Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Of all the Westminster constituencies affected by Heathrow Ric

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited October 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Of all the Westminster constituencies affected by Heathrow Richmond Park is where there’s the most opposition

"undefined"==typeof window.datawrapper&&(window.datawrapper={"RvddV":{}}),window.datawrapper["RvddV"].embedDeltas={"100":935.8,"200":699.8,"300":645.8,"400":626.8,"500":599.8,"600":599.8,"700":599.8,"800":599.8,"900":572.8,"1000":572.8},window.datawrapper["RvddV"].iframe=document.getElementById("datawrapper-chart-RvddV"),window.datawrapper["RvddV"].iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper["RvddV"].embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper["RvddV"].iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+"px",window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if("undefined"!=typeof a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var b in a.data["datawrapper-height"])"RvddV"==b&&(window.datawrapper["RvddV"].iframe.style.height=a.data["datawrapper-height"][b]+"px")});

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084
    edited October 2016
    First like Farron
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    S
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084
    FPT
    IanB2 said:

    Worth a read as a view about what the Nissan deal suggests might be the government's strategy for Brexit

    http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2016/10/30/nissan-might-have-got-the-headlines-last-week-but-the-real-story-is-whats-bubbling-on-free-movement/

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Third like Labour.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Bah. Would have been first if I hadn't gone out for a run. :(

    I think the penultimate paragraph is key; some (not all) of the public opposition is being driven by Zac's very vocal opposition.

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    Byelections have quite small turnouts, so I'd imagine they over-represent people with something to be grumpy about.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    IanB2 said:

    Worth a read as a view about what the Nissan deal suggests might be the government's strategy for Brexit

    http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2016/10/30/nissan-might-have-got-the-headlines-last-week-but-the-real-story-is-whats-bubbling-on-free-movement/

    "or geographic, where parts of Britain are designated free movement areas."

    That's a ridiculous suggestion, surely?
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited October 2016
    Zac Goldsmith is an eco-warrior, I’m fairly sure his opposition to Heathrow is a personal one.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084
    All the more reason why the by-election is likely to be about Brexit.

    I see Zak is taking some flak from Tory colleagues about his grandstanding.

    Boris's airport-employed constituency will be pro-expansion. A shame Maidenhead wasn't polled.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited October 2016
    Is there someone standing in Richmond from the "Stop talking about it, just get on and build the bloody runway" party?

    Just looking at the graph above, they would have 36 or 37% support, which could possibly win a by-election with Zac and the LDs splitting the anti-airport vote.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084
    edited October 2016

    IanB2 said:

    Worth a read as a view about what the Nissan deal suggests might be the government's strategy for Brexit

    http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2016/10/30/nissan-might-have-got-the-headlines-last-week-but-the-real-story-is-whats-bubbling-on-free-movement/

    "or geographic, where parts of Britain are designated free movement areas."

    That's a ridiculous suggestion, surely?
    I did wonder, myself, although it is true that other countries do appear to make similar arrangements work. I have a relative who moved out to Australia and he had enough points for Adelaide but not Sydney or Melbourne, so his visa was conditional upon his living in South Australia. (Edit/ and it does have the advantage of passing the buck away from HMG)

    The key point is that, despite all the noise around hard Brexit, it looks like May may be attempting a soft Brexit approach, as many on PB anticipated. Perhaps all the hard Brexit stuff was to soften up her antis, who knows? In any event if this is right then after Brexit we will have adopted all EU law, be following EU trade rules, still be making big financial contributions to the EU, and still be accepting a significant amount of free movement for Eastern European workers.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084

    Zac Goldsmith is an eco-warrior, I’m fairly sure his opposition to Heathrow is a personal one.

    But nevertheless I don't buy the suggestion that his personal view is driving that of the constituency. Richmond has long been anti-Heathrow and all his LibDem predecessors were equally strident on the issue.

    As with many support/opposition questions, the opponents are greatly exercised about the matter and it will influence their vote. Whereas the people who tell the pollster they support the expansion are unlikely to be so motivated by the issue that it will override their other concerns and political views.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138

    I think the penultimate paragraph is key; some (not all) of the public opposition is being driven by Zac's very vocal opposition.

    Or it could be the influence of the Lib Dems! - just fancy that! - bearing in mind that fact that both Richmond and Twickenham were Lib Dem seats. And the Borough used to have a Lib Dem council.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019

    IanB2 said:

    Worth a read as a view about what the Nissan deal suggests might be the government's strategy for Brexit

    http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2016/10/30/nissan-might-have-got-the-headlines-last-week-but-the-real-story-is-whats-bubbling-on-free-movement/

    "or geographic, where parts of Britain are designated free movement areas."

    That's a ridiculous suggestion, surely?
    It's an idea but I don't see how it's easily squared with national targets to bring migration down to tens of thousands.

    And how would one stop migrants moving from one geographic part of the UK to another once inside? It would just lead to a much larger black economy, or bureaucratic fiddling where the employee is registered in one area but mainly travels and works in another.

    My view is that Theresa May will put a headline cut in absolute migration numbers as her number one political goal.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    edited October 2016

    IanB2 said:

    Worth a read as a view about what the Nissan deal suggests might be the government's strategy for Brexit

    http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2016/10/30/nissan-might-have-got-the-headlines-last-week-but-the-real-story-is-whats-bubbling-on-free-movement/

    "or geographic, where parts of Britain are designated free movement areas."

    That's a ridiculous suggestion, surely?
    Politically ridiculous or practically ridiculous?

    Practically I think it works. If what you're trying to control is people migrating to take jobs or claim benefits, you can do the enforcement at the workplace and/or benefits office. This is basically where you have to do the enforcement in any case; You can't stop people at the border, because the set of people permitted to work and/or claim benefits is much smaller than the people permitted to enter the country temporarily, and once they're in for a short visit the border control can't stop them staying. You'd beef up employer-level enforcement with severe penalties for employing someone illegally, and bribes for immigrants who took jobs illegally then ratted out their employers.

    The political problem is that the voters mistakenly expect that control of migration is something that can be done at the border. There's an analogous mistake in IT security where people try to rely too much on securing a perimeter, and spend too much on firewall hardware and not enough on training.

    I don't know if there's any way around the voters' adherence to the Perimeter Fallacy, but if you can get them to swallow it you have quite an interesting localist political angle. You could have local referendums on how much immigration to allow, which will go down well when it's introduced because pro-immigration and anti-immigration people all think that their preferred option is obviously the best, so when it's put into practice everyone will end up voting for it.

    It also provides a nice solution to the Scottish and Northern Irish problems, because they'd be their own localities and they'd be able to set their own immigration policies. The Scots in particular would welcome the extra devolution.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Let's take back control, and give £350m a week to foreign car makers...

    Every carmaker in Britain will be given a government guarantee that they will remain “competitive” even if Brexit trade talks break down and the European Union imposes tariffs on exports.

    In an open-ended commitment Greg Clark, the business secretary, announced yesterday that the government was prepared make the same promises to Ford, Vauxhall, Toyota and other carmakers that rely on European exports as it made last week to Nissan.

    Crucially, he did not spell out how such a multibillion-pound commitment might be funded in the event of Brexit negotiations breaking down


    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/you-ll-all-get-the-same-deal-as-nissan-carmakers-told-vm8wv08qw
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    PClipp said:

    I think the penultimate paragraph is key; some (not all) of the public opposition is being driven by Zac's very vocal opposition.

    Or it could be the influence of the Lib Dems! - just fancy that! - bearing in mind that fact that both Richmond and Twickenham were Lib Dem seats. And the Borough used to have a Lib Dem council.
    Perhaps that is right. If you read my posts (Ms?) Lipp, you'll see that I'm not exactly anti-LD.

    But given their MP is medium profile, and has been very noisy on this topic at a national level, it is had to envisage that noise not altering the views of at least some of his constituents.

    As an aside, here's a mischievous idea: if this by-election is about Heathrow expansion, and the constituents elect an anti-expansion MP, then ban all constituents from using Heathrow. :)
  • I've just seen TSE's thread about early voting.This really shows a lack of understanding about the electoral process in the US. The question isn't whether Clinton has a lead in early voting, it's how that compares with 2012. The answer to the latter is that she's down. We know that Democrats in many states vote early, partly because they have better GOTV. It's the all-important comparison to 2012 by which we can assess how it's going and the answer at the moment is 'not brilliantly.' Even before the FBI probe announcement she was 17% down in North Carolina amongst African-Americans.

    Florida now looks to be swinging Trump's way and with the email scandal growing* rather than diminishing there's betting value on Trump at both state and national level.


    *650,000 emails on the laptop 'many of which' relate to Clinton.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    What about Putney and Maidenhead?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Scott_P said:
    On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Scott_P said:

    Let's take back control, and give £350m a week to foreign car makers...

    Every carmaker in Britain will be given a government guarantee that they will remain “competitive” even if Brexit trade talks break down and the European Union imposes tariffs on exports.

    In an open-ended commitment Greg Clark, the business secretary, announced yesterday that the government was prepared make the same promises to Ford, Vauxhall, Toyota and other carmakers that rely on European exports as it made last week to Nissan.

    Crucially, he did not spell out how such a multibillion-pound commitment might be funded in the event of Brexit negotiations breaking down


    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/you-ll-all-get-the-same-deal-as-nissan-carmakers-told-vm8wv08qw

    This really doesn't bother me, and for one reason: as history shows, the car makers are not exactly loyal to the UK, and will move production if it is to their advantage. They are giving a medium-term commitment to the UK; any commitment we give them should be medium-term at best.

    I'm also guessing that any guarantee will not be legally binding to future governments.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    PClipp said:

    I think the penultimate paragraph is key; some (not all) of the public opposition is being driven by Zac's very vocal opposition.

    Or it could be the influence of the Lib Dems! - just fancy that! - bearing in mind that fact that both Richmond and Twickenham were Lib Dem seats. And the Borough used to have a Lib Dem council.
    Lib Dem campaigning or the sort of people who vote Lib Dem? I do agree that whichever is the chicken and whichever is the egg that is significant as is Mike's point about Richmond Park probably having the fewest people actually working at the airport.

    But it comes back to the same point as was made when this charade started: who actually cares what the MP for Richmond Park thinks about an issue of such national importance? I think David Davis still holds the record for the most ridiculous bye election post war but this runs it pretty damn close.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    Scott_P said:

    Let's take back control, and give £350m a week to foreign car makers...

    Every carmaker in Britain will be given a government guarantee that they will remain “competitive” even if Brexit trade talks break down and the European Union imposes tariffs on exports.

    Is this a trick to hide a continued EU contribution? The EU charges tariffs, which the British government pays. Take that, Johnny Foreigner!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    Scott_P said:

    Let's take back control, and give £350m a week to foreign car makers...

    Every carmaker in Britain will be given a government guarantee that they will remain “competitive” even if Brexit trade talks break down and the European Union imposes tariffs on exports.

    Is this a trick to hide a continued EU contribution? The EU charges tariffs, which the British government pays. Take that, Johnny Foreigner!
    No because if the EU charges tariffs we will do the same and we will collect more money than them because we import more than we export. So we can add that to the £350m, I suppose.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?

    Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    edited October 2016

    Scott_P said:

    Let's take back control, and give £350m a week to foreign car makers...

    Every carmaker in Britain will be given a government guarantee that they will remain “competitive” even if Brexit trade talks break down and the European Union imposes tariffs on exports.

    In an open-ended commitment Greg Clark, the business secretary, announced yesterday that the government was prepared make the same promises to Ford, Vauxhall, Toyota and other carmakers that rely on European exports as it made last week to Nissan.

    Crucially, he did not spell out how such a multibillion-pound commitment might be funded in the event of Brexit negotiations breaking down


    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/you-ll-all-get-the-same-deal-as-nissan-carmakers-told-vm8wv08qw

    This really doesn't bother me, and for one reason: as history shows, the car makers are not exactly loyal to the UK, and will move production if it is to their advantage. They are giving a medium-term commitment to the UK; any commitment we give them should be medium-term at best.

    I'm also guessing that any guarantee will not be legally binding to future governments.

    Which other industries will be getting similar guarantees? Which won't? What will be the criteria for deciding who the government "supports" to stay in this country. And how much is it all going to cost?

    Parliament and the British people have a right to know the price we will be paying for taking back control and how it will be paid.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited October 2016

    PClipp said:

    I think the penultimate paragraph is key; some (not all) of the public opposition is being driven by Zac's very vocal opposition.

    Or it could be the influence of the Lib Dems! - just fancy that! - bearing in mind that fact that both Richmond and Twickenham were Lib Dem seats. And the Borough used to have a Lib Dem council.
    Perhaps that is right. If you read my posts (Ms?) Lipp, you'll see that I'm not exactly anti-LD.

    But given their MP is medium profile, and has been very noisy on this topic at a national level, it is had to envisage that noise not altering the views of at least some of his constituents.

    As an aside, here's a mischievous idea: if this by-election is about Heathrow expansion, and the constituents elect an anti-expansion MP, then ban all constituents from using Heathrow. :)
    It may well be that in Richmond there are significant numbers of people who do value being handy for the airport, such as frequent flyers and business that depend on frequent flyers.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    edited October 2016
    Scott_P said:

    On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?

    Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?

    The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    One of my reasons for voting Remain was that a country the size of the UK, even given that it punched well above it’s weight in economic and political terms, just wasn’t big enough to “control” the multi-national industrial companies within it’s borders.

    And that is what we’re seeing.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Scott_P said:

    On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?

    Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?

    The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.

    Whether CETA is good or bad, it surely should be debated in parliament though EDM 165 suggests that has not happened.

    Why do the Walloons get to discuss it while our own representatives do not?

    https://www.parliament.uk/edm/2016-17/165
  • One of my reasons for voting Remain was that a country the size of the UK, even given that it punched well above it’s weight in economic and political terms, just wasn’t big enough to “control” the multi-national industrial companies within it’s borders.

    And that is what we’re seeing.

    They have us over a barrel, as was always going to be the case. Being part of the single market - or having the effects of not being part of it negated - is far more important to big, exporting companies than having full and unfettered access to the UK market. This is just basic stuff. And now this hapless government is going to try to stop us from finding out the details of how much it is all going to cost.

  • One of my reasons for voting Remain was that a country the size of the UK, even given that it punched well above it’s weight in economic and political terms, just wasn’t big enough to “control” the multi-national industrial companies within it’s borders.

    And that is what we’re seeing.

    Quite so. Perhaps those multi-nationals were big enough to secretly fund the Leave campaign, however.

  • Scott_P said:

    On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?

    Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?

    The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.

    Whether CETA is good or bad, it surely should be debated in parliament though EDM 165 suggests that has not happened.

    Why do the Walloons get to discuss it while our own representatives do not?

    https://www.parliament.uk/edm/2016-17/165

    Because taking back control means giving a lot more power to a few cabinet ministers, not to Parliament.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Worth a read as a view about what the Nissan deal suggests might be the government's strategy for Brexit

    http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2016/10/30/nissan-might-have-got-the-headlines-last-week-but-the-real-story-is-whats-bubbling-on-free-movement/

    "or geographic, where parts of Britain are designated free movement areas."

    That's a ridiculous suggestion, surely?
    I did wonder, myself, although it is true that other countries do appear to make similar arrangements work. I have a relative who moved out to Australia and he had enough points for Adelaide but not Sydney or Melbourne, so his visa was conditional upon his living in South Australia. (Edit/ and it does have the advantage of passing the buck away from HMG)

    The key point is that, despite all the noise around hard Brexit, it looks like May may be attempting a soft Brexit approach, as many on PB anticipated. Perhaps all the hard Brexit stuff was to soften up her antis, who knows? In any event if this is right then after Brexit we will have adopted all EU law, be following EU trade rules, still be making big financial contributions to the EU, and still be accepting a significant amount of free movement for Eastern European workers.
    Theresa May's Brexit deal will be to Cameron's renegotiation what the Lisbon treaty was to the European constitution.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084

    PClipp said:

    I think the penultimate paragraph is key; some (not all) of the public opposition is being driven by Zac's very vocal opposition.

    Or it could be the influence of the Lib Dems! - just fancy that! - bearing in mind that fact that both Richmond and Twickenham were Lib Dem seats. And the Borough used to have a Lib Dem council.
    Perhaps that is right. If you read my posts (Ms?) Lipp, you'll see that I'm not exactly anti-LD.

    But given their MP is medium profile, and has been very noisy on this topic at a national level, it is had to envisage that noise not altering the views of at least some of his constituents.

    As an aside, here's a mischievous idea: if this by-election is about Heathrow expansion, and the constituents elect an anti-expansion MP, then ban all constituents from using Heathrow. :)
    It may well be that in Richmond there are significant numbers of people who do value being handy for the airport, such as frequent flyers and business that depend on frequent flyers.
    True, but then they are not proposing to close the airport, just keep it the same (already big) size that it is already.
  • IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Worth a read as a view about what the Nissan deal suggests might be the government's strategy for Brexit

    http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2016/10/30/nissan-might-have-got-the-headlines-last-week-but-the-real-story-is-whats-bubbling-on-free-movement/

    "or geographic, where parts of Britain are designated free movement areas."

    That's a ridiculous suggestion, surely?
    I did wonder, myself, although it is true that other countries do appear to make similar arrangements work. I have a relative who moved out to Australia and he had enough points for Adelaide but not Sydney or Melbourne, so his visa was conditional upon his living in South Australia. (Edit/ and it does have the advantage of passing the buck away from HMG)

    The key point is that, despite all the noise around hard Brexit, it looks like May may be attempting a soft Brexit approach, as many on PB anticipated. Perhaps all the hard Brexit stuff was to soften up her antis, who knows? In any event if this is right then after Brexit we will have adopted all EU law, be following EU trade rules, still be making big financial contributions to the EU, and still be accepting a significant amount of free movement for Eastern European workers.
    Theresa May's Brexit deal will be to Cameron's renegotiation what the Lisbon treaty was to the European constitution.
    That sounds good. WTF does it mean, William?

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Worth a read as a view about what the Nissan deal suggests might be the government's strategy for Brexit

    http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2016/10/30/nissan-might-have-got-the-headlines-last-week-but-the-real-story-is-whats-bubbling-on-free-movement/

    "or geographic, where parts of Britain are designated free movement areas."

    That's a ridiculous suggestion, surely?
    I did wonder, myself, although it is true that other countries do appear to make similar arrangements work. I have a relative who moved out to Australia and he had enough points for Adelaide but not Sydney or Melbourne, so his visa was conditional upon his living in South Australia. (Edit/ and it does have the advantage of passing the buck away from HMG)

    The key point is that, despite all the noise around hard Brexit, it looks like May may be attempting a soft Brexit approach, as many on PB anticipated. Perhaps all the hard Brexit stuff was to soften up her antis, who knows? In any event if this is right then after Brexit we will have adopted all EU law, be following EU trade rules, still be making big financial contributions to the EU, and still be accepting a significant amount of free movement for Eastern European workers.
    Theresa May's Brexit deal will be to Cameron's renegotiation what the Lisbon treaty was to the European constitution.
    That sounds good. WTF does it mean, William?

    It means we'll get something incredibly close to what Cameron agreed, but with a new name.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084
    edited October 2016

    Scott_P said:
    On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?
    I suspect that Labour Uncut may be close to the truth - despite all the bluster about 'no running commentary' and 'protecting our negotiating position', the government is (rightly) desperate to stay inside the single market and has told the car manufacturers as much. The promises of alternative support are made hoping they will never be called upon.

    Therefore the question now becomes the price at which the EU will sell the access (membership). Financial contributions are a given, as is following EU trade rules. On movement I cannot see the Eastern European countries accepting any agreement that doesn't (mostly) protect the rights of their citizens to come and work here - and Atul may be ahead of the curve in thinking out how this can be done whilst at least creating the illusion that we have more control. As with many of the unpleasant austerity decisions that got passed down to councils, a solution that gets regional or local government to make the difficult decisions would be politically appealing to the Conservatives.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    Scott_P said:

    On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?

    Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?

    The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.

    Whether CETA is good or bad, it surely should be debated in parliament though EDM 165 suggests that has not happened.

    Why do the Walloons get to discuss it while our own representatives do not?

    https://www.parliament.uk/edm/2016-17/165

    Because taking back control means giving a lot more power to a few cabinet ministers, not to Parliament.

    No it means that under our constitution it is the elected government of the day that determines whether we sign up to international treaties or not under the Royal Prerogative. Which means that the court case challenging the government's right to serve the Article 50 notice is even more stupid than this bye election.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    Scott_P said:

    Let's take back control, and give £350m a week to foreign car makers...

    Every carmaker in Britain will be given a government guarantee that they will remain “competitive” even if Brexit trade talks break down and the European Union imposes tariffs on exports.

    In an open-ended commitment Greg Clark, the business secretary, announced yesterday that the government was prepared make the same promises to Ford, Vauxhall, Toyota and other carmakers that rely on European exports as it made last week to Nissan.

    Crucially, he did not spell out how such a multibillion-pound commitment might be funded in the event of Brexit negotiations breaking down


    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/you-ll-all-get-the-same-deal-as-nissan-carmakers-told-vm8wv08qw

    makes a change from giving it to banks
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    Scott_P said:

    Let's take back control, and give £350m a week to foreign car makers...

    Every carmaker in Britain will be given a government guarantee that they will remain “competitive” even if Brexit trade talks break down and the European Union imposes tariffs on exports.

    In an open-ended commitment Greg Clark, the business secretary, announced yesterday that the government was prepared make the same promises to Ford, Vauxhall, Toyota and other carmakers that rely on European exports as it made last week to Nissan.

    Crucially, he did not spell out how such a multibillion-pound commitment might be funded in the event of Brexit negotiations breaking down


    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/you-ll-all-get-the-same-deal-as-nissan-carmakers-told-vm8wv08qw

    This really doesn't bother me, and for one reason: as history shows, the car makers are not exactly loyal to the UK, and will move production if it is to their advantage. They are giving a medium-term commitment to the UK; any commitment we give them should be medium-term at best.

    I'm also guessing that any guarantee will not be legally binding to future governments.

    Which other industries will be getting similar guarantees? Which won't? What will be the criteria for deciding who the government "supports" to stay in this country. And how much is it all going to cost?

    Parliament and the British people have a right to know the price we will be paying for taking back control and how it will be paid.
    You make good points. My contention is that our guarantees to the car makers should be as flexible as the carmakers' guarantees are to us.

    I essentially see them as meaningless.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    Scott_P said:

    Let's take back control, and give £350m a week to foreign car makers...

    Every carmaker in Britain will be given a government guarantee that they will remain “competitive” even if Brexit trade talks break down and the European Union imposes tariffs on exports.

    In an open-ended commitment Greg Clark, the business secretary, announced yesterday that the government was prepared make the same promises to Ford, Vauxhall, Toyota and other carmakers that rely on European exports as it made last week to Nissan.

    Crucially, he did not spell out how such a multibillion-pound commitment might be funded in the event of Brexit negotiations breaking down


    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/you-ll-all-get-the-same-deal-as-nissan-carmakers-told-vm8wv08qw

    This really doesn't bother me, and for one reason: as history shows, the car makers are not exactly loyal to the UK, and will move production if it is to their advantage. They are giving a medium-term commitment to the UK; any commitment we give them should be medium-term at best.

    I'm also guessing that any guarantee will not be legally binding to future governments.
    ROFL

    all multinats do that, they are loyal only to themselves,
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    IanB2 said:

    PClipp said:

    I think the penultimate paragraph is key; some (not all) of the public opposition is being driven by Zac's very vocal opposition.

    Or it could be the influence of the Lib Dems! - just fancy that! - bearing in mind that fact that both Richmond and Twickenham were Lib Dem seats. And the Borough used to have a Lib Dem council.
    Perhaps that is right. If you read my posts (Ms?) Lipp, you'll see that I'm not exactly anti-LD.

    But given their MP is medium profile, and has been very noisy on this topic at a national level, it is had to envisage that noise not altering the views of at least some of his constituents.

    As an aside, here's a mischievous idea: if this by-election is about Heathrow expansion, and the constituents elect an anti-expansion MP, then ban all constituents from using Heathrow. :)
    It may well be that in Richmond there are significant numbers of people who do value being handy for the airport, such as frequent flyers and business that depend on frequent flyers.
    True, but then they are not proposing to close the airport, just keep it the same (already big) size that it is already.
    The airport is operating at 99% capacity in a growing market. By opposing expansion they are limiting the ability of people to use it. And if Heathrow loses its hub status, the choice of destinations will shrink.

    If they want to impose those restrictions on others, then they should have restrictions put on them. ;)

    (I admit I am not being fully serious about this).
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    edited October 2016
    On topic - in the late 50s and early 60s experiments on aircraft noise were run in the US. The general result was that a large minority - 40% or so quite often - didn't adapt to aircraft noise. And it became a very serious issue with them - they would break party lines to vote against the noise.

    This is what killed the US SST (US version of Concorde) dead - it was political suicide to back it.

    On the Clinton email thing...

    http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-october-30-2016-n675316

    The thing that people forgot in their rush to condemn Comey, is that he previously engineered a free pass for Clinton over the email investigation. Blocking avenues of investigation, giving immunity deals to staffers that resulted in them not testifying and finally, the novel theory that since no-one had bad intent, breaking the law wasn't really an issue.

    This pissed off alot of FBI agents - who saw people doing things on a massive scale that they (the FBI) agents would be fired for (and lose their pensions and be prosecuted for).

    And then we get this:


    AUDIE CORNISH: To Andrea's point, I agree with the first part. But what I'm hearing from everybody, I mean, I have some sources in the F.B.I. and the former district attorney's. The F.B.I. is in full revolt right now. The F.B.I. has been in full revolt since the decisions made last summer.

    CHUCK TODD: Not full revolt. There's been a lot. I mean it's--there are agents--Let's not say full revolt.

    AUDIE CORNISH: All right, a semi-full revolt. Because what I'm getting at is if Comey hadn't said what he said to Congress and the rest of the world, it would have leaked. It would have leaked. That whole building was ready to leak that they had discovered this new source with Weiner and Abedin. So, I don't think Comey had much chance here. And I think the F.B.I. is badly divided.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136

    Scott_P said:

    On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?

    Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?

    The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.

    There's a similar deal for Australia in the works, too.

    On the plus side it should make a UK-Canada or UK-Australia deal quicker, since much of it will just be s/European Union/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/g
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084
    edited October 2016
    Scott_P said:

    On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?

    Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
    Except we won't be signing - as a member of the single market, but not of its decision-making parent, we would simply have to take as a given all of its agreements, without playing any significant role in bringing them about. Far from taking control, we will become a pliant consumer of whatever agreements the EU decides to make.

    Still, look on the bright side, one Tory cabinet member may be out of a job already.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    .
    Theresa May's Brexit deal will be to Cameron's renegotiation what the Lisbon treaty was to the European constitution.
    That sounds good. WTF does it mean, William?

    It means we'll get something incredibly close to what Cameron agreed, but with a new name.
    Which raises an interesting what if. What if Brown had not reneged on his promise to provide a referendum on Lisbon? My guess is that the UK would have voted no and forced a watering down of the federal drive that treaty represented. Which might just have kept us in....
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:

    On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?

    Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?

    The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.

    Whether CETA is good or bad, it surely should be debated in parliament though EDM 165 suggests that has not happened.

    Why do the Walloons get to discuss it while our own representatives do not?

    https://www.parliament.uk/edm/2016-17/165

    Because taking back control means giving a lot more power to a few cabinet ministers, not to Parliament.

    No it means that under our constitution it is the elected government of the day that determines whether we sign up to international treaties or not under the Royal Prerogative. Which means that the court case challenging the government's right to serve the Article 50 notice is even more stupid than this bye election.
    The Walloons get a debate on it but we do not. Take back control?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084

    Scott_P said:

    On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?

    Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?

    The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.

    There's a similar deal for Australia in the works, too.

    On the plus side it should make a UK-Canada or UK-Australia deal quicker, since much of it will just be s/European Union/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/g
    One of the conditions of membership of the single market would surely be no side deals.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    IanB2 said:

    PClipp said:

    I think the penultimate paragraph is key; some (not all) of the public opposition is being driven by Zac's very vocal opposition.

    Or it could be the influence of the Lib Dems! - just fancy that! - bearing in mind that fact that both Richmond and Twickenham were Lib Dem seats. And the Borough used to have a Lib Dem council.
    Perhaps that is right. If you read my posts (Ms?) Lipp, you'll see that I'm not exactly anti-LD.

    But given their MP is medium profile, and has been very noisy on this topic at a national level, it is had to envisage that noise not altering the views of at least some of his constituents.

    As an aside, here's a mischievous idea: if this by-election is about Heathrow expansion, and the constituents elect an anti-expansion MP, then ban all constituents from using Heathrow. :)
    It may well be that in Richmond there are significant numbers of people who do value being handy for the airport, such as frequent flyers and business that depend on frequent flyers.
    True, but then they are not proposing to close the airport, just keep it the same (already big) size that it is already.
    I think it is likely that a lot of people misunderstand some of the political opposition to expansion in Richmond Park. As Fox says, the will be a sizeable number who value Heathrow extremely for the convenience of jaunts to the South of France. But in some ways this highlights the key - those who say that Richmond should favour expansion because fewer flights will go over the borough are missing the point. It is about infrastructure and traffic consequences. Expansion means more traffic and therefore makes it less convenient to get to.

    BTW this thread is possibly misleading because it misses out many other "affected" constituencies. Wandsworth Council for example is EXTREMELY vocal against expansion, and that has barely a LibDem in site. It is also not surprising that many of the constituencies on the list are Labour. They have a different constituency to play to.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    IanB2 said:

    Scott_P said:

    On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?

    Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?

    The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.

    There's a similar deal for Australia in the works, too.

    On the plus side it should make a UK-Canada or UK-Australia deal quicker, since much of it will just be s/European Union/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/g
    One of the conditions of membership of the single market would surely be no side deals.
    Yes, if the UK is still in the single market. I'm not sure it will be, though.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:

    On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?

    Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?

    The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.

    Whether CETA is good or bad, it surely should be debated in parliament though EDM 165 suggests that has not happened.

    Why do the Walloons get to discuss it while our own representatives do not?

    https://www.parliament.uk/edm/2016-17/165

    Because taking back control means giving a lot more power to a few cabinet ministers, not to Parliament.

    No it means that under our constitution it is the elected government of the day that determines whether we sign up to international treaties or not under the Royal Prerogative. Which means that the court case challenging the government's right to serve the Article 50 notice is even more stupid than this bye election.
    The Walloons get a debate on it but we do not. Take back control?
    Our control is that power is contingent upon the government of the day having a majority in the HoC. If we don't like what they are doing we chuck them out. It has always been thus, long before the EU came into existence.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    IanB2 said:

    Scott_P said:

    On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?

    Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?

    The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.

    There's a similar deal for Australia in the works, too.

    On the plus side it should make a UK-Canada or UK-Australia deal quicker, since much of it will just be s/European Union/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/g
    One of the conditions of membership of the single market would surely be no side deals.
    Yes, if the UK is still in the single market. I'm not sure it will be, though.
    We will not be in the Single Market. We will have tariff free access to the Single Market. What remains to be negotiated is the price and extent of that access.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    Scott_P said:

    On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?

    Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?

    The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.

    There's a similar deal for Australia in the works, too.

    On the plus side it should make a UK-Canada or UK-Australia deal quicker, since much of it will just be s/European Union/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/g
    One of the conditions of membership of the single market would surely be no side deals.
    Yes, if the UK is still in the single market. I'm not sure it will be, though.
    We will not be in the Single Market. We will have tariff free access to the Single Market. What remains to be negotiated is the price and extent of that access.
    RIght, that would also be my best guess. I don't think anything's certain yet, though.
  • Scott_P said:

    On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?

    Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?

    The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.

    There's a similar deal for Australia in the works, too.

    On the plus side it should make a UK-Canada or UK-Australia deal quicker, since much of it will just be s/European Union/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/g

    Once we are out of the single market, the deals we do with Canada and anyone else will have to have no effect on the deals that Canada etc have with the EU. That could get quite complicated as free trade with Canada etc in all goods may potentially be a back door into the single market. The Canadians etc will not want to put their far more important EU deals in any kind of jeopardy.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    Scott_P said:

    On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?

    Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?

    The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.

    There's a similar deal for Australia in the works, too.

    On the plus side it should make a UK-Canada or UK-Australia deal quicker, since much of it will just be s/European Union/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/g

    Once we are out of the single market, the deals we do with Canada and anyone else will have to have no effect on the deals that Canada etc have with the EU. That could get quite complicated as free trade with Canada etc in all goods may potentially be a back door into the single market. The Canadians etc will not want to put their far more important EU deals in any kind of jeopardy.

    LOL now youre just making it up again.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    .
    Theresa May's Brexit deal will be to Cameron's renegotiation what the Lisbon treaty was to the European constitution.
    That sounds good. WTF does it mean, William?

    It means we'll get something incredibly close to what Cameron agreed, but with a new name.
    Which raises an interesting what if. What if Brown had not reneged on his promise to provide a referendum on Lisbon? My guess is that the UK would have voted no and forced a watering down of the federal drive that treaty represented. Which might just have kept us in....
    Yes, certainly. Also if we'd had a chance to reject the euro.

    The British people have been looking for a chance to vote against the Project since Maastricht, when it became undeniable that the first referendum had been won under false pretences. But the politicians on both sides let the pressure build and build and build.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    DavidL said:

    We will not be in the Single Market. We will have tariff free access to the Single Market. What remains to be negotiated is the price and extent of that access.

    The extent will be smaller than we have today, and the price will be higher.

    Thus will we "take back control" and deliver "sovereignty"...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    IanB2 said:

    PClipp said:

    I think the penultimate paragraph is key; some (not all) of the public opposition is being driven by Zac's very vocal opposition.

    Or it could be the influence of the Lib Dems! - just fancy that! - bearing in mind that fact that both Richmond and Twickenham were Lib Dem seats. And the Borough used to have a Lib Dem council.
    Perhaps that is right. If you read my posts (Ms?) Lipp, you'll see that I'm not exactly anti-LD.

    But given their MP is medium profile, and has been very noisy on this topic at a national level, it is had to envisage that noise not altering the views of at least some of his constituents.

    As an aside, here's a mischievous idea: if this by-election is about Heathrow expansion, and the constituents elect an anti-expansion MP, then ban all constituents from using Heathrow. :)
    It may well be that in Richmond there are significant numbers of people who do value being handy for the airport, such as frequent flyers and business that depend on frequent flyers.
    True, but then they are not proposing to close the airport, just keep it the same (already big) size that it is already.
    The airport is operating at 99% capacity in a growing market. By opposing expansion they are limiting the ability of people to use it. And if Heathrow loses its hub status, the choice of destinations will shrink.

    If they want to impose those restrictions on others, then they should have restrictions put on them. ;)

    (I admit I am not being fully serious about this).
    Maybe they should have announced the LHR expansion on the first foggy morning of autumn, as planes get scattered around the airfields of Southern England due to Heathrow having more flights than low-visibility slots available.
  • DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:

    On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?

    Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?

    The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.

    Whether CETA is good or bad, it surely should be debated in parliament though EDM 165 suggests that has not happened.

    Why do the Walloons get to discuss it while our own representatives do not?

    https://www.parliament.uk/edm/2016-17/165

    Because taking back control means giving a lot more power to a few cabinet ministers, not to Parliament.

    No it means that under our constitution it is the elected government of the day that determines whether we sign up to international treaties or not under the Royal Prerogative. Which means that the court case challenging the government's right to serve the Article 50 notice is even more stupid than this bye election.

    As I said, taking back control means giving a lot more power to a few cabinet ministers, not to Parliament.

  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:

    On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?

    Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?

    The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.

    Whether CETA is good or bad, it surely should be debated in parliament though EDM 165 suggests that has not happened.

    Why do the Walloons get to discuss it while our own representatives do not?

    https://www.parliament.uk/edm/2016-17/165

    Because taking back control means giving a lot more power to a few cabinet ministers, not to Parliament.

    No it means that under our constitution it is the elected government of the day that determines whether we sign up to international treaties or not under the Royal Prerogative. Which means that the court case challenging the government's right to serve the Article 50 notice is even more stupid than this bye election.
    The Walloons get a debate on it but we do not. Take back control?
    If you don't like what the British government does, you can vote against it at the next election...
  • Scott_P said:

    On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?

    Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?

    The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.

    There's a similar deal for Australia in the works, too.

    On the plus side it should make a UK-Canada or UK-Australia deal quicker, since much of it will just be s/European Union/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/g

    Once we are out of the single market, the deals we do with Canada and anyone else will have to have no effect on the deals that Canada etc have with the EU. That could get quite complicated as free trade with Canada etc in all goods may potentially be a back door into the single market. The Canadians etc will not want to put their far more important EU deals in any kind of jeopardy.

    LOL now youre just making it up again.

    Nope. I am just saying things you do not like. There is a difference.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    Scott_P said:

    DavidL said:

    We will not be in the Single Market. We will have tariff free access to the Single Market. What remains to be negotiated is the price and extent of that access.

    The extent will be smaller than we have today, and the price will be higher.

    Thus will we "take back control" and deliver "sovereignty"...
    you still havent understood the majority of people are happy to pay the price.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    Scott_P said:

    DavidL said:

    We will not be in the Single Market. We will have tariff free access to the Single Market. What remains to be negotiated is the price and extent of that access.

    The extent will be smaller than we have today, and the price will be higher.

    Thus will we "take back control" and deliver "sovereignty"...
    The price will be lower. Whether that proves a good trade off is yet to be determined.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674

    IanB2 said:

    Worth a read as a view about what the Nissan deal suggests might be the government's strategy for Brexit

    http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2016/10/30/nissan-might-have-got-the-headlines-last-week-but-the-real-story-is-whats-bubbling-on-free-movement/

    "or geographic, where parts of Britain are designated free movement areas."

    That's a ridiculous suggestion, surely?
    The losers running UK will sell it down the river to stay at the trough, of that you can be sure. It will be UK in EU but pretending its not.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    Scott_P said:

    On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?

    Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?

    The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.

    There's a similar deal for Australia in the works, too.

    On the plus side it should make a UK-Canada or UK-Australia deal quicker, since much of it will just be s/European Union/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/g

    Once we are out of the single market, the deals we do with Canada and anyone else will have to have no effect on the deals that Canada etc have with the EU. That could get quite complicated as free trade with Canada etc in all goods may potentially be a back door into the single market. The Canadians etc will not want to put their far more important EU deals in any kind of jeopardy.

    LOL now youre just making it up again.

    Nope. I am just saying things you do not like. There is a difference.

    No you're conjecturing youre wishful thinking on to Canada to give the result you want

    Fact is neither of us have a clue what the Canucks think
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    .
    Theresa May's Brexit deal will be to Cameron's renegotiation what the Lisbon treaty was to the European constitution.
    That sounds good. WTF does it mean, William?

    It means we'll get something incredibly close to what Cameron agreed, but with a new name.
    Which raises an interesting what if. What if Brown had not reneged on his promise to provide a referendum on Lisbon? My guess is that the UK would have voted no and forced a watering down of the federal drive that treaty represented. Which might just have kept us in....
    Brown could have got a similar deal to what Cameron did in his renegotiation, or the referendum could have delayed it sufficiently such that Cameron was in office when it resurfaced again.

    In which case, Fresh Start would have borne down heavily on him for opt-outs and concessions. I think it might have worked, but probably not on free movement because in 2009-2010 no one knew UKIP were around the corner, and how hard it would be to cut net immigration with it.
  • DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:

    On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?

    Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?

    The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.

    Whether CETA is good or bad, it surely should be debated in parliament though EDM 165 suggests that has not happened.

    Why do the Walloons get to discuss it while our own representatives do not?

    https://www.parliament.uk/edm/2016-17/165

    Because taking back control means giving a lot more power to a few cabinet ministers, not to Parliament.

    No it means that under our constitution it is the elected government of the day that determines whether we sign up to international treaties or not under the Royal Prerogative. Which means that the court case challenging the government's right to serve the Article 50 notice is even more stupid than this bye election.

    As I said, taking back control means giving a lot more power to a few cabinet ministers, not to Parliament.

    Correction: Taking back control means giving a lot more power to our elected cabinet ministers, not to the rest of the continent's Commission.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    malcolmg said:

    IanB2 said:

    Worth a read as a view about what the Nissan deal suggests might be the government's strategy for Brexit

    http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2016/10/30/nissan-might-have-got-the-headlines-last-week-but-the-real-story-is-whats-bubbling-on-free-movement/

    "or geographic, where parts of Britain are designated free movement areas."

    That's a ridiculous suggestion, surely?
    The losers running UK will sell it down the river to stay at the trough, of that you can be sure. It will be UK in EU but pretending its not.
    If they're running the UK then they're winners, pretty much by definition.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    Scott_P said:

    DavidL said:

    We will not be in the Single Market. We will have tariff free access to the Single Market. What remains to be negotiated is the price and extent of that access.

    The extent will be smaller than we have today, and the price will be higher.

    Thus will we "take back control" and deliver "sovereignty"...
    you still havent understood the majority of people are happy to pay the price.
    Citation, please. The referendum result did not show that.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:

    On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?

    Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?

    The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.

    Whether CETA is good or bad, it surely should be debated in parliament though EDM 165 suggests that has not happened.

    Why do the Walloons get to discuss it while our own representatives do not?

    https://www.parliament.uk/edm/2016-17/165

    Because taking back control means giving a lot more power to a few cabinet ministers, not to Parliament.

    No it means that under our constitution it is the elected government of the day that determines whether we sign up to international treaties or not under the Royal Prerogative. Which means that the court case challenging the government's right to serve the Article 50 notice is even more stupid than this bye election.
    The Walloons get a debate on it but we do not. Take back control?
    Our control is that power is contingent upon the government of the day having a majority in the HoC. If we don't like what they are doing we chuck them out. It has always been thus, long before the EU came into existence.
    So no debates in parliament or referendums on free trade agreements on Brexit either?

    Tis indeed a funny sort of democracy and "control"!

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545
    IanB2 said:

    Scott_P said:

    On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?

    Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?
    Except we won't be signing - as a member of the single market, but not of its decision-making parent, we would simply have to take as a given all of its agreements, without playing any significant role in bringing them about. Far from taking control, we will become a pliant consumer of whatever agreements the EU decides to make.

    Still, look on the bright side, one Tory cabinet member may be out of a job already.
    Liam Fox would be no loss, but just to replicate the CETA deal for the UK is a major job for someone. The treaty is 1500 pages long with quotas on things like Christmas trees that will have to be negotiated separately for the UK.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:

    Let's take back control, and give £350m a week to foreign car makers...

    Every carmaker in Britain will be given a government guarantee that they will remain “competitive” even if Brexit trade talks break down and the European Union imposes tariffs on exports.

    Is this a trick to hide a continued EU contribution? The EU charges tariffs, which the British government pays. Take that, Johnny Foreigner!
    No because if the EU charges tariffs we will do the same and we will collect more money than them because we import more than we export. So we can add that to the £350m, I suppose.
    LOL, David, with eth inept bunch of fops we have , one thing si certain and that is we will be paying the EU more cash , have less influence and more immigration. It is a certainty , this lot could not run a bath. They will all fatten their own bankbooks mind you.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674

    Scott_P said:

    Let's take back control, and give £350m a week to foreign car makers...

    Every carmaker in Britain will be given a government guarantee that they will remain “competitive” even if Brexit trade talks break down and the European Union imposes tariffs on exports.

    In an open-ended commitment Greg Clark, the business secretary, announced yesterday that the government was prepared make the same promises to Ford, Vauxhall, Toyota and other carmakers that rely on European exports as it made last week to Nissan.

    Crucially, he did not spell out how such a multibillion-pound commitment might be funded in the event of Brexit negotiations breaking down


    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/you-ll-all-get-the-same-deal-as-nissan-carmakers-told-vm8wv08qw

    This really doesn't bother me, and for one reason: as history shows, the car makers are not exactly loyal to the UK, and will move production if it is to their advantage. They are giving a medium-term commitment to the UK; any commitment we give them should be medium-term at best.

    I'm also guessing that any guarantee will not be legally binding to future governments.

    Which other industries will be getting similar guarantees? Which won't? What will be the criteria for deciding who the government "supports" to stay in this country. And how much is it all going to cost?

    Parliament and the British people have a right to know the price we will be paying for taking back control and how it will be paid.
    You make good points. My contention is that our guarantees to the car makers should be as flexible as the carmakers' guarantees are to us.

    I essentially see them as meaningless.
    Even if very expensive
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,192

    Scott_P said:

    DavidL said:

    We will not be in the Single Market. We will have tariff free access to the Single Market. What remains to be negotiated is the price and extent of that access.

    The extent will be smaller than we have today, and the price will be higher.

    Thus will we "take back control" and deliver "sovereignty"...
    you still havent understood the majority of people are happy to pay the price.
    Where's your evidence for that? Obsessive loons are indeed prepared to pay the price but lets see if ordinary people already on the breadline are, shall we? And don't forget you hardly had a swingeing majority in the first place.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited October 2016

    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:

    On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?

    Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?

    The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.

    Whether CETA is good or bad, it surely should be debated in parliament though EDM 165 suggests that has not happened.

    Why do the Walloons get to discuss it while our own representatives do not?

    https://www.parliament.uk/edm/2016-17/165

    Because taking back control means giving a lot more power to a few cabinet ministers, not to Parliament.

    No it means that under our constitution it is the elected government of the day that determines whether we sign up to international treaties or not under the Royal Prerogative. Which means that the court case challenging the government's right to serve the Article 50 notice is even more stupid than this bye election.

    As I said, taking back control means giving a lot more power to a few cabinet ministers, not to Parliament.

    Correction: Taking back control means giving a lot more power to our elected cabinet ministers, not to the rest of the continent's Commission.
    CETA was negotiated by the EU Commissioners, we know that it was not debated in Parliament, but which of our ministers were involved in discussing it in cabinet? And how can we know what they said?

    Incidentally on EDM 165, I see a lot of SNP MPs were not happy at the lack of open discussion. What are the implications of CETA for Scotland?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674

    Scott_P said:

    DavidL said:

    We will not be in the Single Market. We will have tariff free access to the Single Market. What remains to be negotiated is the price and extent of that access.

    The extent will be smaller than we have today, and the price will be higher.

    Thus will we "take back control" and deliver "sovereignty"...
    you still havent understood the majority of people are happy to pay the price.
    Where did you imagine you heard that Alan, maybe a few cabinet ministers are happy other people pay for it , I doubt any of the great unwashed do.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Just realised. Scott Adams reminds me of David Icke..
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674

    malcolmg said:

    IanB2 said:

    Worth a read as a view about what the Nissan deal suggests might be the government's strategy for Brexit

    http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2016/10/30/nissan-might-have-got-the-headlines-last-week-but-the-real-story-is-whats-bubbling-on-free-movement/

    "or geographic, where parts of Britain are designated free movement areas."

    That's a ridiculous suggestion, surely?
    The losers running UK will sell it down the river to stay at the trough, of that you can be sure. It will be UK in EU but pretending its not.
    If they're running the UK then they're winners, pretty much by definition.
    OK, the winning "bunch of losers" if you prefer.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    edited October 2016
    No surprise, but least confirmation

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/30/laptop-in-fbis-weiner-sexting-case-had-state-gov-clinton-related-emails-source-says.html

    The source said an analysis of the metadata on Weiner’s computer has turned up “positive hits for state.gov and HRC emails,” which led Comey to revisit the FBI investigation into Clinton using a private email server system while secretary of state. A second law enforcement source confirmed the account.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:

    DavidL said:

    We will not be in the Single Market. We will have tariff free access to the Single Market. What remains to be negotiated is the price and extent of that access.

    The extent will be smaller than we have today, and the price will be higher.

    Thus will we "take back control" and deliver "sovereignty"...
    The price will be lower. Whether that proves a good trade off is yet to be determined.
    Now you are dreaming David, with the three amigos holding a busted flush and not many brain cells between them, EU will rob them blind.
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,192
    Sir Martin Sorrell on Breakfast News points out that making sauce for the Japanese goose will mean a need for sauce for all the ganders.

    Take back control!
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084
    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:

    DavidL said:

    We will not be in the Single Market. We will have tariff free access to the Single Market. What remains to be negotiated is the price and extent of that access.

    The extent will be smaller than we have today, and the price will be higher.

    Thus will we "take back control" and deliver "sovereignty"...
    The price will be lower. Whether that proves a good trade off is yet to be determined.
    Now you are dreaming David, with the three amigos holding a busted flush and not many brain cells between them, EU will rob them blind.
    Indeed. Despite all of the 'they need us more than we need them' nonsense we have heard from the leavers, the opposite is rapidly becoming very apparent.
  • Scott_P said:

    DavidL said:

    We will not be in the Single Market. We will have tariff free access to the Single Market. What remains to be negotiated is the price and extent of that access.

    The extent will be smaller than we have today, and the price will be higher.

    Thus will we "take back control" and deliver "sovereignty"...
    you still havent understood the majority of people are happy to pay the price.
    Where's your evidence for that? Obsessive loons are indeed prepared to pay the price but lets see if ordinary people already on the breadline are, shall we? And don't forget you hardly had a swingeing majority in the first place.
    The decision has been made by a majority of well over a million people. Now it's a case of making Brexit work best, not refighting old arguments.
  • IanB2 said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:

    DavidL said:

    We will not be in the Single Market. We will have tariff free access to the Single Market. What remains to be negotiated is the price and extent of that access.

    The extent will be smaller than we have today, and the price will be higher.

    Thus will we "take back control" and deliver "sovereignty"...
    The price will be lower. Whether that proves a good trade off is yet to be determined.
    Now you are dreaming David, with the three amigos holding a busted flush and not many brain cells between them, EU will rob them blind.
    Indeed. Despite all of the 'they need us more than we need them' nonsense we have heard from the leavers, the opposite is rapidly becoming very apparent.
    Only to a die hard delusional minority who supported Remain in the first place.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: well, I buggered that up proper;y. 3 tips, 0 green. *sighs*

    Anyway, shall set about writing the post-mortem analysis.
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024

    4h
    Michael McDonald ‏@ElectProject
    Of the 20,269 people who voted today in Georgia, 48% are Black (11% are unknown, due to a slightly stale voter file) #soulstopolls


    22

    51

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    Bah. Would have been first if I hadn't gone out for a run. :(

    I think the penultimate paragraph is key; some (not all) of the public opposition is being driven by Zac's very vocal opposition.

    I went for a run on Saturday evening and came back with a broken finger.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084

    IanB2 said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:

    DavidL said:

    We will not be in the Single Market. We will have tariff free access to the Single Market. What remains to be negotiated is the price and extent of that access.

    The extent will be smaller than we have today, and the price will be higher.

    Thus will we "take back control" and deliver "sovereignty"...
    The price will be lower. Whether that proves a good trade off is yet to be determined.
    Now you are dreaming David, with the three amigos holding a busted flush and not many brain cells between them, EU will rob them blind.
    Indeed. Despite all of the 'they need us more than we need them' nonsense we have heard from the leavers, the opposite is rapidly becoming very apparent.
    Only to a die hard delusional minority who supported Remain in the first place.
    Just you wait and see.

    People didn't like the EU because of the money we pay them, their rules that we follow, and their people with rights to come here whenever they like.

    The extent of change in all three of these things is going to be a lot less than many leavers were anticipating.
  • DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:

    On the subject of taking back control, have we just signed up to CETA without parliament having a debate on the matter?

    Can all the folk who said not signing CETA was a good example of why we had to leave, now tell us why signing CETA is a good example of why we had to leave?

    The really good news is that on leaving the EU we now not only lose our membership of the single market, but also a free trade with Canada! And any agreement we reach with the Canadians in the future will have to be made in the context of the much more important agreement they have with the EU.

    Whether CETA is good or bad, it surely should be debated in parliament though EDM 165 suggests that has not happened.

    Why do the Walloons get to discuss it while our own representatives do not?

    https://www.parliament.uk/edm/2016-17/165

    Because taking back control means giving a lot more power to a few cabinet ministers, not to Parliament.

    No it means that under our constitution it is the elected government of the day that determines whether we sign up to international treaties or not under the Royal Prerogative. Which means that the court case challenging the government's right to serve the Article 50 notice is even more stupid than this bye election.

    As I said, taking back control means giving a lot more power to a few cabinet ministers, not to Parliament.

    Correction: Taking back control means giving a lot more power to our elected cabinet ministers, not to the rest of the continent's Commission.
    CETA was negotiated by the EU Commissioners, we know that it was not debated in Parliament, but which of our ministers were involved in discussing it in cabinet? And how can we know what they said?

    Incidentally on EDM 165, I see a lot of SNP MPs were not happy at the lack of open discussion. What are the implications of CETA for Scotland?
    Exactly CETA has been negotiated by Commissioners not our Cabinet. Now what do you propose exactly, that having voted to Leave we sabotage a pre-negotiated deal that we are not going to be a party to once we've left?

    I couldn't give a hoot what the implications of CETA are for Scotland. The CETA is the EU's baby and we're leaving the EU. If they want to ratify it then we must not stand in the way.
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,192

    Scott_P said:

    DavidL said:

    We will not be in the Single Market. We will have tariff free access to the Single Market. What remains to be negotiated is the price and extent of that access.

    The extent will be smaller than we have today, and the price will be higher.

    Thus will we "take back control" and deliver "sovereignty"...
    you still havent understood the majority of people are happy to pay the price.
    Where's your evidence for that? Obsessive loons are indeed prepared to pay the price but lets see if ordinary people already on the breadline are, shall we? And don't forget you hardly had a swingeing majority in the first place.
    The decision has been made by a majority of well over a million people. Now it's a case of making Brexit work best, not refighting old arguments.
    I'm all agog to see how Brexit will be made to work for the demographics that voted for it. Bungs to multinationals will only take us so far.
  • IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:

    DavidL said:

    We will not be in the Single Market. We will have tariff free access to the Single Market. What remains to be negotiated is the price and extent of that access.

    The extent will be smaller than we have today, and the price will be higher.

    Thus will we "take back control" and deliver "sovereignty"...
    The price will be lower. Whether that proves a good trade off is yet to be determined.
    Now you are dreaming David, with the three amigos holding a busted flush and not many brain cells between them, EU will rob them blind.
    Indeed. Despite all of the 'they need us more than we need them' nonsense we have heard from the leavers, the opposite is rapidly becoming very apparent.
    Only to a die hard delusional minority who supported Remain in the first place.
    Just you wait and see.

    People didn't like the EU because of the money we pay them, their rules that we follow, and their people with rights to come here whenever they like.

    The extent of change in all three of these things is going to be a lot less than many leavers were anticipating.
    And a lot more than many remainers were anticipating.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    I couldn't give a hoot what the implications of CETA are for Scotland. The CETA is the EU's baby and we're leaving the EU. If they want to ratify it then we must not stand in the way.

    Nicola Sturgeon is expected to publish plans within the next few weeks for Scotland to become the official successor state to the UK and take its place within the European Union.

    The blueprint will feature plans for Scotland to forge a soft Brexit on its own within the UK. But it is also expected to include plans for Scotland to remain part of the EU if a separate Scottish Brexit deal cannot be negotiated, not just as an independent nation but as the UK’s “successor state”.


    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/sturgeon-could-ask-for-scotland-to-take-uks-eu-membership-6kkhf66dm
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:

    DavidL said:

    We will not be in the Single Market. We will have tariff free access to the Single Market. What remains to be negotiated is the price and extent of that access.

    The extent will be smaller than we have today, and the price will be higher.

    Thus will we "take back control" and deliver "sovereignty"...
    The price will be lower. Whether that proves a good trade off is yet to be determined.
    Now you are dreaming David, with the three amigos holding a busted flush and not many brain cells between them, EU will rob them blind.
    Indeed. Despite all of the 'they need us more than we need them' nonsense we have heard from the leavers, the opposite is rapidly becoming very apparent.
    Only to a die hard delusional minority who supported Remain in the first place.
    Just you wait and see.

    People didn't like the EU because of the money we pay them, their rules that we follow, and their people with rights to come here whenever they like.

    The extent of change in all three of these things is going to be a lot less than many leavers were anticipating.
    And a lot more than many remainers were anticipating.
    In the sense that a tiny bit is more than nothing.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    F1: a lot of bitching here:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/37819348

    For the record, I was surprised neither Mercedes got any penalty at the start, but there we are.
This discussion has been closed.