There are very few of those names who would be missed if they actually resigned due to the mediocrity of British politicians although I doubt the Remainers resigning will attract anything like the flak that Johnson and Davis did when they resigned.
Just a genuine question.
Are you not concerned that brexit may not happen and especially no deal which seems to be all but ruled out
I don’t see how that is relevant to what I said but I would be very surprised now if Brexit actually happens. HoC is clearly pro Remain and liars like Grieve are clearly intent on giving a two fingered salute to their constituents and the 17.4m who voted Leave.
I have never been in favour of no deal, or May’s deal. I always favoured a FTA arrangement akin to Canada’s. I am happy to go along with no deal if it’s the only way out and notwithstanding the gross negligence of May and Hammond in failing to prepare for it. I could have lived with a Norway type deal after May lost her majority had she focussed on domestic policy. Too late for that now having chased a special relationship with the EU that the EU clearly don’t want.
The Leavers have failed to negotiate anything like the 'sunlit uplands' that would be the 'easiest' deal because 'they need us more than we need them'. Instead they ended up resigning serially. Don't blame the Remainer MPs who are trying to salvage something from the mess.
I don’t see the Remainers trying to salvage anything except EU membership.
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.
OK let's run with that.
The WA drives us to permanent membership of the customs union.
More than that, I would suggest - it steers us towards the customs union AND alignment with the single market, assuming we want to protect the regulatory coherence of the UK, i.e. avoid a border in the Irish Sea.
That, as it happens, is more or less Labour's brexit.
Therefore if we wish to leave the EU in a smooth and orderly manner parliament must embrace Labour's position and reject Mrs May's and the ERG's.
Except it’s not leaving the EU. We are a rule taker, like Norway we’d have to pay to trade, we’d still be subject to the ECJ and we would still have freedom of movement with the immigration apartheid it demand.
Norway pay a fraction of what we pay. Nor are they just a rule taker. They have input into every level of decision making over new regulations bar the final vote and can influence rues far more from their position outside the EU than we can from inside.
Nor are they subject to the ECJ.
Basically the only thing you are right about is freedom of movement which I personally think is a good thing not a bad one.
I think you're playing up their role a tadge, Richard. They are consulted in the early stages but as you say have no vote. And have no recourse. They are very much outsiders and rule-takers. And then they have it decided whether they include the EU regs into their own regs. So not ECJ but EFTA court (as we said prior to the referendum, we are now swapping one supranational european court for another so good luck with that).
Oh and there is freedom of movement which matters to 99.5% of those who dislike foreigners voted to Leave. Yourself excepted, obvs, you all-welcoming guy, you.
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?
Roger made it sounds as though a member of the public had called in rather than an actual news report
If all ferries had been cancelled that’d surely be a big story.
Somebody had to put their holiday booking back a fortnight. The horror, the horror.....
More #ComicalMark
The horror is reaching the point where the government is commandeering ferry places as the only way medicines might be able to reach people in need. Throwing people off their bookings is the unfortunate consequence.
Except all that has happened is the schedule has been altered. Hardly the end of the world.
There are very few of those names who would be missed if they actually resigned due to the mediocrity of British politicians although I doubt the Remainers resigning will attract anything like the flak that Johnson and Davis did when they resigned.
Just a genuine question.
Are you not concerned that brexit may not happen and especially no deal which seems to be all but ruled out
I don’t see how that is relevant to what I said but I would be very surprised now if Brexit actually happens. HoC is clearly pro Remain and liars like Grieve are clearly intent on giving a two fingered salute to their constituents and the 17.4m who voted Leave.
I have never been in favour of no deal, or May’s deal. I always favoured a FTA arrangement akin to Canada’s. I am happy to go along with no deal if it’s the only way out and notwithstanding the gross negligence of May and Hammond in failing to prepare for it. I could have lived with a Norway type deal after May lost her majority had she focussed on domestic policy. Too late for that now having chased a special relationship with the EU that the EU clearly don’t want.
The Leavers have failed to negotiate anything like the 'sunlit uplands' that would be the 'easiest' deal because 'they need us more than we need them'. Instead they ended up resigning serially. Don't blame the Remainer MPs who are trying to salvage something from the mess.
I don’t see the Remainers trying to salvage anything except EU membership.
Sky reporting just now, (and showing the video) that the European Commission states that a no deal outcome will result in a hard border in Ireland has caused anger and concern in Ireland
Coming on top of Poland's comments yesterday, Sky are saying this is ramping up unexpected pressure on Ireland
It seems the May tactic is clear - hope the prospect of No Deal frightens enough people (the EU and her own backbench MPs) into supporting the WA.
I thought the GFA made the notion of a "hard border" impossible.
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.
OK let's run with that.
The WA drives us to permanent membership of the customs union.
More than that, I would suggest - it steers us towards the customs union AND alignment with the single market, assuming we want to protect the regulatory coherence of the UK, i.e. avoid a border in the Irish Sea.
That, as it happens, is more or less Labour's brexit.
Therefore if we wish to leave the EU in a smooth and orderly manner parliament must embrace Labour's position and reject Mrs May's and the ERG's.
Except it’s not leaving the EU. We are a rule taker, like Norway we’d have to pay to trade, we’d still be subject to the ECJ and we would still have freedom of movement with the immigration apartheid it demand.
Norway pay a fraction of what we pay. Nor are they just a rule taker. They have input into every level of decision making over new regulations bar the final vote and can influence rues far more from their position outside the EU than we can from inside.
Nor are they subject to the ECJ.
Basically the only thing you are right about is freedom of movement which I personally think is a good thing not a bad one.
Examples of Norway’s influence being what precisely ?
I wasn’t commenting on the quantum paid but the principle. Moreover we are a much bigger economy so the implication that we would be paying a lot less has no basis in fact.
The idea that the EFTA court is no wholly subservient to the ECJ in practice is a technical nicety that is meaningless.
There are very few of those names who would be missed if they actually resigned due to the mediocrity of British politicians although I doubt the Remainers resigning will attract anything like the flak that Johnson and Davis did when they resigned.
Just a genuine question.
Are you not concerned that brexit may not happen and especially no deal which seems to be all but ruled out
I don’t see how that is relevant to what I said but I would be very surprised now if Brexit actually happens. HoC is clearly pro Remain and liars like Grieve are clearly intent on giving a two fingered salute to their constituents and the 17.4m who voted Leave.
I have never been in favour of no deal, or May’s deal. I always favoured a FTA arrangement akin to Canada’s. I am happy to go along with no deal if it’s the only way out and notwithstanding the gross negligence of May and Hammond in failing to prepare for it. I could have lived with a Norway type deal after May lost her majority had she focussed on domestic policy. Too late for that now having chased a special relationship with the EU that the EU clearly don’t want.
The Leavers have failed to negotiate anything like the 'sunlit uplands' that would be the 'easiest' deal because 'they need us more than we need them'. Instead they ended up resigning serially. Don't blame the Remainer MPs who are trying to salvage something from the mess.
I don’t see the Remainers trying to salvage anything except EU membership.
Norway...can influence rues far more from their position outside the EU than we can from inside.
So how much influence did Norway have over GDPR compared with the UK?
Norway already had much tighter regulation on data protection than the EU anyway so apart from adding it as an appendix to their existing laws it makes no difference.
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.
OK let's run with that.
The WA drives us to permanent membership of the customs union.
More than that, I would suggest - it steers us towards the customs union AND alignment with the single market, assuming we want to protect the regulatory coherence of the UK, i.e. avoid a border in the Irish Sea.
That, as it happens, is more or less Labour's brexit.
Therefore if we wish to leave the EU in a smooth and orderly manner parliament must embrace Labour's position and reject Mrs May's and the ERG's.
Except it’s not leaving the EU. We are a rule taker, like Norway we’d have to pay to trade, we’d still be subject to the ECJ and we would still have freedom of movement with the immigration apartheid it demand.
Norway pay a fraction of what we pay. Nor are they just a rule taker. They have input into every level of decision making over new regulations bar the final vote and can influence rues far more from their position outside the EU than we can from inside.
Nor are they subject to the ECJ.
Basically the only thing you are right about is freedom of movement which I personally think is a good thing not a bad one.
Examples of Norway’s influence being what precisely ?
I wasn’t commenting on the quantum paid but the principle. Moreover we are a much bigger economy so the implication that we would be paying a lot less has no basis in fact.
The idea that the EFTA court is no wholly subservient to the ECJ in practice is a technical nicety that is meaningless.
We know that on the same per capita basis we would be paying around 2.5 to 3 billion a year compared to 10 billion net paid now.
I suggest you actually study what the EFTA court does and what input EFTA members have into rule making. It is a lot more than the UK.
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....
Using the Royal Artillery might be a little...inflammatory?
What do you call having rules for immigration from non EU countries and not for EU members if not apartheid ?
Read and noted your points on the downsides of Norway plus. Certainly it would not have beaten Remain in 2016 if it had been the alternative. Then again, no single Leave proposition would have triumphed. That was the biggest single flaw of the referendum. Well, second only to the very biggest one - that the public were and are ill equipped to make the decision. This is why, of all possible courses of action from here, another one of those is my least favoured. I would even opt for No Deal over that.
Apartheid is the specific term for the historical segregation of the races in South Africa. It is far too loaded a word to describe an immigration policy within the EU single market that discriminates in favour of members over non members, but has no reference to race. Calling that apartheid is a bit like saying that the Garrick door policy is apartheid in action.
My suggested alternative - 'bias' - I think is a lot better.
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.
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?
Roger made it sounds as though a member of the public had called in rather than an actual news report
If all ferries had been cancelled that’d surely be a big story.
Somebody had to put their holiday booking back a fortnight. The horror, the horror.....
Thought experiment:
Somebody had to put their holiday booking back a fortnight, through the direct action of government requisition for government business.
Not so hot? Still it's a Brittany ferry. Some Remoaner central, right?
OK, let's substitute... a plane load of passengers on a budget airline from Teesside Airport to a little way outside Malaga.
Comments
So why do they have to do anything if they don't want to?
Oh and there is freedom of movement which matters to 99.5% of those who
dislike foreignersvoted to Leave. Yourself excepted, obvs, you all-welcoming guy, you.NEW THREAD
If it’s not working well it’s worth fixing
I thought the GFA made the notion of a "hard border" impossible.
Examples of Norway’s influence being what precisely ?
I wasn’t commenting on the quantum paid but the principle. Moreover we are a much bigger economy so the implication that we would be paying a lot less has no basis in fact.
The idea that the EFTA court is no wholly subservient to the ECJ in practice is a technical nicety that is meaningless.
NEW THREAD
I suggest you actually study what the EFTA court does and what input EFTA members have into rule making. It is a lot more than the UK.
Apartheid is the specific term for the historical segregation of the races in South Africa. It is far too loaded a word to describe an immigration policy within the EU single market that discriminates in favour of members over non members, but has no reference to race. Calling that apartheid is a bit like saying that the Garrick door policy is apartheid in action.
My suggested alternative - 'bias' - I think is a lot better.