Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With “cabinet resignations” in the air who is going to be firs

1246

Comments

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    The way we talk about intelligence is so weird. Does being extremely good at one game but being unable to process day to day reality in a sensible way really count as intelligent?

    Well this is a very good question. Take me, for example. I score high on numerical stuff and on logic and verbal reasoning - I do, honestly! - and yet I'm a virtual dunce on spatial matters, shapes, that sort of thing. So I will score very high in an IQ test on some sections and very low on others.

    Then you have language abilities, musicality, artistic talent, emotional empathy, all of those are extremely indicative of intelligence, yet do not usually figure in traditional assessments.

    If Nadine Dorries, for example, scored mediocre on an IQ test but could speak French, could cook a great souffle, could tinkle the ivories - and especially if she could do these things simultaneously - then she would deserve to be classed as highly intelligent.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362

    Nigelb said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's not a hard Irish border - its an EU-Uk border.

    Irish exporters will face two of these as they use our motorway network as a cheap, fast land bridge.

    One as they enter Wales and another at Calais.

    With a bit of luck they will take their trucks to the continent via an alternative route.
    You are actively wanting to devastate Holyhead and this on top of the suspension of the nuclear power station.

    No deal is not remotely worth this price
    Little Welshlander?
    What is the point in Brexit if you destroy the union ?
    Exactly but ERG do not concern themselves over that consequence
    The remain side will be also in the shit if we have to vote again on the EU,why not a second vote on the Scottish independence referendum ?
    Indeed. Why not?
    Why not indeed.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    IanB2 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Just a shame he didn't think things through before he voted to trigger A50 before we were ready.
    And also a shame that, again, he seems to assume that holding a second referendum leads to Remain, despite the lack of evidence.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    Nigelb said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's not a hard Irish border - its an EU-Uk border.

    Irish exporters will face two of these as they use our motorway network as a cheap, fast land bridge.

    One as they enter Wales and another at Calais.

    With a bit of luck they will take their trucks to the continent via an alternative route.
    You are actively wanting to devastate Holyhead and this on top of the suspension of the nuclear power station.

    No deal is not remotely worth this price
    Little Welshlander?
    What is the point in Brexit if you destroy the union ?
    Exactly but ERG do not concern themselves over that consequence
    The remain side will be also in the shit if we have to vote again on the EU,why not a second vote on the Scottish independence referendum ?
    Indeed. Why not?
    Why not indeed.
    If the union is working well it is worth saving. If it is not working well, what is the point?
  • IanB2 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Just a shame he didn't think things through before he voted to trigger A50 before we were ready.
    Absolutely this

    Same goes for every single Tory except Ken Clarke
  • Scott_P said:
    It would be nice if his constituents would oblige but I suspect he knows his majority is too large to really be in danger.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    viewcode said:

    Nigelb said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's not a hard Irish border - its an EU-Uk border.

    Irish exporters will face two of these as they use our motorway network as a cheap, fast land bridge.

    One as they enter Wales and another at Calais.

    With a bit of luck they will take their trucks to the continent via an alternative route.
    You are actively wanting to devastate Holyhead and this on top of the suspension of the nuclear power station.

    No deal is not remotely worth this price
    Little Welshlander?
    What is the point in Brexit if you destroy the union ?
    For a subset of leavers, the disassembly of the UK is not a bug, it's a feature. If (say) you want to convert the UK into a Singapore, then having a malleable and disorganised population helps.
    I am not interested in the Singapore on Sea idea but I do think the breakup of the Union is a benefit rather than a flaw in Brexit. Of course this is based on my own personal view of countries and self determination so I don't expect it to be a popular view and understand why others feel differently.
    But you don't agree with English self-determination. You think the future of the union should be wholly up to the other parts of it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    Scott_P said:
    It would be nice if his constituents would oblige but I suspect he knows his majority is too large to really be in danger.
    Plus Ilford North voted Remain anyway
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,572
    Scott_P said:
    The Labour MPs who are risking their job are the handful who have come out for Leave. Streeting is trying to make his more secure. He is deceiptfully dressing up self serving comments as a statement of principle. He will only lose his seat and job if he is deselected by Labour members, who will just lap this sort of thing up.
  • He may well be but in a safe labour seat it is much easier to makes these comments rather than labour mps in marginal leave voting areas
  • Nigelb said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's not a hard Irish border - its an EU-Uk border.

    Irish exporters will face two of these as they use our motorway network as a cheap, fast land bridge.

    One as they enter Wales and another at Calais.

    With a bit of luck they will take their trucks to the continent via an alternative route.
    You are actively wanting to devastate Holyhead and this on top of the suspension of the nuclear power station.

    No deal is not remotely worth this price
    Little Welshlander?
    What is the point in Brexit if you destroy the union ?
    Exactly but ERG do not concern themselves over that consequence
    The remain side will be also in the shit if we have to vote again on the EU,why not a second vote on the Scottish independence referendum ?
    Indeed. Why not?
    Why not indeed.
    No reason why we shouldn't have referendums every day, and on every imaginable topic. Presumably those who regard referendums as quintessentially democratic would regard that as some sort of democratic ideal. Most of us can see the problems in an instant however, as amply demonstrated by the EU referendum itself.

    A second EU referendum would be no more or less 'democratic' than the first, and it would engender its own problems, but if it is the only way out of the mess.....
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited January 2019
    HYUFD said:

    Scott_P said:
    It would be nice if his constituents would oblige but I suspect he knows his majority is too large to really be in danger.
    Plus Ilford North voted Remain anyway
    The Chris Hanretty estimates actually had it as a Leave seat, very slightly above the national average (52.6%).

    That seat is an example of the under-examined support for Brexit with ethnic minorities.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    Can anyone decode this? Is it related to that piece of legislation from a couple of years ago about having "No Deal"?
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    Nigelb said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's not a hard Irish border - its an EU-Uk border.

    Irish exporters will face two of these as they use our motorway network as a cheap, fast land bridge.

    One as they enter Wales and another at Calais.

    With a bit of luck they will take their trucks to the continent via an alternative route.
    You are actively wanting to devastate Holyhead and this on top of the suspension of the nuclear power station.

    No deal is not remotely worth this price
    Not to mention the 'no' to a tidal barrage.

    So far, this government's only positive contribution towards Wales seems to be pointing out how poor the Labour administration is.
    Which isn't much of a policy.
    Wales voted overwhelming for Brexit though, did it not?
    "Useful Idiots" as Vladimir Ilyich once put it ...
    Common, I voted remain
    You were in the minority, as was I ;)
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,669
    Brom said:

    twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/1087663394063351808

    People have donated over £50k to this nonsense.
    Hopefully it's one idiot with £50k but judging by the FBPE hashtag I suspect theres a whole load of them.
    Highlighting the facts of what we were told by individuals and how things have turned out is not 'nonsense',
  • HYUFD said:

    Scott_P said:
    It would be nice if his constituents would oblige but I suspect he knows his majority is too large to really be in danger.
    Plus Ilford North voted Remain anyway
    No it isn't.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited January 2019
    Danny565 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_P said:
    It would be nice if his constituents would oblige but I suspect he knows his majority is too large to really be in danger.
    Plus Ilford North voted Remain anyway
    The Chris Hanretty estimates actually had it as a Leave seat, very slightly above the national average (53.3%).

    That seat is an example of the under-examined support for Brexit with ethnic minorities.
    Redbridge certainly voted Remain and that is the borough Streeting's seat is in, though I will take your word on Ilford North
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's not a hard Irish border - its an EU-Uk border.

    Irish exporters will face two of these as they use our motorway network as a cheap, fast land bridge.

    One as they enter Wales and another at Calais.

    With a bit of luck they will take their trucks to the continent via an alternative route.
    Does the U.K. get any value from acting as a transhipping route for Irish trucks?

    Besides the odd cup of coffee?

    Otherwise it’s congestion, pollution and wear & tear on the roads
    Employment in the ports, I guess.
    Not a huge amount though
    Freight is the bread and butter for the Irish sea crossings; I doubt they are viable with passengers only, outside the holiday period.
    More of a problem for Ireland?
    Logically there must be the same absolute impact on revenue cross-channel (assuming the Ireland-UK lorries continue regardless), even if a smaller proportion of total traffic.

    More people (trips) visit Ireland than travel overseas from Ireland. How this translates into ferry travel in each direction I have no idea.
    34% of plane take offs in Ireland land in the UK. Why take the ferry when cheapo airline will fly you for 9 euros.
    Bit difficult with your car
    We could bring back British United Air Ferries and their Bristol Type 170s.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084
    Danny565 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_P said:
    It would be nice if his constituents would oblige but I suspect he knows his majority is too large to really be in danger.
    Plus Ilford North voted Remain anyway
    The Chris Hanretty estimates actually had it as a Leave seat, very slightly above the national average (53.3%).

    That seat is an example of the under-examined support for Brexit with ethnic minorities.
    The Leave campaign in east London promised ethnic minority voters that Brexit would mean more of their families could come to the UK once EU immigration was restricted.
  • Nigelb said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's not a hard Irish border - its an EU-Uk border.

    Irish exporters will face two of these as they use our motorway network as a cheap, fast land bridge.

    One as they enter Wales and another at Calais.

    With a bit of luck they will take their trucks to the continent via an alternative route.
    You are actively wanting to devastate Holyhead and this on top of the suspension of the nuclear power station.

    No deal is not remotely worth this price
    Little Welshlander?
    What is the point in Brexit if you destroy the union ?
    Exactly but ERG do not concern themselves over that consequence
    The remain side will be also in the shit if we have to vote again on the EU,why not a second vote on the Scottish independence referendum ?
    Indeed. Why not?
    Why not indeed.
    No reason why we shouldn't have referendums every day, and on every imaginable topic. Presumably those who regard referendums as quintessentially democratic would regard that as some sort of democratic ideal. Most of us can see the problems in an instant however, as amply demonstrated by the EU referendum itself.

    A second EU referendum would be no more or less 'democratic' than the first, and it would engender its own problems, but if it is the only way out of the mess.....
    Not really. The only reason it is a problem at the moment is we do not have them on a regular basis and this one was not binding. If you look at countries that do have them on a regular basis and where they are binding they are not a problem.

    A second referendum before we have enacted the first would indeed be undemocratic.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084
    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_P said:
    It would be nice if his constituents would oblige but I suspect he knows his majority is too large to really be in danger.
    Plus Ilford North voted Remain anyway
    The Chris Hanretty estimates actually had it as a Leave seat, very slightly above the national average (53.3%).

    That seat is an example of the under-examined support for Brexit with ethnic minorities.
    Redbridge certainly voted Remain and that is the borough Streeting's seat is in, though I will take your word on Ilford North
    Ilford North is where a lot of London taxi drivers live.
  • IanB2 said:

    Danny565 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_P said:
    It would be nice if his constituents would oblige but I suspect he knows his majority is too large to really be in danger.
    Plus Ilford North voted Remain anyway
    The Chris Hanretty estimates actually had it as a Leave seat, very slightly above the national average (53.3%).

    That seat is an example of the under-examined support for Brexit with ethnic minorities.
    The Leave campaign in east London promised ethnic minority voters that Brexit would mean more of their families could come to the UK once EU immigration was restricted.
    Sounds great to me.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084

    Nigelb said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's not a hard Irish border - its an EU-Uk border.

    Irish exporters will face two of these as they use our motorway network as a cheap, fast land bridge.

    One as they enter Wales and another at Calais.

    With a bit of luck they will take their trucks to the continent via an alternative route.
    You are actively wanting to devastate Holyhead and this on top of the suspension of the nuclear power station.

    No deal is not remotely worth this price
    Little Welshlander?
    What is the point in Brexit if you destroy the union ?
    Exactly but ERG do not concern themselves over that consequence
    The remain side will be also in the shit if we have to vote again on the EU,why not a second vote on the Scottish independence referendum ?
    Indeed. Why not?
    Why not indeed.
    No reason why we shouldn't have referendums every day, and on every imaginable topic. Presumably those who regard referendums as quintessentially democratic would regard that as some sort of democratic ideal. Most of us can see the problems in an instant however, as amply demonstrated by the EU referendum itself.

    A second EU referendum would be no more or less 'democratic' than the first, and it would engender its own problems, but if it is the only way out of the mess.....
    Not really. The only reason it is a problem at the moment is we do not have them on a regular basis and this one was not binding. If you look at countries that do have them on a regular basis and where they are binding they are not a problem.

    A second referendum before we have enacted the first would indeed be undemocratic.
    No, it wouldn't.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    Scott_P said:
    Probably just using Brexit as a smokescreen for a bit of tax-efficiency.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    edited January 2019

    Nigelb said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's not a hard Irish border - its an EU-Uk border.

    Irish exporters will face two of these as they use our motorway network as a cheap, fast land bridge.

    One as they enter Wales and another at Calais.

    With a bit of luck they will take their trucks to the continent via an alternative route.
    You are actively wanting to devastate Holyhead and this on top of the suspension of the nuclear power station.

    No deal is not remotely worth this price
    Little Welshlander?
    What is the point in Brexit if you destroy the union ?
    Exactly but ERG do not concern themselves over that consequence
    The remain side will be also in the shit if we have to vote again on the EU,why not a second vote on the Scottish independence referendum ?
    Indeed. Why not?
    Why not indeed.
    No reason why we shouldn't have referendums every day, and on every imaginable topic. Presumably those who regard referendums as quintessentially democratic would regard that as some sort of democratic ideal. Most of us can see the problems in an instant however, as amply demonstrated by the EU referendum itself.

    A second EU referendum would be no more or less 'democratic' than the first, and it would engender its own problems, but if it is the only way out of the mess.....
    Not really. The only reason it is a problem at the moment is we do not have them on a regular basis and this one was not binding. If you look at countries that do have them on a regular basis and where they are binding they are not a problem.

    A second referendum before we have enacted the first would indeed be undemocratic.
    No it would not - you are just worried that Leave might lose.

    How can it be undemocratic to ask if the country has changed its mind?

    I fully understand that Leave might win, but I am prepared to see if that is what the country still wants
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621

    Brom said:

    twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/1087663394063351808

    People have donated over £50k to this nonsense.
    Hopefully it's one idiot with £50k but judging by the FBPE hashtag I suspect theres a whole load of them.
    Highlighting the facts of what we were told by individuals and how things have turned out is not 'nonsense',
    Agreed. People need reminding that the Brexiteer goalposts have been moved onto an entirely different pitch, and turned into a volleyball net.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362

    Nigelb said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's not a hard Irish border - its an EU-Uk border.

    Irish exporters will face two of these as they use our motorway network as a cheap, fast land bridge.

    One as they enter Wales and another at Calais.

    With a bit of luck they will take their trucks to the continent via an alternative route.
    You are actively wanting to devastate Holyhead and this on top of the suspension of the nuclear power station.

    No deal is not remotely worth this price
    Little Welshlander?
    What is the point in Brexit if you destroy the union ?
    Exactly but ERG do not concern themselves over that consequence
    The remain side will be also in the shit if we have to vote again on the EU,why not a second vote on the Scottish independence referendum ?
    Indeed. Why not?
    Why not indeed.
    No reason why we shouldn't have referendums every day, and on every imaginable topic. Presumably those who regard referendums as quintessentially democratic would regard that as some sort of democratic ideal. Most of us can see the problems in an instant however, as amply demonstrated by the EU referendum itself.

    A second EU referendum would be no more or less 'democratic' than the first, and it would engender its own problems, but if it is the only way out of the mess.....
    The second referendum wouldn't be democratic because the first wasn't installed or given a chance.
  • Nigelb said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's not a hard Irish border - its an EU-Uk border.

    Irish exporters will face two of these as they use our motorway network as a cheap, fast land bridge.

    One as they enter Wales and another at Calais.

    With a bit of luck they will take their trucks to the continent via an alternative route.
    You are actively wanting to devastate Holyhead and this on top of the suspension of the nuclear power station.

    No deal is not remotely worth this price
    Little Welshlander?
    What is the point in Brexit if you destroy the union ?
    Exactly but ERG do not concern themselves over that consequence
    The remain side will be also in the shit if we have to vote again on the EU,why not a second vote on the Scottish independence referendum ?
    Indeed. Why not?
    Why not indeed.
    No reason why we shouldn't have referendums every day, and on every imaginable topic. Presumably those who regard referendums as quintessentially democratic would regard that as some sort of democratic ideal. Most of us can see the problems in an instant however, as amply demonstrated by the EU referendum itself.

    A second EU referendum would be no more or less 'democratic' than the first, and it would engender its own problems, but if it is the only way out of the mess.....
    Not really. The only reason it is a problem at the moment is we do not have them on a regular basis and this one was not binding. If you look at countries that do have them on a regular basis and where they are binding they are not a problem.

    A second referendum before we have enacted the first would indeed be undemocratic.
    They don't have to be a problem. Intelligently used and implemented judiciously they can be a valuable tool in the democratic toolbox, it's true. You and I probably have different perceptions though about the degree of intelligence and judiciousness evident in the Brexit referendum.

    By the way, what do you do if the result of a referendum turns out to be impossible to implement?
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/Reuters/status/1087703244497997824

    Probably just using Brexit as a smokescreen for a bit of tax-efficiency.
    Odd that they did not need to be tax-efficient until Brexit loomed...
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    Don't see why he predicts a GE over a second referendum or even no deal.
    May calls a 'My Deal or No Brexit/who governs Britain?' GE, I think he is trying to say.
    I wonder whether that has been tried before?
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited January 2019

    Not really. The only reason it is a problem at the moment is we do not have them on a regular basis and this one was not binding. If you look at countries that do have them on a regular basis and where they are binding they are not a problem.

    A second referendum before we have enacted the first would indeed be undemocratic.

    They don't have to be a problem. Intelligently used and implemented judiciously they can be a valuable tool in the democratic toolbox, it's true. You and I probably have different perceptions though about the degree of intelligence and judiciousness evident in the Brexit referendum.

    By the way, what do you do if the result of a referendum turns out to be impossible to implement?
    Scweam and scweam and scweam until you're sick. Foot-stamping optional.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,960
    HYUFD said:

    Clarke, Hammond, Rudd, Gauke could all resign if prevented from voting for the amendment to extend Article 50 if no Deal reached by the middle of next month

    Dear Theresa, I write to offer my resignation as Father of the House. Please edit Wikipedia to ensure that someone else has longer service than me. Thanks, Ken.

    I've now realised you probably meant Greg Clark, but the concept amused me so I'm posting this anyway.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/Reuters/status/1087703244497997824

    Probably just using Brexit as a smokescreen for a bit of tax-efficiency.
    Odd that they did not need to be tax-efficient until Brexit loomed...
    Or it is a good excuse :p
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Charles said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's not a hard Irish border - its an EU-Uk border.

    Irish exporters will face two of these as they use our motorway network as a cheap, fast land bridge.

    One as they enter Wales and another at Calais.

    With a bit of luck they will take their trucks to the continent via an alternative route.
    Does the U.K. get any value from acting as a transhipping route for Irish trucks?

    Besides the odd cup of coffee?

    Otherwise it’s congestion, pollution and wear & tear on the roads
    Plus the financial hit due to health impacts.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/27/health-effects-of-diesel-cost-european-taxpayers-billions
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,911

    Brom said:

    twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/1087663394063351808

    People have donated over £50k to this nonsense.
    Hopefully it's one idiot with £50k but judging by the FBPE hashtag I suspect theres a whole load of them.
    Highlighting the facts of what we were told by individuals and how things have turned out is not 'nonsense',
    Couldn't agree more.

    https://youtu.be/JRowLjb0x48
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    Back, with great regret, to Brexit, here is a rum business:

    The WA means that any Future Trade Deal which takes NI out of the CU and the SM is impossible, since it would necessitate a border in Ireland and thus not obviate the backstop.

    So the FTD must keep NI in the CU/SM. Ergo unless we accept a border in the Irish Sea it must keep the UK as a whole in the CU/SM. This is pretty much Labour's Brexit.

    Mrs May's Brexit by contrast - out of both the CU and the SM - is not compatible with the WA.

    Now Mrs May's deal in common parlance is the WA plus the aspired to FTD (per the Political Declaration).

    Hence, going by its content and implications, Labour should be supporting the May deal and Mrs May herself should be voting against it.

    Scenario Bizarrio.
  • kinabalu said:

    Back, with great regret, to Brexit, here is a rum business:

    The WA means that any Future Trade Deal which takes NI out of the CU and the SM is impossible, since it would necessitate a border in Ireland and thus not obviate the backstop.

    So the FTD must keep NI in the CU/SM. Ergo unless we accept a border in the Irish Sea it must keep the UK as a whole in the CU/SM. This is pretty much Labour's Brexit.

    Mrs May's Brexit by contrast - out of both the CU and the SM - is not compatible with the WA.

    Now Mrs May's deal in common parlance is the WA plus the aspired to FTD (per the Political Declaration).

    Hence, going by its content and implications, Labour should be supporting the May deal and Mrs May herself should be voting against it.

    Scenario Bizarrio.

    Not true.

    All that would be needed would be to agree on a technical solution which circumvented the need for a hard border.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,960

    Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/Reuters/status/1087703244497997824

    Probably just using Brexit as a smokescreen for a bit of tax-efficiency.
    Odd that they did not need to be tax-efficient until Brexit loomed...
    I'm not sure this matters all that much. Most of the world's shipping fleets are already registered to countries not remotely connected to the business that owns them, many of them small and some of them landlocked. I'm unclear exactly what the UK loses out from the re-registration, but I believe (may be wrong) it's not all that much.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621

    kinabalu said:

    Back, with great regret, to Brexit, here is a rum business:

    The WA means that any Future Trade Deal which takes NI out of the CU and the SM is impossible, since it would necessitate a border in Ireland and thus not obviate the backstop.

    So the FTD must keep NI in the CU/SM. Ergo unless we accept a border in the Irish Sea it must keep the UK as a whole in the CU/SM. This is pretty much Labour's Brexit.

    Mrs May's Brexit by contrast - out of both the CU and the SM - is not compatible with the WA.

    Now Mrs May's deal in common parlance is the WA plus the aspired to FTD (per the Political Declaration).

    Hence, going by its content and implications, Labour should be supporting the May deal and Mrs May herself should be voting against it.

    Scenario Bizarrio.

    Not true.

    All that would be needed would be to agree on a technical solution which circumvented the need for a hard border.
    "All that would be needed".

    Hmm.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/Reuters/status/1087703244497997824

    Probably just using Brexit as a smokescreen for a bit of tax-efficiency.
    Odd that they did not need to be tax-efficient until Brexit loomed...
    Or it is a good excuse :p
    Believe what you want...
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    kinabalu said:

    Back, with great regret, to Brexit, here is a rum business:

    The WA means that any Future Trade Deal which takes NI out of the CU and the SM is impossible, since it would necessitate a border in Ireland and thus not obviate the backstop.

    So the FTD must keep NI in the CU/SM. Ergo unless we accept a border in the Irish Sea it must keep the UK as a whole in the CU/SM. This is pretty much Labour's Brexit.

    Mrs May's Brexit by contrast - out of both the CU and the SM - is not compatible with the WA.

    Now Mrs May's deal in common parlance is the WA plus the aspired to FTD (per the Political Declaration).

    Hence, going by its content and implications, Labour should be supporting the May deal and Mrs May herself should be voting against it.

    Scenario Bizarrio.

    Not true.

    All that would be needed would be to agree on a technical solution which circumvented the need for a hard border.
    Was a mistake by the Uk to allow the EU to differentiate between the Uk to EU border in Ulster and the Uk to EU border elsewhere - such as Dover to Calais.

    There are no differences.

  • They don't have to be a problem. Intelligently used and implemented judiciously they can be a valuable tool in the democratic toolbox, it's true. You and I probably have different perceptions though about the degree of intelligence and judiciousness evident in the Brexit referendum.

    By the way, what do you do if the result of a referendum turns out to be impossible to implement?

    You have an independent system to screen referendums first. They can advise either on a way to rephrase it so it is not impossible or reject it and explain why. It really isn't rocket science.

    The important bit is making sure it is independent and done in the full glare of the public eye.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    Enough trench-warfare for one day.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Endillion said:

    I'm unclear exactly what the UK loses out from the re-registration, but I believe (may be wrong) it's not all that much.

    Global Britain, Open for business*

    *Terms and exclusions apply
  • Anorak said:

    kinabalu said:

    Back, with great regret, to Brexit, here is a rum business:

    The WA means that any Future Trade Deal which takes NI out of the CU and the SM is impossible, since it would necessitate a border in Ireland and thus not obviate the backstop.

    So the FTD must keep NI in the CU/SM. Ergo unless we accept a border in the Irish Sea it must keep the UK as a whole in the CU/SM. This is pretty much Labour's Brexit.

    Mrs May's Brexit by contrast - out of both the CU and the SM - is not compatible with the WA.

    Now Mrs May's deal in common parlance is the WA plus the aspired to FTD (per the Political Declaration).

    Hence, going by its content and implications, Labour should be supporting the May deal and Mrs May herself should be voting against it.

    Scenario Bizarrio.

    Not true.

    All that would be needed would be to agree on a technical solution which circumvented the need for a hard border.
    "All that would be needed".

    Hmm.
    Planning was already well underway prior to the change of Government in Eire and the experts who deal with these things say it is perfectly feasible. So yes.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Anorak said:

    kinabalu said:

    Back, with great regret, to Brexit, here is a rum business:

    The WA means that any Future Trade Deal which takes NI out of the CU and the SM is impossible, since it would necessitate a border in Ireland and thus not obviate the backstop.

    So the FTD must keep NI in the CU/SM. Ergo unless we accept a border in the Irish Sea it must keep the UK as a whole in the CU/SM. This is pretty much Labour's Brexit.

    Mrs May's Brexit by contrast - out of both the CU and the SM - is not compatible with the WA.

    Now Mrs May's deal in common parlance is the WA plus the aspired to FTD (per the Political Declaration).

    Hence, going by its content and implications, Labour should be supporting the May deal and Mrs May herself should be voting against it.

    Scenario Bizarrio.

    Not true.

    All that would be needed would be to agree on a technical solution which circumvented the need for a hard border.
    "All that would be needed".

    Hmm.
    Former Teasock of Ireland thought it was very feasible.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/bertie-ahern-technology-and-turning-blind-eye-could-solve-brexit-border-issue-1.3306710

    The only solution to Ireland’s row with Britain over the post-Brexit border is to introduce technology to manage multinational trade while turning a blind eye to lower-level cross-frontier movement, former taoiseach Bertie Ahern has suggested."

  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    edited January 2019

    Nigelb said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's not a hard Irish border - its an EU-Uk border.

    Irish exporters will face two of these as they use our motorway network as a cheap, fast land bridge.

    One as they enter Wales and another at Calais.

    With a bit of luck they will take their trucks to the continent via an alternative route.
    You are actively wanting to devastate Holyhead and this on top of the suspension of the nuclear power station.

    No deal is not remotely worth this price
    Little Welshlander?
    What is the point in Brexit if you destroy the union ?
    Exactly but ERG do not concern themselves over that consequence
    The remain side will be also in the shit if we have to vote again on the EU,why not a second vote on the Scottish independence referendum ?
    Indeed. Why not?
    Why not indeed.
    No reason why we shouldn't have referendums every day, and on every imaginable topic. Presumably those who regard referendums as quintessentially democratic would regard that as some sort of democratic ideal. Most of us can see the problems in an instant however, as amply demonstrated by the EU referendum itself.

    A second EU referendum would be no more or less 'democratic' than the first, and it would engender its own problems, but if it is the only way out of the mess.....
    Not really. The only reason it is a problem at the moment is we do not have them on a regular basis and this one was not binding. If you look at countries that do have them on a regular basis and where they are binding they are not a problem.

    A second referendum before we have enacted the first would indeed be undemocratic.
    No it would not - you are just worried that Leave might lose.

    How can it be undemocratic to ask if the country has changed its mind?

    I fully understand that Leave might win, but I am prepared to see if that is what the country still wants
    How many referendums did we have in 40odd years from the common market to the EU when leave were higher in the polls.

    Install leave first and maybe some years into brexit Britain we might vote to have another rejoin referendum ,that would be democratic .
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787

    Anorak said:

    kinabalu said:

    Back, with great regret, to Brexit, here is a rum business:

    The WA means that any Future Trade Deal which takes NI out of the CU and the SM is impossible, since it would necessitate a border in Ireland and thus not obviate the backstop.

    So the FTD must keep NI in the CU/SM. Ergo unless we accept a border in the Irish Sea it must keep the UK as a whole in the CU/SM. This is pretty much Labour's Brexit.

    Mrs May's Brexit by contrast - out of both the CU and the SM - is not compatible with the WA.

    Now Mrs May's deal in common parlance is the WA plus the aspired to FTD (per the Political Declaration).

    Hence, going by its content and implications, Labour should be supporting the May deal and Mrs May herself should be voting against it.

    Scenario Bizarrio.

    Not true.

    All that would be needed would be to agree on a technical solution which circumvented the need for a hard border.
    "All that would be needed".

    Hmm.
    Planning was already well underway prior to the change of Government in Eire and the experts who deal with these things say it is perfectly feasible. So yes.
    I thought we’d had enough of listening to experts.
  • Nigelb said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's not a hard Irish border - its an EU-Uk border.

    Irish exporters will face two of these as they use our motorway network as a cheap, fast land bridge.

    One as they enter Wales and another at Calais.

    With a bit of luck they will take their trucks to the continent via an alternative route.
    You are actively wanting to devastate Holyhead and this on top of the suspension of the nuclear power station.

    No deal is not remotely worth this price
    Little Welshlander?
    What is the point in Brexit if you destroy the union ?
    Exactly but ERG do not concern themselves over that consequence
    The remain side will be also in the shit if we have to vote again on the EU,why not a second vote on the Scottish independence referendum ?
    Indeed. Why not?
    Why not indeed.
    No reason why we shouldn't have referendums every day, and on every imaginable topic. Presumably those who regard referendums as quintessentially democratic would regard that as some sort of democratic ideal. Most of us can see the problems in an instant however, as amply demonstrated by the EU referendum itself.

    A second EU referendum would be no more or less 'democratic' than the first, and it would engender its own problems, but if it is the only way out of the mess.....
    Not really. The only reason it is a problem at the moment is we do not have them on a regular basis and this one was not binding. If you look at countries that do have them on a regular basis and where they are binding they are not a problem.

    A second referendum before we have enacted the first would indeed be undemocratic.
    No it would not - you are just worried that Leave might lose.

    How can it be undemocratic to ask if the country has changed its mind?

    I fully understand that Leave might win, but I am prepared to see if that is what the country still wants
    Nope. The only reason you want one is you think you might win.

    I object on principle because democracy is about enacting the results of votes not just holding them and then ignoring them and pretending everything is good.

    Not that I expect you to understand as you have always been divorced from the idea of democracy.
  • kinabalu said:

    Back, with great regret, to Brexit, here is a rum business:

    The WA means that any Future Trade Deal which takes NI out of the CU and the SM is impossible, since it would necessitate a border in Ireland and thus not obviate the backstop.

    So the FTD must keep NI in the CU/SM. Ergo unless we accept a border in the Irish Sea it must keep the UK as a whole in the CU/SM. This is pretty much Labour's Brexit.

    Mrs May's Brexit by contrast - out of both the CU and the SM - is not compatible with the WA.

    Now Mrs May's deal in common parlance is the WA plus the aspired to FTD (per the Political Declaration).

    Hence, going by its content and implications, Labour should be supporting the May deal and Mrs May herself should be voting against it.

    Scenario Bizarrio.

    Not true.

    All that would be needed would be to agree on a technical solution which circumvented the need for a hard border.
    It is a sign of the times that while Trump is closing down the USA so he can build a wall on the Mexico border supports the UK leavers who want to have no border on their only land border. Once we leave the EU we have no control over who lives in Ireland and the quality systems they have for the products they will supply us.


  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621

    Anorak said:

    kinabalu said:

    Back, with great regret, to Brexit, here is a rum business:

    The WA means that any Future Trade Deal which takes NI out of the CU and the SM is impossible, since it would necessitate a border in Ireland and thus not obviate the backstop.

    So the FTD must keep NI in the CU/SM. Ergo unless we accept a border in the Irish Sea it must keep the UK as a whole in the CU/SM. This is pretty much Labour's Brexit.

    Mrs May's Brexit by contrast - out of both the CU and the SM - is not compatible with the WA.

    Now Mrs May's deal in common parlance is the WA plus the aspired to FTD (per the Political Declaration).

    Hence, going by its content and implications, Labour should be supporting the May deal and Mrs May herself should be voting against it.

    Scenario Bizarrio.

    Not true.

    All that would be needed would be to agree on a technical solution which circumvented the need for a hard border.
    "All that would be needed".

    Hmm.
    Planning was already well underway prior to the change of Government in Eire and the experts who deal with these things say it is perfectly feasible. So yes.
    Depends on your definition of feasibility. No one has credibly claimed it would be truly frictionless, as far as I am aware.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    TGOHF said:

    Anorak said:

    kinabalu said:

    Back, with great regret, to Brexit, here is a rum business:

    The WA means that any Future Trade Deal which takes NI out of the CU and the SM is impossible, since it would necessitate a border in Ireland and thus not obviate the backstop.

    So the FTD must keep NI in the CU/SM. Ergo unless we accept a border in the Irish Sea it must keep the UK as a whole in the CU/SM. This is pretty much Labour's Brexit.

    Mrs May's Brexit by contrast - out of both the CU and the SM - is not compatible with the WA.

    Now Mrs May's deal in common parlance is the WA plus the aspired to FTD (per the Political Declaration).

    Hence, going by its content and implications, Labour should be supporting the May deal and Mrs May herself should be voting against it.

    Scenario Bizarrio.

    Not true.

    All that would be needed would be to agree on a technical solution which circumvented the need for a hard border.
    "All that would be needed".

    Hmm.
    Former Teasock of Ireland thought it was very feasible.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/bertie-ahern-technology-and-turning-blind-eye-could-solve-brexit-border-issue-1.3306710

    The only solution to Ireland’s row with Britain over the post-Brexit border is to introduce technology to manage multinational trade while turning a blind eye to lower-level cross-frontier movement, former taoiseach Bertie Ahern has suggested."

    Waiting for the first suggestion of Blockchain in 3,2....
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    TGOHF said:

    differentiate between the Uk to EU border in Ulster and the Uk to EU border elsewhere - such as Dover to Calais.

    There are no differences.

    Apart from, you know, miles of sea for example...
  • kinabalu said:

    Back, with great regret, to Brexit, here is a rum business:

    The WA means that any Future Trade Deal which takes NI out of the CU and the SM is impossible, since it would necessitate a border in Ireland and thus not obviate the backstop.

    So the FTD must keep NI in the CU/SM. Ergo unless we accept a border in the Irish Sea it must keep the UK as a whole in the CU/SM. This is pretty much Labour's Brexit.

    Mrs May's Brexit by contrast - out of both the CU and the SM - is not compatible with the WA.

    Now Mrs May's deal in common parlance is the WA plus the aspired to FTD (per the Political Declaration).

    Hence, going by its content and implications, Labour should be supporting the May deal and Mrs May herself should be voting against it.

    Scenario Bizarrio.

    Not true.

    All that would be needed would be to agree on a technical solution which circumvented the need for a hard border.
    It is a sign of the times that while Trump is closing down the USA so he can build a wall on the Mexico border supports the UK leavers who want to have no border on their only land border. Once we leave the EU we have no control over who lives in Ireland and the quality systems they have for the products they will supply us.


    We do not have that control now. How do we control who does and does not live in Ireland?
  • rpjs said:

    Anorak said:

    kinabalu said:

    Back, with great regret, to Brexit, here is a rum business:

    The WA means that any Future Trade Deal which takes NI out of the CU and the SM is impossible, since it would necessitate a border in Ireland and thus not obviate the backstop.

    So the FTD must keep NI in the CU/SM. Ergo unless we accept a border in the Irish Sea it must keep the UK as a whole in the CU/SM. This is pretty much Labour's Brexit.

    Mrs May's Brexit by contrast - out of both the CU and the SM - is not compatible with the WA.

    Now Mrs May's deal in common parlance is the WA plus the aspired to FTD (per the Political Declaration).

    Hence, going by its content and implications, Labour should be supporting the May deal and Mrs May herself should be voting against it.

    Scenario Bizarrio.

    Not true.

    All that would be needed would be to agree on a technical solution which circumvented the need for a hard border.
    "All that would be needed".

    Hmm.
    Planning was already well underway prior to the change of Government in Eire and the experts who deal with these things say it is perfectly feasible. So yes.
    I thought we’d had enough of listening to experts.
    Apparently Remain only like to listen to experts who agree with them.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    edited January 2019

    Not true.

    All that would be needed would be to agree on a technical solution which circumvented the need for a hard border.

    Exactly.

    If that is genuinely feasible it unlocks the possibility of a 'proper Brexit' under the Withdrawal Agreement.

    And if it isn't, then it isn't.

    I am surprised that this issue - utterly central and crucial as it is - has not had more prominence in the debate. Perhaps its time will come.
  • kinabalu said:

    Back, with great regret, to Brexit, here is a rum business:

    The WA means that any Future Trade Deal which takes NI out of the CU and the SM is impossible, since it would necessitate a border in Ireland and thus not obviate the backstop.

    So the FTD must keep NI in the CU/SM. Ergo unless we accept a border in the Irish Sea it must keep the UK as a whole in the CU/SM. This is pretty much Labour's Brexit.

    Mrs May's Brexit by contrast - out of both the CU and the SM - is not compatible with the WA.

    Now Mrs May's deal in common parlance is the WA plus the aspired to FTD (per the Political Declaration).

    Hence, going by its content and implications, Labour should be supporting the May deal and Mrs May herself should be voting against it.

    Scenario Bizarrio.

    Not true.

    All that would be needed would be to agree on a technical solution which circumvented the need for a hard border.
    It is a sign of the times that while Trump is closing down the USA so he can build a wall on the Mexico border supports the UK leavers who want to have no border on their only land border. Once we leave the EU we have no control over who lives in Ireland and the quality systems they have for the products they will supply us.


    We do not have that control now. How do we control who does and does not live in Ireland?
    Through the EU.
  • Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's not a hard Irish border - its an EU-Uk border.

    Irish exporters will face two of these as they use our motorway network as a cheap, fast land bridge.

    One as they enter Wales and another at Calais.

    With a bit of luck they will take their trucks to the continent via an alternative route.
    Does the U.K. get any value from acting as a transhipping route for Irish trucks?

    Besides the odd cup of coffee?

    Otherwise it’s congestion, pollution and wear & tear on the roads
    Employment in the ports, I guess.
    It keeps the ferry companies going, and hence a regular service for passengers to Ireland, and presumably the same for cross-Channel. Toll income on the M6 and Dartford crossing. Some income for service stations and fuel stops.

    When I was in Dublin a couple of weeks back they were preparing a ship to run Dublin-Dunkirk and Rotterdam. But I doubt one ship can take the volumes, given the length of the voyage.
    Really? I get the importance of trucking but given the relative size of the U.K. and Irish economy we’d have most of the capacity (and employment @Benpointer ) without them
    85% of Irish freight use UK ports with 60% remaining in the UK

    The idea a Dublin - Rotterdam sea route taking nearly 3 days sailing to replace the UK land bridge is absurd
    How long do you think it takes to cross the Irish Sea, cross Wales and England, and then cross over to Rotterdam?
    About 12 hours to Calais
    Including driver rest time crossing Wales and England?
  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    The EU confirmed today that No Deal would mean a Hard Border in Ireland.

    Will be funny to see Varadkar's face when the Germans turn up and start building a border.

    But on a serious note, how would a Hard Border get constructed if a) the UK doesn't want one, and b) Ireland doesn't want one?

    Would the EU send agents over to build one?

    How would it work in practice?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    kinabalu said:

    Not true.

    All that would be needed would be to agree on a technical solution which circumvented the need for a hard border.

    Exactly.

    If that is genuinely feasible it unlocks the possibility of a 'proper Brexit' under the Withdrawal Agreement.

    And if it isn't, then it isn't.

    I am surprised that this issue - utterly central and crucial as it is - has not had more prominence in the debate. Perhaps its time will come.
    Bertie Ahern was all over it - but Dublin/Berlin shut it down as they attempt to stop Brexit with a little help from their tame MPs.
  • viewcode said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Spent a large amount of time yesterday in the car and had the dubious privilege to listen to Nadine Dorries on R4. How the heck did someone so thick get into parliament? She makes Corbyn sound like an intellectual colossus, and that is saying something. With people like her in the legislature it is little surprise we are where we are

    Marc Francois is even worse
    I don't think I have had the pleasure of hearing him speak. If he is even worse than Nadine I am actually looking forward to it. I have often been accused of being prejudiced for calling members of the ERG stupid, but Nadine certainly didn't disabuse me of my strongly held belief that they really are very thick indeed.
    Andrew Bridgen.

    JR-M is nowhere near as bright as he thinks he is. Owen Paterson: dim. IDS: also dim.

    There are a lot of empty vessels in Parliament and a lot of sound.
    My view too. I am just a remoaner though, so my ability to spot a thicky clearly doesn't count.
    Which Brexit supporting MPs do Remainer PB posters think are bright?
    Gove. Hannah (with reservations). Carswell. Cummings (again with reservations). Matthew Eliott (will have to reread Tim Shipman to check: I think he's mentioned). Farage.

    Please stop thinking I'm stupid enough to think the opposition is stupid.
    How many of the MPs you name are MPs?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Fenster said:

    The EU confirmed today that No Deal would mean a Hard Border in Ireland.

    Will be funny to see Varadkar's face when the Germans turn up and start building a border.

    But on a serious note, how would a Hard Border get constructed if a) the UK doesn't want one, and b) Ireland doesn't want one?

    Would the EU send agents over to build one?

    How would it work in practice?

    The EU will mandate Dublin to build and man one. And pay for it.

    Suprised no Irish politician has raised the question of the costs.

    Meanwhile school children across the midlands will be spared breathing in the diesel fumes of 000s of Irish lorries taking the cheap land bridge to the EU.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959
    TGOHF said:

    Fenster said:

    The EU confirmed today that No Deal would mean a Hard Border in Ireland.

    Will be funny to see Varadkar's face when the Germans turn up and start building a border.

    But on a serious note, how would a Hard Border get constructed if a) the UK doesn't want one, and b) Ireland doesn't want one?

    Would the EU send agents over to build one?

    How would it work in practice?

    The EU will mandate Dublin to build and man one. And pay for it.

    Suprised no Irish politician has raised the question of the costs.

    Meanwhile school children across the midlands will be spared breathing in the diesel fumes of 000s of Irish lorries taking the cheap land bridge to the EU.

    They are going to need that European Army, when the RA start dismantling their good efforts as fast as they can build it....
  • sladeslade Posts: 1,921
    Vince Cable made the same point yesterday. It is noticeable that Lucas sits next to the Lib Dems and is often seen chatting to them.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959
    Anorak said:
    Be interesting if a pregnant Labour MP, say, were to get a Sinn Fein MP to act as their proxy....!
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019

    glw said:

    I’ve said before that the EU could seal the deal (and make it’s point) by doing that, and it’s interesting it’s steadfastly refused to do so.

    Why are they refusing?
    They’ve put nothing new on the table to make Remain an attractive option, other than hinting the U.K. could do so on existing terms.
    But Casino, we are leaving the EU. It isn't leaving us. Why should they 'offer' anything?
    If the real objective of the EU is to tip the scales of public debate in the UK, so it ultimately chooses to stay, then it’s an obvious play to make.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    slade said:

    Vince Cable made the same point yesterday. It is noticeable that Lucas sits next to the Lib Dems and is often seen chatting to them.
    Was that from his armchair in Brockenhurst?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959
    Scott_P said:
    Lots of effort to tell us what they DON'T want.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    TGOHF said:

    Bertie Ahern was all over it - but Dublin/Berlin shut it down as they attempt to stop Brexit with a little help from their tame MPs.

    But flip that around.

    If the MPs wanting a Canada style free trade deal, rather than CU and SM alignment, have confidence that a tech border solution will be possible, why not support the WA and make sure we leave, then continue to press their case for it?

    Why are they being such drama queens?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    That is why I think the Pause button should be pushed while we do some hard thinking.

    What makes you think that Mrs May, if given a pause, would spend it doing hard thinking, rather than running the clock down to the end of the pause?
    Well exactly. Her and others. A pause is just an argument for cancellation. There are arguments for that so make those directly. It's fundamentally dishonest.

    Time is needed to prepare after a decision but we've had plenty of time for a decision, there's no reason to think more will help.
    Ten weeks is sufficient time for the Commons to decide if it wishes to cancel Brexit, accept May's Deal, or some other, or leave without a deal.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,785

    kinabalu said:

    Back, with great regret, to Brexit, here is a rum business:

    The WA means that any Future Trade Deal which takes NI out of the CU and the SM is impossible, since it would necessitate a border in Ireland and thus not obviate the backstop.

    So the FTD must keep NI in the CU/SM. Ergo unless we accept a border in the Irish Sea it must keep the UK as a whole in the CU/SM. This is pretty much Labour's Brexit.

    Mrs May's Brexit by contrast - out of both the CU and the SM - is not compatible with the WA.

    Now Mrs May's deal in common parlance is the WA plus the aspired to FTD (per the Political Declaration).

    Hence, going by its content and implications, Labour should be supporting the May deal and Mrs May herself should be voting against it.

    Scenario Bizarrio.

    Not true.

    All that would be needed would be to agree on a technical solution which circumvented the need for a hard border.
    It is a sign of the times that while Trump is closing down the USA so he can build a wall on the Mexico border supports the UK leavers who want to have no border on their only land border. Once we leave the EU we have no control over who lives in Ireland and the quality systems they have for the products they will supply us.


    I think the May plan was for cross border trade to be agreed sector by sector to build out the need for a border solution in 99% of cases. Then have the remote and small scale symbolic tech solution for the last 1%. Effectively you would end up with so much of the SM for goods and would choose to customs align in most cases, that it would effectively be the SM/CU, but without actually saying so. And you could choose by the time you reach an FTA to ignore many of the differences (i.e. mutual recognition) to facilitate much of the remainder. You'd need every goods sector included because, what about that one man in a barn in Co. Mayo who exports that widget. And in an FTA, what holds for Ireland, holds for Dover.

    On services, not so much - something particular for cross border plumbers, but for the big London service sectors, May isn't that interested. Banking transactions don't block the M20 and, if the cash from that sector is vital for the UK, then you can always go further in Singapore on Sea for services.

    I tell you again, Ahab like, the Irish border issue is a UK Trojan horse filled with a crack division of cake eaters.
  • kinabalu said:

    TGOHF said:

    Bertie Ahern was all over it - but Dublin/Berlin shut it down as they attempt to stop Brexit with a little help from their tame MPs.

    But flip that around.

    If the MPs wanting a Canada style free trade deal, rather than CU and SM alignment, have confidence that a tech border solution will be possible, why not support the WA and make sure we leave, then continue to press their case for it?

    Why are they being such drama queens?
    Because the EU will never agree to a tech border solution, in order to discourage other countries from thinking the EU will give them similar arrangements if they were to leave. Hence we would be permanently in the customs union.
  • Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    That is why I think the Pause button should be pushed while we do some hard thinking.

    What makes you think that Mrs May, if given a pause, would spend it doing hard thinking, rather than running the clock down to the end of the pause?
    Well exactly. Her and others. A pause is just an argument for cancellation. There are arguments for that so make those directly. It's fundamentally dishonest.

    Time is needed to prepare after a decision but we've had plenty of time for a decision, there's no reason to think more will help.
    Ten weeks is sufficient time for the Commons to decide if it wishes to cancel Brexit, accept May's Deal, or some other, or leave without a deal.
    It's not sufficient time for businesses and individuals to plan for which of those scenarios is going to happen, though. In fact, I'd argue that we are already well past the last moment when a decision should have been made. We've reached the stage where containers full of goods are soon going to be on the high seas without anyone knowing what customs documentation is going to be required at the other end, or what tariffs will be payable. It completely beggars belief.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Cyclefree said:

    That is why I think the Pause button should be pushed while we do some hard thinking.

    What makes you think that Mrs May, if given a pause, would spend it doing hard thinking, rather than running the clock down to the end of the pause?
    She won't, I agree. But to be frank I'd rather she wasn't around anymore.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good afternoon, everyone.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited January 2019
    On the World at One a lady was saying that her cross channel ferry ticket was voided because the government had appropriated all the ferries to transport essential medical supplies in the event of a 'no-deal' Brexit. Naturally she was furious. Furthermore the civil service have been told to cancel their holidays..

    If there have ever been two Tory Prime Ministers more worthy of the Ceausescu treatment than the last two I've never heard of them.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Good afternoon, comrade Dancer.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    kinabalu said:

    TGOHF said:

    Bertie Ahern was all over it - but Dublin/Berlin shut it down as they attempt to stop Brexit with a little help from their tame MPs.

    But flip that around.

    If the MPs wanting a Canada style free trade deal, rather than CU and SM alignment, have confidence that a tech border solution will be possible, why not support the WA and make sure we leave, then continue to press their case for it?

    Why are they being such drama queens?
    They enjoy being drama queens.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    edited January 2019
    Roger said:

    On the World at One a lady was saying that her cross channel ferry ticket was voided because the government had purloined all the ferries to transport essential medical supplies in the event of a 'no-deal'. Furthermore the civil service have been told to cancel their holidays...

    If there have ever been two Tory Prime Ministers more worthy of the Ceausescu treatment than the last two I've never heard of them.

    I’m surprised this isn’t a bigger story, if it is true.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    kinabalu said:

    Back, with great regret, to Brexit, here is a rum business:

    The WA means that any Future Trade Deal which takes NI out of the CU and the SM is impossible, since it would necessitate a border in Ireland and thus not obviate the backstop.

    So the FTD must keep NI in the CU/SM. Ergo unless we accept a border in the Irish Sea it must keep the UK as a whole in the CU/SM. This is pretty much Labour's Brexit.

    Mrs May's Brexit by contrast - out of both the CU and the SM - is not compatible with the WA.

    Now Mrs May's deal in common parlance is the WA plus the aspired to FTD (per the Political Declaration).

    Hence, going by its content and implications, Labour should be supporting the May deal and Mrs May herself should be voting against it.

    Scenario Bizarrio.

    Not true.

    All that would be needed would be to agree on a technical solution which circumvented the need for a hard border.
    A technical solution is a hard border.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    So as of today we have:

    record total employment.
    A record percentage of the population in work.
    Record levels of vacancies.

    Remember that the next time we get told about a 100 jobs going to Amsterdam or Frankfurt.

    OTOH we probably do need more immigrants right now. With nearly 900k job vacancies we must be developing skills shortages that are impeding further growth and investment. A generous settlement in respect of EU immigration looks quite sensible provided we can still turn it down a notch if things change.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084
    Scott_P said:
    And dumb, since it just forces us towards Revocation.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    That is why I think the Pause button should be pushed while we do some hard thinking.

    What makes you think that Mrs May, if given a pause, would spend it doing hard thinking, rather than running the clock down to the end of the pause?
    Well exactly. Her and others. A pause is just an argument for cancellation. There are arguments for that so make those directly. It's fundamentally dishonest.

    Time is needed to prepare after a decision but we've had plenty of time for a decision, there's no reason to think more will help.
    Ten weeks is sufficient time for the Commons to decide if it wishes to cancel Brexit, accept May's Deal, or some other, or leave without a deal.
    It's not sufficient time for businesses and individuals to plan for which of those scenarios is going to happen, though. In fact, I'd argue that we are already well past the last moment when a decision should have been made. We've reached the stage where containers full of goods are soon going to be on the high seas without anyone knowing what customs documentation is going to be required at the other end, or what tariffs will be payable. It completely beggars belief.
    Parliament simply isn't used to deadlines being imposed on itself. You have to wonder how on earth many of them manage to move house...
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    kinabalu said:

    Back, with great regret, to Brexit, here is a rum business:

    The WA means that any Future Trade Deal which takes NI out of the CU and the SM is impossible, since it would necessitate a border in Ireland and thus not obviate the backstop.

    So the FTD must keep NI in the CU/SM. Ergo unless we accept a border in the Irish Sea it must keep the UK as a whole in the CU/SM. This is pretty much Labour's Brexit.

    Mrs May's Brexit by contrast - out of both the CU and the SM - is not compatible with the WA.

    Now Mrs May's deal in common parlance is the WA plus the aspired to FTD (per the Political Declaration).

    Hence, going by its content and implications, Labour should be supporting the May deal and Mrs May herself should be voting against it.

    Scenario Bizarrio.

    Not true.

    All that would be needed would be to agree on a technical solution which circumvented the need for a hard border.
    A technical solution is a hard border.
    Depends who you ask, or do you think different tax rates, currency etc. constitute a hard border?
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    How many Plan B's are there?
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,785
    Pulpstar said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    That is why I think the Pause button should be pushed while we do some hard thinking.

    What makes you think that Mrs May, if given a pause, would spend it doing hard thinking, rather than running the clock down to the end of the pause?
    Well exactly. Her and others. A pause is just an argument for cancellation. There are arguments for that so make those directly. It's fundamentally dishonest.

    Time is needed to prepare after a decision but we've had plenty of time for a decision, there's no reason to think more will help.
    Ten weeks is sufficient time for the Commons to decide if it wishes to cancel Brexit, accept May's Deal, or some other, or leave without a deal.
    It's not sufficient time for businesses and individuals to plan for which of those scenarios is going to happen, though. In fact, I'd argue that we are already well past the last moment when a decision should have been made. We've reached the stage where containers full of goods are soon going to be on the high seas without anyone knowing what customs documentation is going to be required at the other end, or what tariffs will be payable. It completely beggars belief.
    Parliament simply isn't used to deadlines being imposed on itself. You have to wonder how on earth many of them manage to move house...
    They don't move, they just 'flip'
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084
    RobD said:

    Roger said:

    On the World at One a lady was saying that her cross channel ferry ticket was voided because the government had purloined all the ferries to transport essential medical supplies in the event of a 'no-deal'. Furthermore the civil service have been told to cancel their holidays...

    If there have ever been two Tory Prime Ministers more worthy of the Ceausescu treatment than the last two I've never heard of them.

    I’m surprised this isn’t a bigger story, if it is true.
    Bigger than one of the lead stories in the leading lunchtime news programme on the country's principal national news radio station?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited January 2019
    DavidL said:

    So as of today we have:

    record total employment.
    A record percentage of the population in work.
    Record levels of vacancies.

    Remember that the next time we get told about a 100 jobs going to Amsterdam or Frankfurt.

    OTOH we probably do need more immigrants right now. With nearly 900k job vacancies we must be developing skills shortages that are impeding further growth and investment. A generous settlement in respect of EU immigration looks quite sensible provided we can still turn it down a notch if things change.

    They were careful to point out that these figures predated the Brexit vote in parliament.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233
    IanB2 said:

    viewcode said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Spent a large amount of time yesterday in the car and had the dubious privilege to listen to Nadine Dorries on R4. How the heck did someone so thick get into parliament? She makes Corbyn sound like an intellectual colossus, and that is saying something. With people like her in the legislature it is little surprise we are where we are

    Marc Francois is even worse
    I don't think I have had the pleasure of hearing him speak. If he is even worse than Nadine I am actually looking forward to it. I have often been accused of being prejudiced for calling members of the ERG stupid, but Nadine certainly didn't disabuse me of my strongly held belief that they really are very thick indeed.
    Andrew Bridgen.

    JR-M is nowhere near as bright as he thinks he is. Owen Paterson: dim. IDS: also dim.

    There are a lot of empty vessels in Parliament and a lot of sound.
    My view too. I am just a remoaner though, so my ability to spot a thicky clearly doesn't count.
    Which Brexit supporting MPs do Remainer PB posters think are bright?
    Gove. Hannah (with reservations). Carswell. Cummings (again with reservations). Matthew Eliott (will have to reread Tim Shipman to check: I think he's mentioned). Farage.

    Please stop thinking I'm stupid enough to think the opposition is stupid.
    But enough to misread the question? ;)
    Oh, arse. (hides under bed... :) )
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,572
    slade said:

    Vince Cable made the same point yesterday. It is noticeable that Lucas sits next to the Lib Dems and is often seen chatting to them.
    It is quite strange that the Greens nowadays are in favour of unfettered global free trade systems which end up promoting the transportation of vast quantities of goods from one end of the earth to the other, at goodness knows what environmental cost.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    edited January 2019

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    That is why I think the Pause button should be pushed while we do some hard thinking.

    What makes you think that Mrs May, if given a pause, would spend it doing hard thinking, rather than running the clock down to the end of the pause?
    Well exactly. Her and others. A pause is just an argument for cancellation. There are arguments for that so make those directly. It's fundamentally dishonest.

    Time is needed to prepare after a decision but we've had plenty of time for a decision, there's no reason to think more will help.
    Ten weeks is sufficient time for the Commons to decide if it wishes to cancel Brexit, accept May's Deal, or some other, or leave without a deal.
    It's not sufficient time for businesses and individuals to plan for which of those scenarios is going to happen, though. In fact, I'd argue that we are already well past the last moment when a decision should have been made. We've reached the stage where containers full of goods are soon going to be on the high seas without anyone knowing what customs documentation is going to be required at the other end, or what tariffs will be payable. It completely beggars belief.
    Remember the stories about ships full of soy beans desperately trying to get to port in time to beat the tariffs in Trump's trade war? I wonder if there will be a little economic boomlet in the next two months where everyone desperately brings forward their purchases in case the entire trade system turns into a pumpkin on Brexit Day.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    RobD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Back, with great regret, to Brexit, here is a rum business:

    The WA means that any Future Trade Deal which takes NI out of the CU and the SM is impossible, since it would necessitate a border in Ireland and thus not obviate the backstop.

    So the FTD must keep NI in the CU/SM. Ergo unless we accept a border in the Irish Sea it must keep the UK as a whole in the CU/SM. This is pretty much Labour's Brexit.

    Mrs May's Brexit by contrast - out of both the CU and the SM - is not compatible with the WA.

    Now Mrs May's deal in common parlance is the WA plus the aspired to FTD (per the Political Declaration).

    Hence, going by its content and implications, Labour should be supporting the May deal and Mrs May herself should be voting against it.

    Scenario Bizarrio.

    Not true.

    All that would be needed would be to agree on a technical solution which circumvented the need for a hard border.
    A technical solution is a hard border.
    Depends who you ask, or do you think different tax rates, currency etc. constitute a hard border?
    I define a hard border to mean systematic checks on the border, however implemented. Different tax rates and currencies are irrelevant.
  • NormNorm Posts: 1,251
    edited January 2019
    IanB2 said:

    Scott_P said:
    And dumb, since it just forces us towards Revocation.
    Tbh I don't think Poland would play that game anyway. But it does kind of highlight why delay (aka extension of A50) is no slam dunk.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,960
    IanB2 said:

    RobD said:

    Roger said:

    On the World at One a lady was saying that her cross channel ferry ticket was voided because the government had purloined all the ferries to transport essential medical supplies in the event of a 'no-deal'. Furthermore the civil service have been told to cancel their holidays...

    If there have ever been two Tory Prime Ministers more worthy of the Ceausescu treatment than the last two I've never heard of them.

    I’m surprised this isn’t a bigger story, if it is true.
    Bigger than one of the lead stories in the leading lunchtime news programme on the country's principal national news radio station?
    The key word there is "radio".
This discussion has been closed.