resigns before year end but the timetable takes her over the line as PM/leader till after year end.

    Ways the bet loses
    i) May loses VoNC or resigns before year end and an immediate interim replacement is found and made PM whilst the contest for leadership goes on
    ii) May loses VoNC or resigns before year end and a successor is in place before year end.

    Those are the probabilities to weigh up.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 14,832
    On Topic: Surely the problem with the premise of this thread header is in the title:

    "If the ERG plotters get their 48 letters today..."

    ERG = Piss and Wind so they won't get the 48 letters...
  • Since the PM is very unlikely to lose the VNOC, even if the letters go in, surely her supporters should write a few letters, triggering the vote, and settling the matter for a year.
  • Q: [To Rees-Mogg] Yesterday it looked like the night of the long knives. Do you accept it now looks like the morning of blunt sticks?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,384
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It depends surely if May remains in post (most likely) or chooses to step aside immediately and allow an acting leader to take charge, as happened after Ed Miliband stepped down

    She ain't going to go voluntarily - she'll serve until the last possible day
    As I said that is most likely but there is a not-insignificant chance she would see her duty having lost a vote of no confidence as being to stand down immediately. She wouldn't view it as voluntary. It isn't likely but if you're gambling on something being a sure thing it is surely important to consider all eventualities.
    Hmm No, I think her sense of duty would at least extend to manning the ship as PM till a new succesor is decided from within the ranks..
    I think so too, hence why I said it is most likely, but is theoretically possible. Gambling is about odds isn't it not what is most likely.
    Sure, but there are several routes to winning this bet now:

    i) No VoNC before the year end
    ii) May wins VoNC before year end
    iii) May loses VoNC or resigns before year end but the timetable takes her over the line as PM/leader till after year end.

    Ways the bet loses
    i) May loses VoNC or resigns before year end and an immediate interim replacement is found and made PM whilst the contest for leadership goes on
    ii) May loses VoNC or resigns before year end and a successor is in place before year end.

    Those are the probabilities to weigh up.
    Every passing day decreases the probability of
    "ii) May loses VoNC or resigns before year end and a successor is in place before year end." making the bet lose.
  • agingjb said:

    Since the PM is very unlikely to lose the VNOC, even if the letters go in, surely her supporters should write a few letters, triggering the vote, and settling the matter for a year.

    She could win a No Confidence vote and still resign after her deal is defeated in Parliament.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 10,893

    tlg86 said:

    It depends surely if May remains in post (most likely) or chooses to step aside immediately and allow an acting leader to take charge, as happened after Ed Miliband stepped down

    She stays on as PM but someone takes over the leadership of the party on an interim basis? Who'd want to do that, and for what reason?
    In that scenario we the acting leader would likely become acting PM.
    There's no such thing as "acting PM" - they would be the next PM, if not the next Tory leader. And presumably that would have to be someone who didn't want to be the next Tory leader.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 14,832
    edited November 2018

    Q: [To Rees-Mogg] Yesterday it looked like the night of the long knives. Do you accept it now looks like the morning of blunt sticks?

    I mean seriously, how stupid do you have to be to march out of Parliament and announce to the worlds media you're launching a dramatic leadership coup against the Prime Minister and not make sure you've got the required number of letters all ready to go first?

    Fools!
  • timmotimmo Posts: 968
    GIN1138 said:

    Q: [To Rees-Mogg] Yesterday it looked like the night of the long knives. Do you accept it now looks like the morning of blunt sticks?

    I mean seriously, how stupid do you have to be to march out of Parliament and announce to the worlds media you're launching a dramatic leadership coup against the Prime Minister and not make sure you've got the required number of letters all ready to go?

    Fools!
    Full of sound and fury signifying nothing...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,384
    GIN1138 said:

    Q: [To Rees-Mogg] Yesterday it looked like the night of the long knives. Do you accept it now looks like the morning of blunt sticks?

    I mean seriously, how stupid do you have to be to march out of Parliament and announce to the worlds media you're launching a dramatic leadership coup against the Prime Minister and not make sure you've got the required number of letters all ready to go?

    Fools!
    I know it's not a military coup or anything but it did remind me a touch of the whole Turkey situation; a pugnacious tin eared leader taking to the airwaves after a botched ousting attempt !
    Interesting as our relationship with the EU looks very much like a very soft Turkey+ if the deal goes through.
  • Snow White missing in action, apparently.
  • great analysis, surely the vote in the HoC will also have an impact, if if there is a massive defeat in the Commons for the deal.....good point about the Xmas post as well. I cant see there being a single candidate (a la Ledsom standing aside) surely the members will demand a say?

    I most certainly would (and my good lady)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,384
    edited November 2018

    Snow White missing in action, apparently.
    Mogg really should get a better tailor, for a man with a similiar frame - he's no Anthony Eden in the style stakes.
  • One thing which puzzles me in the current brouhaha is what exactly the DUP want. I can see what they don't like about the proposed withdrawal agreement, but they also don't want a hard border in Ireland and they still support Brexit. So the pressure they are putting on the PM is aimed at achieving what change, exactly?
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 3,330
    Pulpstar said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Q: [To Rees-Mogg] Yesterday it looked like the night of the long knives. Do you accept it now looks like the morning of blunt sticks?

    I mean seriously, how stupid do you have to be to march out of Parliament and announce to the worlds media you're launching a dramatic leadership coup against the Prime Minister and not make sure you've got the required number of letters all ready to go?

    Fools!
    I know it's not a military coup or anything but it did remind me a touch of the whole Turkey situation; a pugnacious tin eared leader taking to the airwaves after a botched ousting attempt !
    Interesting as our relationship with the EU looks very much like a very soft Turkey+ if the deal goes through.
    Not sure you want a soft 🦃 at this time of year :)
  • XenonXenon Posts: 471

    FPT

    geoffw said:

    No Deal (exit to WTO rules) is the default if the May Deal falls.

    If we'd spent the last years preparing for no deal and stating that it was the default, and that we'd like a deal, but weren't particularly fussed because we'd be fine either way, we would both not need a deal, and also have a fabulous one.
    You can either prepare for No Deal or deny the consequences of No Deal, but not both.
    You can if you are not a Chicken Little pessimist who thinks that No Deal after 2 years of preparations would be a disaster.
    Repeating a question I asked of Xenon yesterday (never got a reply from him or anyone else) - what sort of preparations should have been done? Obviously I don't expect you to be able to cover the entire range of all economic activity, but a few examples will suffice, say on on medical exports to the EU, on agricultural exports to the EU, on governing law for derivative contracts, on the regulatory framework for aerospace manufacturing, on the open skies agreements, on how we avoid customs delays at Calais, that sort of thing.
    Come to some sort of agreement on how it's going to work.

    If you don't think any preparations are necessary then what exactly are you worried about with no deal? Sounds like you believe it will run very smoothly.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,384

    One thing which puzzles me in the current brouhaha is what exactly the DUP want. I can see what they don't like about the proposed withdrawal agreement, but they also don't want a hard border in Ireland and they still support Brexit. So the pressure they are putting on the PM is aimed at achieving what change, exactly?

    Not to be subject to the single market in goods within the backstop ?
  • "Steve Baker, the ERG deputy chairman, has also been giving interviews. He says it is “very difficult” to see how there won’t be 48 Tory MPs demanding a no confidence vote in Theresa May if she loses the “meaningful vote”. But he does now know if the 48 letters will go in beforehand, he says."


    lolololol
  • Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It depends surely if May remains in post (most likely) or chooses to step aside immediately and allow an acting leader to take charge, as happened after Ed Miliband stepped down

    She ain't going to go voluntarily - she'll serve until the last possible day
    As I said that is most likely but there is a not-insignificant chance she would see her duty having lost a vote of no confidence as being to stand down immediately. She wouldn't view it as voluntary. It isn't likely but if you're gambling on something being a sure thing it is surely important to consider all eventualities.
    Hmm No, I think her sense of duty would at least extend to manning the ship as PM till a new succesor is decided from within the ranks..
    I think so too, hence why I said it is most likely, but is theoretically possible. Gambling is about odds isn't it not what is most likely.
    Sure, but there are several routes to winning this bet now:

    i) No VoNC before the year end
    ii) May wins VoNC before year end
    iii) May loses VoNC or resigns before year end but the timetable takes her over the line as PM/leader till after year end.

    Ways the bet loses
    i) May loses VoNC or resigns before year end and an immediate interim replacement is found and made PM whilst the contest for leadership goes on
    ii) May loses VoNC or resigns before year end and a successor is in place before year end.

    Those are the probabilities to weigh up.
    Agreed 100%. I was just pointing out that 2.i) is a possibility that does exist. It is in my view unlikely and laying 2018 is good value but it isn't 100% even if 2.ii) is no longer possible.
  • The requirement is for the EU to accept the withdrawal agreement under QMV - so that Spain does not have a veto on the withdrawal agreement.

    However the long term deal, which will replace the backstop, is something else. Presumably it is similar to the Canadian trade deal or the Ukrainian association agreement in terms of the process of ratification?

    Does this mean that a national Parliament, or even a sub-national Parliament like the Belgium German one, could block a future trade deal and thus enforce the backstop?
  • They are a disgrace. Not a woman in sight and no diversity.

    They have no awareness of just how bad that photo looks
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 14,832

    One thing which puzzles me in the current brouhaha is what exactly the DUP want. I can see what they don't like about the proposed withdrawal agreement, but they also don't want a hard border in Ireland and they still support Brexit. So the pressure they are putting on the PM is aimed at achieving what change, exactly?

    Canada+++++ Without a hard border on the Island of Ireland?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 4,818
    Can't see there being no contest, unless one of the two selected is overwhelmingly and obviously outgunned.
    Besides, the Conservative Party needs the debate, to see where it stands. It is 13 years since a contested election after all.
    Are they radical free market proponents? Or not? More privatisation, or less Carillion?
    Are they comfortable with societal changes of recent years? Willing to live and let live? Or not? Personal responsibility or Nanny State?
    What is their education policy? It was grammar schools. Now it isn't. What is it?
    Are they fighting the War on Drugs? Crime in general. Either you believe in more Police or not.
    Do they believe in more devolution? In England as well.
    Do they have a transport policy? Or is Grayling to stay in post?
    Environment and agriculture. Does the market take the lead, or are subsidies and incentives and regulations the way forward?

    These are some of the questions off the top of my head for a leadership contest.
    Oh, and Brexit.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 20,092
    edited November 2018
    Pulpstar said:

    One thing which puzzles me in the current brouhaha is what exactly the DUP want. I can see what they don't like about the proposed withdrawal agreement, but they also don't want a hard border in Ireland and they still support Brexit. So the pressure they are putting on the PM is aimed at achieving what change, exactly?

    Not to be subject to the single market in goods within the backstop ?
    Get a trade deal for the whole UK that avoids a hard border. Squares every circle.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 22,725
    edited November 2018
    Xenon said:

    FPT

    geoffw said:

    No Deal (exit to WTO rules) is the default if the May Deal falls.

    If we'd spent the last years preparing for no deal and stating that it was the default, and that we'd like a deal, but weren't particularly fussed because we'd be fine either way, we would both not need a deal, and also have a fabulous one.
    You can either prepare for No Deal or deny the consequences of No Deal, but not both.
    You can if you are not a Chicken Little pessimist who thinks that No Deal after 2 years of preparations would be a disaster.
    Repeating a question I asked of Xenon yesterday (never got a reply from him or anyone else) - what sort of preparations should have been done? Obviously I don't expect you to be able to cover the entire range of all economic activity, but a few examples will suffice, say on on medical exports to the EU, on agricultural exports to the EU, on governing law for derivative contracts, on the regulatory framework for aerospace manufacturing, on the open skies agreements, on how we avoid customs delays at Calais, that sort of thing.
    Come to some sort of agreement on how it's going to work.

    If you don't think any preparations are necessary then what exactly are you worried about with no deal? Sounds like you believe it will run very smoothly.
    LOL! If we 'come to some sort of agreement' then we've done a deal. That's what the 500 pages are about.

    If there's no deal, then No, it won't run smoothly, I just want to know what the UK can do, unilaterally (which by definition is what we are talking about if there's no deal) to prevent disruption on those headings. If you find this too hard a question, how about the first one - how we unilaterally maintain medical exports to the EU in the absence of a deal.
  • XenonXenon Posts: 471

    They are a disgrace. Not a woman in sight and no diversity.

    They have no awareness of just how bad that photo looks
    White men really are despised in this country aren't they?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,384

    Pulpstar said:

    One thing which puzzles me in the current brouhaha is what exactly the DUP want. I can see what they don't like about the proposed withdrawal agreement, but they also don't want a hard border in Ireland and they still support Brexit. So the pressure they are putting on the PM is aimed at achieving what change, exactly?

    Not to be subject to the single market in goods within the backstop ?
    Get a trade deal for the whole UK that avoids a hard border. Squares every circle.
    The issue is there isn't time for that before 29th March ! The Trade Deal will take many years to thrash out, but we need to leave to transition first.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,774

    They are a disgrace. Not a woman in sight and no diversity.

    They have no awareness of just how bad that photo looks
    I disagree with them, but I don't consider that their racial origins are relevant to the issue at hand.
  • I suspect a few letters might even be retracted after the ERG's performance this morning - who'd want to be associated with that rabble?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 10,893

    They are a disgrace. Not a woman in sight and no diversity.

    They have no awareness of just how bad that photo looks
    Makes a change for an organisation (if that's the right term) to not be obsessed with such nonsense.

    You actually damage your argument against them by making that point.
  • Xenon said:

    They are a disgrace. Not a woman in sight and no diversity.

    They have no awareness of just how bad that photo looks
    White men really are despised in this country aren't they?
    The despicable ones are, certainly.
  • agingjb said:

    Since the PM is very unlikely to lose the VNOC, even if the letters go in, surely her supporters should write a few letters, triggering the vote, and settling the matter for a year.

    She could win a No Confidence vote and still resign after her deal is defeated in Parliament.
    Absolutely not. It is amazing how you fail to see TM does not do quitting. If she wins a vnoc she is going nowhere for one year
  • They are a disgrace. Not a woman in sight and no diversity.

    They have no awareness of just how bad that photo looks
    There is diversity or does diversity only mean ethnicity now?

    Take educational and childhood upbringing. David Davis's backstory is very diverse to Rees Mogg's.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,774

    One thing which puzzles me in the current brouhaha is what exactly the DUP want. I can see what they don't like about the proposed withdrawal agreement, but they also don't want a hard border in Ireland and they still support Brexit. So the pressure they are putting on the PM is aimed at achieving what change, exactly?

    Everyone knows what they don't want.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    One thing which puzzles me in the current brouhaha is what exactly the DUP want. I can see what they don't like about the proposed withdrawal agreement, but they also don't want a hard border in Ireland and they still support Brexit. So the pressure they are putting on the PM is aimed at achieving what change, exactly?

    Not to be subject to the single market in goods within the backstop ?
    Get a trade deal for the whole UK that avoids a hard border. Squares every circle.
    The issue is there isn't time for that before 29th March ! The Trade Deal will take many years to thrash out, but we need to leave to transition first.
    So agree a transition but don't agree anything permanent before the transition. My issue is us sacrificing permanent commitments to get a temporary transition. I have no issues as all with temporary commitments that last as long as the transition.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,384
    Sean_F said:

    One thing which puzzles me in the current brouhaha is what exactly the DUP want. I can see what they don't like about the proposed withdrawal agreement, but they also don't want a hard border in Ireland and they still support Brexit. So the pressure they are putting on the PM is aimed at achieving what change, exactly?

    Everyone knows what they don't want.
    Unification of Ireland comes into play if we Brexit I think.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 4,818
    Xenon said:

    They are a disgrace. Not a woman in sight and no diversity.

    They have no awareness of just how bad that photo looks
    White men really are despised in this country aren't they?
    Those 7 aren't very popular round these parts.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,384

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    One thing which puzzles me in the current brouhaha is what exactly the DUP want. I can see what they don't like about the proposed withdrawal agreement, but they also don't want a hard border in Ireland and they still support Brexit. So the pressure they are putting on the PM is aimed at achieving what change, exactly?

    Not to be subject to the single market in goods within the backstop ?
    Get a trade deal for the whole UK that avoids a hard border. Squares every circle.
    The issue is there isn't time for that before 29th March ! The Trade Deal will take many years to thrash out, but we need to leave to transition first.
    So agree a transition but don't agree anything permanent before the transition. My issue is us sacrificing permanent commitments to get a temporary transition. I have no issues as all with temporary commitments that last as long as the transition.
    Aren't the single market rules for NI the backstop though ?
  • The requirement is for the EU to accept the withdrawal agreement under QMV - so that Spain does not have a veto on the withdrawal agreement.

    However the long term deal, which will replace the backstop, is something else. Presumably it is similar to the Canadian trade deal or the Ukrainian association agreement in terms of the process of ratification?

    Does this mean that a national Parliament, or even a sub-national Parliament like the Belgium German one, could block a future trade deal and thus enforce the backstop?

    Yes. Which is why the backstop is an absurd thing to agree. The backstop should be that we all want an agreement and that's it.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 28,754

    One thing which puzzles me in the current brouhaha is what exactly the DUP want. I can see what they don't like about the proposed withdrawal agreement, but they also don't want a hard border in Ireland and they still support Brexit. So the pressure they are putting on the PM is aimed at achieving what change, exactly?

    They want Brexit to be stopped without them getting the blame for it. (They’re not alone in that.)
  • Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    One thing which puzzles me in the current brouhaha is what exactly the DUP want. I can see what they don't like about the proposed withdrawal agreement, but they also don't want a hard border in Ireland and they still support Brexit. So the pressure they are putting on the PM is aimed at achieving what change, exactly?

    Not to be subject to the single market in goods within the backstop ?
    Get a trade deal for the whole UK that avoids a hard border. Squares every circle.
    The issue is there isn't time for that before 29th March ! The Trade Deal will take many years to thrash out, but we need to leave to transition first.
    So agree a transition but don't agree anything permanent before the transition. My issue is us sacrificing permanent commitments to get a temporary transition. I have no issues as all with temporary commitments that last as long as the transition.
    Aren't the single market rules for NI the backstop though ?
    Which is the problem. We should never have agreed to that.
  • NormNorm Posts: 1,134
    Sean_F said:

    They are a disgrace. Not a woman in sight and no diversity.

    They have no awareness of just how bad that photo looks
    I disagree with them, but I don't consider that their racial origins are relevant to the issue at hand.
    As for women Andrea Jenkyns, Esther McVey and Andrea Leadsom attract more than their fair share of vitriol from the FBPE nazis and others so who can blame them for not appearing on this platform.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,774

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    One thing which puzzles me in the current brouhaha is what exactly the DUP want. I can see what they don't like about the proposed withdrawal agreement, but they also don't want a hard border in Ireland and they still support Brexit. So the pressure they are putting on the PM is aimed at achieving what change, exactly?

    Not to be subject to the single market in goods within the backstop ?
    Get a trade deal for the whole UK that avoids a hard border. Squares every circle.
    The issue is there isn't time for that before 29th March ! The Trade Deal will take many years to thrash out, but we need to leave to transition first.
    So agree a transition but don't agree anything permanent before the transition. My issue is us sacrificing permanent commitments to get a temporary transition. I have no issues as all with temporary commitments that last as long as the transition.
    As I see it, the EU has no more desire for the backstop to be permanent than we have. It means the violation of their four freedoms, as (in their eyes) we get privileged access to their markets without accepting freedom of movement.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 2,483

    Xenon said:

    FPT

    geoffw said:

    No Deal (exit to WTO rules) is the default if the May Deal falls.

    If we'd spent the last years preparing for no deal and stating that it was the default, and that we'd like a deal, but weren't particularly fussed because we'd be fine either way, we would both not need a deal, and also have a fabulous one.
    You can either prepare for No Deal or deny the consequences of No Deal, but not both.
    You can if you are not a Chicken Little pessimist who thinks that No Deal after 2 years of preparations would be a disaster.
    Repeating a question I asked of Xenon yesterday (never got a reply from him or anyone else) - what sort of preparations should have been done? Obviously I don't expect you to be able to cover the entire range of all economic activity, but a few examples will suffice, say on on medical exports to the EU, on agricultural exports to the EU, on governing law for derivative contracts, on the regulatory framework for aerospace manufacturing, on the open skies agreements, on how we avoid customs delays at Calais, that sort of thing.
    Come to some sort of agreement on how it's going to work.

    If you don't think any preparations are necessary then what exactly are you worried about with no deal? Sounds like you believe it will run very smoothly.
    LOL! If we 'come to some sort of agreement' then we've done a deal. That's what the 500 pages are about.

    If there's no deal, then No, it won't run smoothly, I just want to know what the UK can do, unilaterally (which by definition is what we are talking about if there's no deal) to prevent disruption on those headings. If you find this too hard a question, how about the first one - how we unilaterally maintain medical exports to the EU in the absence of a deal.
    Do you mean medical imports?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,173

    agingjb said:

    Since the PM is very unlikely to lose the VNOC, even if the letters go in, surely her supporters should write a few letters, triggering the vote, and settling the matter for a year.

    She could win a No Confidence vote and still resign after her deal is defeated in Parliament.
    Looks like the great majority of disgruntled Tory MPs have moved on to the failure of the deal being the decider on their letters going in. Which is fair enough.

    (Although if the deal gets through only because of the votes of Labour MPs, I can't see that being great for her longevity as PM either.)
  • They are a disgrace. Not a woman in sight and no diversity.

    They have no awareness of just how bad that photo looks
    There is diversity or does diversity only mean ethnicity now?

    Take educational and childhood upbringing. David Davis's backstory is very diverse to Rees Mogg's.
    It is just about the worst photograph of ERG you could imagine.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,384

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    One thing which puzzles me in the current brouhaha is what exactly the DUP want. I can see what they don't like about the proposed withdrawal agreement, but they also don't want a hard border in Ireland and they still support Brexit. So the pressure they are putting on the PM is aimed at achieving what change, exactly?

    Not to be subject to the single market in goods within the backstop ?
    Get a trade deal for the whole UK that avoids a hard border. Squares every circle.
    The issue is there isn't time for that before 29th March ! The Trade Deal will take many years to thrash out, but we need to leave to transition first.
    So agree a transition but don't agree anything permanent before the transition. My issue is us sacrificing permanent commitments to get a temporary transition. I have no issues as all with temporary commitments that last as long as the transition.
    Aren't the single market rules for NI the backstop though ?
    Which is the problem. We should never have agreed to that.
    Sean_F said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    One thing which puzzles me in the current brouhaha is what exactly the DUP want. I can see what they don't like about the proposed withdrawal agreement, but they also don't want a hard border in Ireland and they still support Brexit. So the pressure they are putting on the PM is aimed at achieving what change, exactly?

    Not to be subject to the single market in goods within the backstop ?
    Get a trade deal for the whole UK that avoids a hard border. Squares every circle.
    The issue is there isn't time for that before 29th March ! The Trade Deal will take many years to thrash out, but we need to leave to transition first.
    So agree a transition but don't agree anything permanent before the transition. My issue is us sacrificing permanent commitments to get a temporary transition. I have no issues as all with temporary commitments that last as long as the transition.
    As I see it, the EU has no more desire for the backstop to be permanent than we have. It means the violation of their four freedoms, as (in their eyes) we get privileged access to their markets without accepting freedom of movement.
    The backstop is mutually uncomfortable.
  • NotchNotch Posts: 145
    GIN1138 said:

    Q: [To Rees-Mogg] Yesterday it looked like the night of the long knives. Do you accept it now looks like the morning of blunt sticks?

    I mean seriously, how stupid do you have to be to march out of Parliament and announce to the worlds media you're launching a dramatic leadership coup against the Prime Minister and not make sure you've got the required number of letters all ready to go?

    Fools!
    How stupid do you think they are?

    Beware of underestimating your opponents' capabilities and intelligence. If JRM were really a "fool" there would probably already be widely acknowledged examples of his foolish actions, as there are for example for Nicholas Soames. Even those who agree with Soames politically would agree he's an intellectually challenged oaf. Sometimes it's sensible to act slowly, to encircle in fog and at night. The choreography of JRM's "look Theresa May right in the eye" speech, with Graham Brady sitting behind him, was masterful. But when you've got 8 members of the cabinet in your party-in-all-but-name, sending in letters to Graham isn't the only string to your bow.

    You could ask a similar question about Chuka Umunna and Anna Soubry and the "successful" push for the government to release economic forecasts for May's WA, WTO, and Remain. Why on earth get them published only a few days before the meaningful vote? Many a slip! I wouldn't be jigging for joy if I were Umunna and Soubry. Something could go wham and blow the forecasts out of the water.

    As for a Tory party membership vote taking months after the PCP has NCed Theresa May and whittled down the candidates to two, I think this is fantasy.
  • geoffw said:

    Xenon said:

    FPT

    geoffw said:

    No Deal (exit to WTO rules) is the default if the May Deal falls.

    If we'd spent the last years preparing for no deal and stating that it was the default, and that we'd like a deal, but weren't particularly fussed because we'd be fine either way, we would both not need a deal, and also have a fabulous one.
    You can either prepare for No Deal or deny the consequences of No Deal, but not both.
    You can if you are not a Chicken Little pessimist who thinks that No Deal after 2 years of preparations would be a disaster.
    Repeating a question I asked of Xenon yesterday (never got a reply from him or anyone else) - what sort of preparations should have been done? Obviously I don't expect you to be able to cover the entire range of all economic activity, but a few examples will suffice, say on on medical exports to the EU, on agricultural exports to the EU, on governing law for derivative contracts, on the regulatory framework for aerospace manufacturing, on the open skies agreements, on how we avoid customs delays at Calais, that sort of thing.
    Come to some sort of agreement on how it's going to work.

    If you don't think any preparations are necessary then what exactly are you worried about with no deal? Sounds like you believe it will run very smoothly.
    LOL! If we 'come to some sort of agreement' then we've done a deal. That's what the 500 pages are about.

    If there's no deal, then No, it won't run smoothly, I just want to know what the UK can do, unilaterally (which by definition is what we are talking about if there's no deal) to prevent disruption on those headings. If you find this too hard a question, how about the first one - how we unilaterally maintain medical exports to the EU in the absence of a deal.
    Do you mean medical imports?
    No, I mean exports. We can unilaterally let anything in.
  • dixiedean said:

    Xenon said:

    They are a disgrace. Not a woman in sight and no diversity.

    They have no awareness of just how bad that photo looks
    White men really are despised in this country aren't they?
    Those 7 aren't very popular round these parts.
    Not in our household and we are voting members of the party
  • Sean_F said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    One thing which puzzles me in the current brouhaha is what exactly the DUP want. I can see what they don't like about the proposed withdrawal agreement, but they also don't want a hard border in Ireland and they still support Brexit. So the pressure they are putting on the PM is aimed at achieving what change, exactly?

    Not to be subject to the single market in goods within the backstop ?
    Get a trade deal for the whole UK that avoids a hard border. Squares every circle.
    The issue is there isn't time for that before 29th March ! The Trade Deal will take many years to thrash out, but we need to leave to transition first.
    So agree a transition but don't agree anything permanent before the transition. My issue is us sacrificing permanent commitments to get a temporary transition. I have no issues as all with temporary commitments that last as long as the transition.
    As I see it, the EU has no more desire for the backstop to be permanent than we have. It means the violation of their four freedoms, as (in their eyes) we get privileged access to their markets without accepting freedom of movement.
    Agreed. The backstop should never have become an issue, that is for the future relationship.
  • NotchNotch Posts: 145
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    It depends surely if May remains in post (most likely) or chooses to step aside immediately and allow an acting leader to take charge, as happened after Ed Miliband stepped down

    She stays on as PM but someone takes over the leadership of the party on an interim basis? Who'd want to do that, and for what reason?
    In that scenario we the acting leader would likely become acting PM.
    There's no such thing as "acting PM" - they would be the next PM, if not the next Tory leader. And presumably that would have to be someone who didn't want to be the next Tory leader.
    Well I'm green on David Lidington :)
  • One thing which puzzles me in the current brouhaha is what exactly the DUP want. I can see what they don't like about the proposed withdrawal agreement, but they also don't want a hard border in Ireland and they still support Brexit. So the pressure they are putting on the PM is aimed at achieving what change, exactly?

    They want Brexit to be stopped without them getting the blame for it. (They’re not alone in that.)
    If so they are doing a jolly good job of hiding it, because Sammy Wilson was saying yesterday that one of the conditions for the confidence & supply agreement was that the government should deliver a successful Brexit.
  • XenonXenon Posts: 471

    Xenon said:

    FPT

    geoffw said:

    No Deal (exit to WTO rules) is the default if the May Deal falls.

    If we'd spent the last years preparing for no deal and stating that it was the default, and that we'd like a deal, but weren't particularly fussed because we'd be fine either way, we would both not need a deal, and also have a fabulous one.
    You can either prepare for No Deal or deny the consequences of No Deal, but not both.
    You can if you are not a Chicken Little pessimist who thinks that No Deal after 2 years of preparations would be a disaster.
    Repeating a question I asked of Xenon yesterday (never got a reply from him or anyone else) - what sort of preparations should have been done? Obviously I don't expect you to be able to cover the entire range of all economic activity, but a few examples will suffice, say on on medical exports to the EU, on agricultural exports to the EU, on governing law for derivative contracts, on the regulatory framework for aerospace manufacturing, on the open skies agreements, on how we avoid customs delays at Calais, that sort of thing.
    Come to some sort of agreement on how it's going to work.

    If you don't think any preparations are necessary then what exactly are you worried about with no deal? Sounds like you believe it will run very smoothly.
    LOL! If we 'come to some sort of agreement' then we've done a deal. That's what the 500 pages are about.

    If there's no deal, then No, it won't run smoothly, I just want to know what the UK can do, unilaterally (which by definition is what we are talking about if there's no deal) to prevent disruption on those headings. If you find this too hard a question, how about the first one - how we unilaterally maintain medical exports to the EU in the absence of a deal.
    They could have got a limited "deal" keeping things running if they'd said we'd go for hard brexit with WTO rules.

    Instead they made no planning for this eventuality at all and came up with the current dog's dinner that no one wants.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 14,832
    Sean_F said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    One thing which puzzles me in the current brouhaha is what exactly the DUP want. I can see what they don't like about the proposed withdrawal agreement, but they also don't want a hard border in Ireland and they still support Brexit. So the pressure they are putting on the PM is aimed at achieving what change, exactly?

    Not to be subject to the single market in goods within the backstop ?
    Get a trade deal for the whole UK that avoids a hard border. Squares every circle.
    The issue is there isn't time for that before 29th March ! The Trade Deal will take many years to thrash out, but we need to leave to transition first.
    So agree a transition but don't agree anything permanent before the transition. My issue is us sacrificing permanent commitments to get a temporary transition. I have no issues as all with temporary commitments that last as long as the transition.
    As I see it, the EU has no more desire for the backstop to be permanent than we have. It means the violation of their four freedoms, as (in their eyes) we get privileged access to their markets without accepting freedom of movement.
    What about Selmayr saying the price we've got to pay for Brexit is Northern Ireland?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,774

    Out of curiosity, what happens if the draft deal is rejected by EU ministers (France and Spain seem unhappy?)
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,601

    One thing which puzzles me in the current brouhaha is what exactly the DUP want. I can see what they don't like about the proposed withdrawal agreement, but they also don't want a hard border in Ireland and they still support Brexit. So the pressure they are putting on the PM is aimed at achieving what change, exactly?

    There is no chance of a hard border. There will never be a hard border.

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 14,832
    edited November 2018
  • FPT

    geoffw said:

    No Deal (exit to WTO rules) is the default if the May Deal falls.

    If we'd spent the last years preparing for no deal and stating that it was the default, and that we'd like a deal, but weren't particularly fussed because we'd be fine either way, we would both not need a deal, and also have a fabulous one.
    You can either prepare for No Deal or deny the consequences of No Deal, but not both.
    You can if you are not a Chicken Little pessimist who thinks that No Deal after 2 years of preparations would be a disaster.
    Repeating a question I asked of Xenon yesterday (never got a reply from him or anyone else) - what sort of preparations should have been done? Obviously I don't expect you to be able to cover the entire range of all economic activity, but a few examples will suffice, say on on medical exports to the EU, on agricultural exports to the EU, on governing law for derivative contracts, on the regulatory framework for aerospace manufacturing, on the open skies agreements, on how we avoid customs delays at Calais, that sort of thing.
    Exports we can't control that takes an agreement.

    But we could have made arrangements for stuff we can control. Medical imports, agricultural imports, avoiding delays at Dover etc

    Once we have looked after ourselves we aren't so vulnerable when negotiating a deal going forwards.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,601
    Sean_F said:


    Out of curiosity, what happens if the draft deal is rejected by EU ministers (France and Spain seem unhappy?)

    The Uk will give up something for nothing and then they will accept it.

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 14,832

    One thing which puzzles me in the current brouhaha is what exactly the DUP want. I can see what they don't like about the proposed withdrawal agreement, but they also don't want a hard border in Ireland and they still support Brexit. So the pressure they are putting on the PM is aimed at achieving what change, exactly?

    They want Brexit to be stopped without them getting the blame for it. (They’re not alone in that.)
    If so they are doing a jolly good job of hiding it, because Sammy Wilson was saying yesterday that one of the conditions for the confidence & supply agreement was that the government should deliver a successful Brexit.
    William see's every development that ever happens as supporting his desired outcome (Brexit cancelled ;) )
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,774
    GIN1138 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    One thing which puzzles me in the current brouhaha is what exactly the DUP want. I can see what they don't like about the proposed withdrawal agreement, but they also don't want a hard border in Ireland and they still support Brexit. So the pressure they are putting on the PM is aimed at achieving what change, exactly?

    Not to be subject to the single market in goods within the backstop ?
    Get a trade deal for the whole UK that avoids a hard border. Squares every circle.
    The issue is there isn't time for that before 29th March ! The Trade Deal will take many years to thrash out, but we need to leave to transition first.
    So agree a transition but don't agree anything permanent before the transition. My issue is us sacrificing permanent commitments to get a temporary transition. I have no issues as all with temporary commitments that last as long as the transition.
    As I see it, the EU has no more desire for the backstop to be permanent than we have. It means the violation of their four freedoms, as (in their eyes) we get privileged access to their markets without accepting freedom of movement.
    What about Selmayr saying the price we've got to pay for Brexit is Northern Ireland?
    We don't know whether Selmayr did say that. If he did, then he's a dick.
  • NotchNotch Posts: 145

    One thing which puzzles me in the current brouhaha is what exactly the DUP want. I can see what they don't like about the proposed withdrawal agreement, but they also don't want a hard border in Ireland and they still support Brexit. So the pressure they are putting on the PM is aimed at achieving what change, exactly?

    Do you realise why they dislike the EU?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,774
    TGOHF said:

    Sean_F said:


    Out of curiosity, what happens if the draft deal is rejected by EU ministers (France and Spain seem unhappy?)

    The Uk will give up something for nothing and then they will accept it.

    That would have to be the point to walk away, I think.
  • eekeek Posts: 3,874
    Sean_F said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    One thing which puzzles me in the current brouhaha is what exactly the DUP want. I can see what they don't like about the proposed withdrawal agreement, but they also don't want a hard border in Ireland and they still support Brexit. So the pressure they are putting on the PM is aimed at achieving what change, exactly?

    Not to be subject to the single market in goods within the backstop ?
    Get a trade deal for the whole UK that avoids a hard border. Squares every circle.
    The issue is there isn't time for that before 29th March ! The Trade Deal will take many years to thrash out, but we need to leave to transition first.
    So agree a transition but don't agree anything permanent before the transition. My issue is us sacrificing permanent commitments to get a temporary transition. I have no issues as all with temporary commitments that last as long as the transition.
    As I see it, the EU has no more desire for the backstop to be permanent than we have. It means the violation of their four freedoms, as (in their eyes) we get privileged access to their markets without accepting freedom of movement.
    What about Selmayr saying the price we've got to pay for Brexit is Northern Ireland?
    We don't know whether Selmayr did say that. If he did, then he's a dick.
    Anyone know off hand how much we spend subsidising Northern Ireland every year?
  • XenonXenon Posts: 471

    FPT

    geoffw said:

    No Deal (exit to WTO rules) is the default if the May Deal falls.

    If we'd spent the last years preparing for no deal and stating that it was the default, and that we'd like a deal, but weren't particularly fussed because we'd be fine either way, we would both not need a deal, and also have a fabulous one.
    You can either prepare for No Deal or deny the consequences of No Deal, but not both.
    You can if you are not a Chicken Little pessimist who thinks that No Deal after 2 years of preparations would be a disaster.
    Repeating a question I asked of Xenon yesterday (never got a reply from him or anyone else) - what sort of preparations should have been done? Obviously I don't expect you to be able to cover the entire range of all economic activity, but a few examples will suffice, say on on medical exports to the EU, on agricultural exports to the EU, on governing law for derivative contracts, on the regulatory framework for aerospace manufacturing, on the open skies agreements, on how we avoid customs delays at Calais, that sort of thing.
    Exports we can't control that takes an agreement.

    But we could have made arrangements for stuff we can control. Medical imports, agricultural imports, avoiding delays at Dover etc

    Once we have looked after ourselves we aren't so vulnerable when negotiating a deal going forwards.
    Exactly. It's not exactly rocket science is it?

    I don't know why people are pretending it wasn't possible.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 14,832
    edited November 2018
    Sean_F said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    One thing which puzzles me in the current brouhaha is what exactly the DUP want. I can see what they don't like about the proposed withdrawal agreement, but they also don't want a hard border in Ireland and they still support Brexit. So the pressure they are putting on the PM is aimed at achieving what change, exactly?

    Not to be subject to the single market in goods within the backstop ?
    Get a trade deal for the whole UK that avoids a hard border. Squares every circle.
    The issue is there isn't time for that before 29th March ! The Trade Deal will take many years to thrash out, but we need to leave to transition first.
    So agree a transition but don't agree anything permanent before the transition. My issue is us sacrificing permanent commitments to get a temporary transition. I have no issues as all with temporary commitments that last as long as the transition.
    As I see it, the EU has no more desire for the backstop to be permanent than we have. It means the violation of their four freedoms, as (in their eyes) we get privileged access to their markets without accepting freedom of movement.
    What about Selmayr saying the price we've got to pay for Brexit is Northern Ireland?
    We don't know whether Selmayr did say that. If he did, then he's a dick.
    I mean in past times, not all that long ago, what Selmayr is alleged to have said would have been seen as an act of aggression against the country and we'd rapidly be going on to a war footing.... So it's a pretty important point to know whether he did say it and whether this is really the EU's intention or not...
  • eek said:

    Sean_F said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    One thing which puzzles me in the current brouhaha is what exactly the DUP want. I can see what they don't like about the proposed withdrawal agreement, but they also don't want a hard border in Ireland and they still support Brexit. So the pressure they are putting on the PM is aimed at achieving what change, exactly?

    Not to be subject to the single market in goods within the backstop ?
    Get a trade deal for the whole UK that avoids a hard border. Squares every circle.
    The issue is there isn't time for that before 29th March ! The Trade Deal will take many years to thrash out, but we need to leave to transition first.
    So agree a transition but don't agree anything permanent before the transition. My issue is us sacrificing permanent commitments to get a temporary transition. I have no issues as all with temporary commitments that last as long as the transition.
    As I see it, the EU has no more desire for the backstop to be permanent than we have. It means the violation of their four freedoms, as (in their eyes) we get privileged access to their markets without accepting freedom of movement.
    What about Selmayr saying the price we've got to pay for Brexit is Northern Ireland?
    We don't know whether Selmayr did say that. If he did, then he's a dick.
    Anyone know off hand how much we spend subsidising Northern Ireland every year?
    Too much.
  • currystarcurrystar Posts: 1,171

    They are a disgrace. Not a woman in sight and no diversity.

    They have no awareness of just how bad that photo looks
    This ERG nonsense this morning will not encourage any wavering MP to put a letter in. Compare the way they looked to May at the CBI conference yesterday.
  • Xenon said:

    They could have got a limited "deal" keeping things running if they'd said we'd go for hard brexit with WTO rules.

    Instead they made no planning for this eventuality at all and came up with the current dog's dinner that no one wants.

    I think we're slowly making progress. A 'limited "deal" keeping things running if they'd said we'd go for hard brexit with WTO rules' is not No Deal. It's a Withdrawal Agreement - exactly like the 500 pager which has been negotiated - followed after the end of the transition period with a more distant relationship than Theresa May envisages. You are perfectly right that that kind of deal would in principle be possible, except that the stumbling block of the Irish border is even worse, and also it would breach the Leave campaign's promises of a 'free trade deal from Ireland to Turkey'. What it isn't though is 'no deal' - we'd still have to sign the withdrawal agreement, or something very similar to it.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 2,483

    geoffw said:

    Xenon said:

    FPT

    geoffw said:

    No Deal (exit to WTO rules) is the default if the May Deal falls.

    If we'd spent the last years preparing for no deal and stating that it was the default, and that we'd like a deal, but weren't particularly fussed because we'd be fine either way, we would both not need a deal, and also have a fabulous one.
    You can either prepare for No Deal or deny the consequences of No Deal, but not both.
    You can if you are not a Chicken Little pessimist who thinks that No Deal after 2 years of preparations would be a disaster.
    Repeating a question I asked of Xenon yesterday (never got a reply from him or anyone else) - what sort of preparations should have been done? Obviously I don't expect you to be able to cover the entire range of all economic activity, but a few examples will suffice, say on on medical exports to the EU, on agricultural exports to the EU, on governing law for derivative contracts, on the regulatory framework for aerospace manufacturing, on the open skies agreements, on how we avoid customs delays at Calais, that sort of thing.
    Come to some sort of agreement on how it's going to work.

    If you don't think any preparations are necessary then what exactly are you worried about with no deal? Sounds like you believe it will run very smoothly.
    LOL! If we 'come to some sort of agreement' then we've done a deal. That's what the 500 pages are about.

    If there's no deal, then No, it won't run smoothly, I just want to know what the UK can do, unilaterally (which by definition is what we are talking about if there's no deal) to prevent disruption on those headings. If you find this too hard a question, how about the first one - how we unilaterally maintain medical exports to the EU in the absence of a deal.
    Do you mean medical imports?
    No, I mean exports. We can unilaterally let anything in.
    "how we unilaterally maintain medical exports to the EU in the absence of a deal."
    If the EU wishes to block medical exports (because of standards/paperwork?) then I can't see that there's anything we can unilaterally do about that in the immediate term. But why would they wish to do that - harm their own people?
  • Xenon said:

    They could have got a limited "deal" keeping things running if they'd said we'd go for hard brexit with WTO rules.

    Instead they made no planning for this eventuality at all and came up with the current dog's dinner that no one wants.

    I think we're slowly making progress. A 'limited "deal" keeping things running if they'd said we'd go for hard brexit with WTO rules' is not No Deal. It's a Withdrawal Agreement - exactly like the 500 pager which has been negotiated - followed after the end of the transition period with a more distant relationship than Theresa May envisages. You are perfectly right that that kind of deal would in principle be possible, except that the stumbling block of the Irish border is even worse, and also it would breach the Leave campaign's promises of a 'free trade deal from Ireland to Turkey'. What it isn't though is 'no deal' - we'd still have to sign the withdrawal agreement, or something very similar to it.
    I have no problems at all with signing a withdrawal agreement. My one concern is the backstop.
This discussion has been closed.