Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn speech has made TMay’s Brexit challenge even harder

124

Comments

  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,545


    What does it mean to have "Britain having ‘a’ customs union arrangement of one sort or another"?

    I don't think TMay has ruled out every sort of "arrangement".
    It’ll be a customs union in everything but name?

    The no customs restrictions agreement for example ?
    'Transition period' bad; 'implementation period' good.

    'Customs Union' bad; 'some sort of let's not have any customs arrangement' good.

    I am sure JRM and go won't see through that will they?
    I wonder if TM is working on the basis that she holds her line until a vote in the HOC and in the event she loses the vote she accepts the decision and negotiates on that basis as the Brexiteer's will to all intents and purposes have lost their power.

    It is unlikely to result in a vote of no confidence as not one of the rebel conservatives will vote to put Corbyn in no 10

    I almost wonder if that's what she WANTS. She has to talk tough, red meat to the right and the ERG mob, but she's waiting for the Commons to do the dirty work for her, act all cross and angry, but make the decisive move to a softer Brexit. That gives her the defendable 'I tried all I could' to the ERG members threatening no confidence letters, with the point that replacing her wouldn't change the maths or the law.

    A bit like Boris in the referendum campaign really, aiming to become the darling of the right, while making sure he lost the vote so didn't have to deliver anything.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,519

    Mr. Topping, you could just as easily reverse those descriptions.

    One thing I like about Mogg is that he always seems calm.

    Yeah, of course he always remains calm. Whenever he needs to get angry, he just gets his nanny to be angry for him ...
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    So Jeremy Corbyn has decided to do what his chief opponent would least like him to do. He's getting the hang of this.

    @hugorifkind: The big advantage that the Labour position on Brexit now has over the Conservative position on Brexit is that it is broadly possible to understand what it is.

    @jackmalvern: @hugorifkind Until now the big advantage that Labour had was that it was impossible to know what its position was.

    @hugorifkind: @jackmalvern I know. But I think they may have timed their pivot with the precision of an Olympic ice skater.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    ABLAABL said:

    think it was a decent speech, clear political distance between the Tories and Corbyn out across his message quite well without ever being in danger of approaching charisma...

    Corbyn has a massive chance here to force an election if things work how he hopes it will...

    https://www.abitleftandabitlost.com/posts/a-tale-of-two-brexit-speeches-and-an-eu-protocol-the-prologue

    As a mater of interest how do you think Corbyn can force an election
    He can bring the debate to the point whereby the Tory Euroloons rebel en masse rather than concede some tiny point which they don’t understand anyway and vote against May in a confidence vote.
    Pie in the sky - they will not vote out their own government
    See my edit
    Surely May can outflank both Corbyn and the loons by offering a second referendum.
    I would not discount it eventually.Not this week She will concede soon on a customs union though.May gets all her best ideas from Labour , caps on energy, review, student fees.Workers representation on company boards.Trouble is most of the party think, she is a gonner before they have the chance to be implemented.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979

    Scott_P said:
    Is Johnson's final statement ironic? Or is irony lost on Johnson?
    He's copying Trump.

    "Crumbling Corbyn" is straight out of the Trump playbook.

    "Cynical and deluded" is a typical Trump diversion where he accuses his opponent of the very negative he has himself.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,519
    Scott_P said:


    @hugorifkind: @jackmalvern I know. But I think they may have timed their pivot with the precision of an Olympic ice skater.

    Tonya Harding? ;)
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    ABLAABL said:

    think it was a decent speech, clear political distance between the Tories and Corbyn out across his message quite well without ever being in danger of approaching charisma...

    Corbyn has a massive chance here to force an election if things work how he hopes it will...

    https://www.abitleftandabitlost.com/posts/a-tale-of-two-brexit-speeches-and-an-eu-protocol-the-prologue

    As a mater of interest how do you think Corbyn can force an election
    He can bring the debate to the point whereby the Tory Euroloons rebel en masse rather than concede some tiny point which they don’t understand anyway and vote against May in a confidence vote.
    Pie in the sky - they will not vote out their own government
    See my edit
    Surely May can outflank both Corbyn and the loons by offering a second referendum.
    For about twenty minutes until the 1922 letters come flooding in.
    I don’t think there would be a majority of Conservative MPs for a second referendum.
    And I reckon the electorate would be furious...
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    edited February 2018

    Scott_P said:
    Oh for goodness sake. I ant her to lose the vote, not change her policy!
    Sandy you should know by now her modus operandi.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    Yorkcity said:

    Scott_P said:
    Oh for goodness sake. I ant her to lose the vote, not change her policy!
    Sandy you should no by now her modus operandi.
    Very true: A U-turn followed by a chorus of "Nothing has changed! Nothing has changed!"
  • Incidentally, unsurprised the EU is apparently looking 'favourably' on the Labour idiocy. It tallies with the leaks following their meeting with the UK Opposition.
  • F1: all engines looking solid at this early stage. Most laps by Ricciardo (Renault), second most by Hartley (Honda). Low temperatures meant less running was done than might otherwise be the case. Otherwise, all we learnt was that the Sauber and Williams look quite similar.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401

    Incidentally, unsurprised the EU is apparently looking 'favourably' on the Labour idiocy. It tallies with the leaks following their meeting with the UK Opposition.

    How outrageous - Labour had a quiet word with the EU team before announcing a policy. They should do the same as the government - make something up, announce it, and then have the EU say it is a pile of shite.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    Incidentally, unsurprised the EU is apparently looking 'favourably' on the Labour idiocy. It tallies with the leaks following their meeting with the UK Opposition.

    https://twitter.com/nick_clegg/status/968169863373033482
    https://twitter.com/nick_clegg/status/968169864857874435
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    edited February 2018
    If there is a general election in the near term then tactical voting will be even more prevalent than usual.

    My reasoning is that there is now a reason for LibDems to tactically vote for Labour in Tory/Labour marginals. In 2017 there was little difference between the Tory and Labour manifesto regarding Brexit so little incentive for LibDems to loan Labour their votes. Now there is.

    I have analysed the Tory/Labour marginals in 2017, assumed 50% of LibDems will vote tactically for Labour and nothing else changes. Labour will gain 13 Tory marginals. (LibDems gain 5 Tory marginals if it is reciprocated). NB 50% is a reasonable target in a squeeze campaign.

    Factoring in the additional swing of 4% Tory to Labour since the GE gives Labour an extra 26 seats making 39 in total, reducing the Tory majority by 78.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    I know that many people say Corbyn is stuck with ,1970s ideas.Does anyone believe May as a leader has any new ideas policies to govern with ?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    Scott_P said:
    I note that at the tail of that article, Hague implies that we may be heading toward an “abyss”.

    Another sceptic who got mugged by reality.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    Barnesian said:

    If there is a general election in the near term then tactical voting will be even more prevalent than usual.

    My reasoning is that there is now a reason for LibDems to tactically vote for Labour in Tory/Labour marginals. In 2017 there was little difference between the Tory and Labour manifesto regarding Brexit so little incentive for LibDems to loan Labour their votes. Now there is.

    I have analysed the Tory/Labour marginals in 2017, assumed 50% of LibDems will vote tactically for Labour and nothing else changes. Labour will gain 13 Tory marginals. (LibDems gain 5 Tory marginals if it is reciprocated). NB 50% is a reasonable target in a squeeze campaign.

    Factoring in the additional swing of 4% Tory to Labour since the GE gives Labour an extra 26 seats making 39 in total, reducing the Tory majority by 78.

    If there is an election before Brexit, the Tories are gone-burgers.
  • Scott_P said:
    I note that at the tail of that article, Hague implies that we may be heading toward an “abyss”.

    Another sceptic who got mugged by reality.
    He argued strongly for Remain.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    John_M said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Is there anything, other than a Customs Union, that will allow both frictionless trade between Ireland and NI, and between NI and Great Britain?

    Unilaterally declaring free trade with the whole world a la Patrick Minford presumably would.
    But would probably be fairly disastrous for our industry in other ways...
    Even that, disasterous though it would be, wouldn't achive a frictionless IRE/NI border because Ireland couldn't allow unrestricted imports from NI that might include, for example, substandard electricals from China and/or chlorinated chicken from the US (which those countries would happily dump on us once we declare free trade with the whole world.)
    I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how we're going to be forced to buy this radioactive chicken (which I've eaten in the US many times, lovely). This vision we peddle of our sheep-like consumers belies my personal experience.

    Most people I know are incredibly picky about food, particularly meat; food miles is still a thing out here in the sticks.
    The issue with chlorinated chicken is the same issue that exists with pretty much all attempts to remove NTBs.

    Let's say we allow US chicken to be sold in the US (which I am 100% in favour of). British farmers will, correctly, complain that they are required to produce their food more expensively (higher standards of animal welfare) than US peers.

    Do we:

    - lower UK standards so they meet the lowest level of our competitors, to protect the British farming industry?
    - allow the British farming industry to be undercut by people who produce to lower standards?

    There's a very real example of this. The Quebec Provincial Government passed a law requiring that food that contained GMOs be labelled as such. Monsanto took Quebec to an ISDS tribunal, arguing that this requirement to label constituted a Non Tariff Barrier, and the ISDS sided with Monsanto, and resulting in the law being withdrawn.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    Barnesian said:

    Scott_P said:
    Is Johnson's final statement ironic? Or is irony lost on Johnson?
    He's copying Trump.

    "Crumbling Corbyn" is straight out of the Trump playbook.

    "Cynical and deluded" is a typical Trump diversion where he accuses his opponent of the very negative he has himself.
    The problem is that “Crumbling Corbyn” lacks zing. And the alliteration doesn’t make up for the lack of authenticity : in what sense is Corbyn crumbling?

    Grumpy Corbyn would be better. Paints him as old and angry.
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,545

    Scott_P said:
    I note that at the tail of that article, Hague implies that we may be heading toward an “abyss”.

    Another sceptic who got mugged by reality.
    I think that's harsh - he was an effective advocate for Remain in the campaign. With his track record of campaigning against the Euro "24 hours to save the pound" his journey on the issue is quite a story, he could have been used more effectively by Remain in my view.

    The ones being mugged by reality are those attacking Treasury forecasts because they don't like what they say, and those pretending there are no costs to Brexit in all scenarios.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812

    Scott_P said:
    I note that at the tail of that article, Hague implies that we may be heading toward an “abyss”.

    Another sceptic who got mugged by reality.
    He argued strongly for Remain.
    Indeed!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    Scott_P said:
    I note that at the tail of that article, Hague implies that we may be heading toward an “abyss”.

    Another sceptic who got mugged by reality.
    He argued strongly for Remain.
    He allowed Hannan to go from ERG researcher to MEP and built most of his pitch against Blair around opposition to the EU and the Euro. The Brexit rot set in under his leadership.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    edited February 2018
    tpfkar said:

    Scott_P said:
    I note that at the tail of that article, Hague implies that we may be heading toward an “abyss”.

    Another sceptic who got mugged by reality.
    I think that's harsh - he was an effective advocate for Remain in the campaign. With his track record of campaigning against the Euro "24 hours to save the pound" his journey on the issue is quite a story, he could have been used more effectively by Remain in my view.

    The ones being mugged by reality are those attacking Treasury forecasts because they don't like what they say, and those pretending there are no costs to Brexit in all scenarios.
    Yes. He’s been on a journey. Like many.
    He could front a campaign called, I changed my mind, if we were to have another ref.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited February 2018
    tpfkar said:

    Scott_P said:
    I note that at the tail of that article, Hague implies that we may be heading toward an “abyss”.

    Another sceptic who got mugged by reality.
    I think that's harsh - he was an effective advocate for Remain in the campaign. With his track record of campaigning against the Euro "24 hours to save the pound" his journey on the issue is quite a story, he could have been used more effectively by Remain in my view.

    The ones being mugged by reality are those attacking Treasury forecasts because they don't like what they say, and those pretending there are no costs to Brexit in all scenarios.
    Why is it a 'journey'? It's perfectly sensible to argue against membership of the Euro and for remaining in the EU (especially with Dave's deal). I know this, because it was exactly my position.

    I agree he could have been used in the campaign more effectively.
  • rkrkrk said:

    Is there anything, other than a Customs Union, that will allow both frictionless trade between Ireland and NI, and between NI and Great Britain?

    Unilaterally declaring free trade with the whole world a la Patrick Minford presumably would.
    But would probably be fairly disastrous for our industry in other ways...
    Unilaterally declaring free trade with the whole world does not allow UK goods into Ireland without tariffs.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    edited February 2018

    rkrkrk said:

    Is there anything, other than a Customs Union, that will allow both frictionless trade between Ireland and NI, and between NI and Great Britain?

    Unilaterally declaring free trade with the whole world a la Patrick Minford presumably would.
    But would probably be fairly disastrous for our industry in other ways...
    Unilaterally declaring free trade with the whole world does not allow UK goods into Ireland without tariffs.
    Minford is to trade economics as David Irving is to the Holocaust.
  • tpfkar said:

    Scott_P said:
    I note that at the tail of that article, Hague implies that we may be heading toward an “abyss”.

    Another sceptic who got mugged by reality.
    I think that's harsh - he was an effective advocate for Remain in the campaign. With his track record of campaigning against the Euro "24 hours to save the pound" his journey on the issue is quite a story, he could have been used more effectively by Remain in my view.

    The ones being mugged by reality are those attacking Treasury forecasts because they don't like what they say, and those pretending there are no costs to Brexit in all scenarios.
    Why is it a 'journey'? It's perfectly sensible to argue against membership of the Euro and for remaining in the EU (especially with Dave's deal). I know this, because it was exactly my position.

    I agree he could have been used in the campaign more effectively.
    You don't KNOW that, you THINK it because it IS your position

    I think my position is perfectly sensible too, but that doesn't mean it is!
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881

    rkrkrk said:

    Is there anything, other than a Customs Union, that will allow both frictionless trade between Ireland and NI, and between NI and Great Britain?

    Unilaterally declaring free trade with the whole world a la Patrick Minford presumably would.
    But would probably be fairly disastrous for our industry in other ways...
    Unilaterally declaring free trade with the whole world does not allow UK goods into Ireland without tariffs.
    You’re right - it would be frictionless in one direction only.
  • tpfkar said:

    Scott_P said:
    I note that at the tail of that article, Hague implies that we may be heading toward an “abyss”.

    Another sceptic who got mugged by reality.
    I think that's harsh - he was an effective advocate for Remain in the campaign. With his track record of campaigning against the Euro "24 hours to save the pound" his journey on the issue is quite a story, he could have been used more effectively by Remain in my view.

    The ones being mugged by reality are those attacking Treasury forecasts because they don't like what they say, and those pretending there are no costs to Brexit in all scenarios.
    Why is it a 'journey'? It's perfectly sensible to argue against membership of the Euro and for remaining in the EU (especially with Dave's deal). I know this, because it was exactly my position.

    I agree he could have been used in the campaign more effectively.
    You don't KNOW that, you THINK it because it IS your position

    I think my position is perfectly sensible too, but that doesn't mean it is!
    You might have missed a frisson of irony in my post...
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979

    Barnesian said:

    Scott_P said:
    Is Johnson's final statement ironic? Or is irony lost on Johnson?
    He's copying Trump.

    "Crumbling Corbyn" is straight out of the Trump playbook.

    "Cynical and deluded" is a typical Trump diversion where he accuses his opponent of the very negative he has himself.
    The problem is that “Crumbling Corbyn” lacks zing. And the alliteration doesn’t make up for the lack of authenticity : in what sense is Corbyn crumbling?

    Grumpy Corbyn would be better. Paints him as old and angry.
    Yes - Boris is not very good at it. But he's the nearest the Tories have to a Trump figure who can cut through. (As well as having the hair and the narcissism). That's why I think Boris will be the next Tory leader. Trump-lite.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    rkrkrk said:

    Is there anything, other than a Customs Union, that will allow both frictionless trade between Ireland and NI, and between NI and Great Britain?

    Unilaterally declaring free trade with the whole world a la Patrick Minford presumably would.
    But would probably be fairly disastrous for our industry in other ways...
    Unilaterally declaring free trade with the whole world does not allow UK goods into Ireland without tariffs.
    Some of the advocates of unilateral free trade simultaneously want to adopt protectionist policies...
    https://twitter.com/johnredwood/status/967353876067373056
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,768
    Barnesian said:

    If there is a general election in the near term then tactical voting will be even more prevalent than usual.

    My reasoning is that there is now a reason for LibDems to tactically vote for Labour in Tory/Labour marginals. In 2017 there was little difference between the Tory and Labour manifesto regarding Brexit so little incentive for LibDems to loan Labour their votes. Now there is.

    I have analysed the Tory/Labour marginals in 2017, assumed 50% of LibDems will vote tactically for Labour and nothing else changes. Labour will gain 13 Tory marginals. (LibDems gain 5 Tory marginals if it is reciprocated). NB 50% is a reasonable target in a squeeze campaign.

    Factoring in the additional swing of 4% Tory to Labour since the GE gives Labour an extra 26 seats making 39 in total, reducing the Tory majority by 78.

    The 20 most marginal Conservative seats (with Labour second) already have the Lib Dems on an average 3.5% vote share. They've already been squeezed till the pips squeak.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    TGOHF said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Is there anything, other than a Customs Union, that will allow both frictionless trade between Ireland and NI, and between NI and Great Britain?

    Unilaterally declaring free trade with the whole world a la Patrick Minford presumably would.
    But would probably be fairly disastrous for our industry in other ways...
    Even that, disasterous though it would be, wouldn't achive a frictionless IRE/NI border because Ireland couldn't allow unrestricted imports from NI that might include, for example, substandard electricals from China and/or chlorinated chicken from the US (which those countries would happily dump on us once we declare free trade with the whole world.)
    Why not?
    Ok, they could allow it, but why would they? Of course they wouldn't.

    And how many incidents (deaths) due to un-restricted imports of sub-standard food, electricals, pharmaceuticals etc. would we it take before our unilateral free trade policy brought the government of the day down? Admit it, it's a complete non-starter.
    Oh, I agree that the Patrick Minford idea is a complete non-starter (although I think he's advocating zero tariffs, not zero safety standards). But we need to think clearly, and it simply is not the case that there is some universal law of nature which dictates that there would have to be a hard border and customs inspections simply because regulations (and even tariffs) applied to cross-border trade. The nature of any enforcement mechanism would be a political/administrative decision, based (one would hope) on an objective assessment of risks, and frankly the risk of dodgy chickens crossing the border in huge numbers, and somehow even getting across to France and Germany, without anyone noticing, is zero - certainly far less than the current risk of cigarette smuggling.
    Unless we are in a customs union with the EU, the IRE/NI or the NI/GB border will have some level of friction.
    But could be all electronic.
    How will an electronic system stop your Polish hop picker crossing the border into the UK?
    Errr. Why would he bother, if he could just come as a tourist to the UK and overstay his welcome?

  • Mr. Rentool, the negotiation is a matter for the Executive. The EU seeking to influence the Commons by conniving with the Opposition to influence or defeat the Government is not edifying, and unlikely to delight either those who voted to Leave or those who voted Remain but believe the Commons should be acting in the interest of the UK rather than colluding with those facing us across the negotiating table.

    Still, Corbyn has never had the UK interest at heart, so not doubt he and the EU enjoyed a warm discussion.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Is there anything, other than a Customs Union, that will allow both frictionless trade between Ireland and NI, and between NI and Great Britain?

    Unilaterally declaring free trade with the whole world a la Patrick Minford presumably would.
    But would probably be fairly disastrous for our industry in other ways...
    Even that, disasterous though it would be, wouldn't achive a frictionless IRE/NI border because Ireland couldn't allow unrestricted imports from NI that might include, for example, substandard electricals from China and/or chlorinated chicken from the US (which those countries would happily dump on us once we declare free trade with the whole world.)
    Why not?
    Ok, they could allow it, but why would they? Of course they wouldn't.

    And how many incidents (deaths) due to un-restricted imports of sub-standard food, electricals, pharmaceuticals etc. would we it take before our unilateral free trade policy brought the government of the day down? Admit it, it's a complete non-starter.
    Oh, I agree that the Patrick Minford idea is a complete non-starter (although I think he's advocating zero tariffs, not zero safety standards). But we need to think clearly, and it simply is not the case that there is some universal law of nature which dictates that there would have to be a hard border and customs inspections simply because regulations (and even tariffs) applied to cross-border trade. The nature of any enforcement mechanism would be a political/administrative decision, based (one would hope) on an objective assessment of risks, and frankly the risk of dodgy chickens crossing the border in huge numbers, and somehow even getting across to France and Germany, without anyone noticing, is zero - certainly far less than the current risk of cigarette smuggling.
    Unless we are in a customs union with the EU, the IRE/NI or the NI/GB border will have some level of friction.
    But could be all electronic.
    How will an electronic system stop your Polish hop picker crossing the border into the UK?

    In the same way as it doesn't stop non EU illegals now.
    And non-EU illegals. There are plenty of Albanians who came to the UK as tourists and stayed as car washers.

  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    Sean_F said:

    Barnesian said:

    If there is a general election in the near term then tactical voting will be even more prevalent than usual.

    My reasoning is that there is now a reason for LibDems to tactically vote for Labour in Tory/Labour marginals. In 2017 there was little difference between the Tory and Labour manifesto regarding Brexit so little incentive for LibDems to loan Labour their votes. Now there is.

    I have analysed the Tory/Labour marginals in 2017, assumed 50% of LibDems will vote tactically for Labour and nothing else changes. Labour will gain 13 Tory marginals. (LibDems gain 5 Tory marginals if it is reciprocated). NB 50% is a reasonable target in a squeeze campaign.

    Factoring in the additional swing of 4% Tory to Labour since the GE gives Labour an extra 26 seats making 39 in total, reducing the Tory majority by 78.

    The 20 most marginal Conservative seats (with Labour second) already have the Lib Dems on an average 3.5% vote share. They've already been squeezed till the pips squeak.

    The flaw in your analysis is: why would Liberals vote in such a way so that they damage their own party and get a Marxist government which they dont support with a leader who is a Leaver?
  • rkrkrk said:

    Is there anything, other than a Customs Union, that will allow both frictionless trade between Ireland and NI, and between NI and Great Britain?

    Unilaterally declaring free trade with the whole world a la Patrick Minford presumably would.
    But would probably be fairly disastrous for our industry in other ways...
    Unilaterally declaring free trade with the whole world does not allow UK goods into Ireland without tariffs.
    Some of the advocates of unilateral free trade simultaneously want to adopt protectionist policies...
    https://twitter.com/johnredwood/status/967353876067373056
    I see no where in that quite where Redwood is advocating putting up barriers or adopting protectionist policies. Removing quotas and buying local rather than importing stuff we already produce here is not protectionism. It is common sense.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    I have just been trawling through the comments on Twitter about Corbyn's speech. I was impressed by the speech itself, but the support it is getting is quite surprising. The phobes are as negative as ever, but the remainers seem surprisingly happy. Quite a few very pro tweets that don't look like they come from partisans.

    Whatever else we have learned, Corbyn shouldn't be underestimated.
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,545

    tpfkar said:

    Scott_P said:
    I note that at the tail of that article, Hague implies that we may be heading toward an “abyss”.

    Another sceptic who got mugged by reality.
    I think that's harsh - he was an effective advocate for Remain in the campaign. With his track record of campaigning against the Euro "24 hours to save the pound" his journey on the issue is quite a story, he could have been used more effectively by Remain in my view.

    The ones being mugged by reality are those attacking Treasury forecasts because they don't like what they say, and those pretending there are no costs to Brexit in all scenarios.
    Why is it a 'journey'? It's perfectly sensible to argue against membership of the Euro and for remaining in the EU (especially with Dave's deal). I know this, because it was exactly my position.

    I agree he could have been used in the campaign more effectively.
    Yes all agreed. I wonder how he really feels about the 2001 campaign now.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    TOPPING said:

    Sean_F said:

    Essexit said:

    She won't be facing an entirely united Labour Party. There's the Labour Leavers plus Caroline Flint and other Brexit means Brexit Remainers. Tories flirting with the idea of rebelling night ask themselves if they really want to hand Jeremy Corbyn this victory.

    Country before party.

    A bad Brexit begets Corbyn as Prime Minister.

    Soubry, Grieve et al are acting like true patriots.
    How does their proposed amendment assist us?
    Protects trade and the economy ensuring no disruption to trade.

    It also solves the Irish Border question.
    No it doesn't. If you think that you really don't know what you are talking about.
    I have written reports from people who have worked, inter alia at the WTO, who say otherwise.

    I know they are experts but I'll place more faith in their views than yours.
    Tyndall and R Smithson were arguing amongst themselves recently about what a free trade deal would mean we could or couldn’t do.

    PB Leavers’ finest minds with no clue between them what Leaving actually meant.
    Errr no.

    I was merely pointing out that Turkey is in a customs union with the EU, rather than in the EU Customs Union.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,768

    Scott_P said:
    I note that at the tail of that article, Hague implies that we may be heading toward an “abyss”.

    Another sceptic who got mugged by reality.
    He argued strongly for Remain.
    He allowed Hannan to go from ERG researcher to MEP and built most of his pitch against Blair around opposition to the EU and the Euro. The Brexit rot set in under his leadership.
    He was right, but at a time when the public were not ready to appreciate it. A kind of John the Baptist figure.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited February 2018

    tpfkar said:

    Scott_P said:
    I note that at the tail of that article, Hague implies that we may be heading toward an “abyss”.

    Another sceptic who got mugged by reality.
    I think that's harsh - he was an effective advocate for Remain in the campaign. With his track record of campaigning against the Euro "24 hours to save the pound" his journey on the issue is quite a story, he could have been used more effectively by Remain in my view.

    The ones being mugged by reality are those attacking Treasury forecasts because they don't like what they say, and those pretending there are no costs to Brexit in all scenarios.
    Why is it a 'journey'? It's perfectly sensible to argue against membership of the Euro and for remaining in the EU (especially with Dave's deal). I know this, because it was exactly my position.

    I agree he could have been used in the campaign more effectively.
    Nick Herbert was on such a journey, or had completed it, and led the Remain Cons group, having done the same for Business for Sterling earlier.

    But he had absolutely no response, on DP, to Kate Hoey asking him how, if we remained in the EU, the UK was going to restrict immigration. That for me was a defining moment.

    And all the PB Leavers tell us it is nothing to do with foreigners.
  • rkrkrk said:

    Is there anything, other than a Customs Union, that will allow both frictionless trade between Ireland and NI, and between NI and Great Britain?

    Unilaterally declaring free trade with the whole world a la Patrick Minford presumably would.
    But would probably be fairly disastrous for our industry in other ways...
    Unilaterally declaring free trade with the whole world does not allow UK goods into Ireland without tariffs.
    Some of the advocates of unilateral free trade simultaneously want to adopt protectionist policies...
    https://twitter.com/johnredwood/status/967353876067373056
    I think Redwood wants a return to that golden era when we made our own besom brooms and hobnail boots.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401

    Mr. Rentool, the negotiation is a matter for the Executive. The EU seeking to influence the Commons by conniving with the Opposition to influence or defeat the Government is not edifying, and unlikely to delight either those who voted to Leave or those who voted Remain but believe the Commons should be acting in the interest of the UK rather than colluding with those facing us across the negotiating table.

    Still, Corbyn has never had the UK interest at heart, so not doubt he and the EU enjoyed a warm discussion.

    The key word in the first line of your post is negotiation. Announcing a load of nonsense off the cuff, that the other side then describe as a load of shite is not how to conduct a negotiation.

    On that note, I must be off...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    Incidentally, unsurprised the EU is apparently looking 'favourably' on the Labour idiocy. It tallies with the leaks following their meeting with the UK Opposition.

    Given that it's going to take us around a decade before we manage to get back to parity with where the EU is in terms of trade agreements, what's wrong with a time limited Customs Union, say five or seven years?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited February 2018

    rkrkrk said:

    Is there anything, other than a Customs Union, that will allow both frictionless trade between Ireland and NI, and between NI and Great Britain?

    Unilaterally declaring free trade with the whole world a la Patrick Minford presumably would.
    But would probably be fairly disastrous for our industry in other ways...
    Unilaterally declaring free trade with the whole world does not allow UK goods into Ireland without tariffs.
    Some of the advocates of unilateral free trade simultaneously want to adopt protectionist policies...
    https://twitter.com/johnredwood/status/967353876067373056
    I see no where in that quite where Redwood is advocating putting up barriers or adopting protectionist policies. Removing quotas and buying local rather than importing stuff we already produce here is not protectionism. It is common sense.
    He's just angry that consumers prefer Reblochon over Lymeswold.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    rkrkrk said:

    Is there anything, other than a Customs Union, that will allow both frictionless trade between Ireland and NI, and between NI and Great Britain?

    Unilaterally declaring free trade with the whole world a la Patrick Minford presumably would.
    But would probably be fairly disastrous for our industry in other ways...
    Unilaterally declaring free trade with the whole world does not allow UK goods into Ireland without tariffs.
    Minford is to trade economics as David Irving is to the Holocaust.
    The problem with the Minford position is that it would result in a proliferation of non tariff barriers (which would inevitably end up being tit-for-tat), and therefore a diminution of free trade.
  • TOPPING said:

    Nick Herbert was on such a journey, or had completed it, and led the Remain Cons group, having done the same for Business for Sterling earlier.

    But he had absolutely no response, on DP, to Kate Hoey asking him how, if we remained in the EU, the UK was going to restrict immigration. That for me was a defining moment.

    And all the PB Leavers tell us it is nothing to do with foreigners.

    He had no answer to that because there is no answer to it, except for the not unreasonable hope that the numbers would drop once the Eurozone economies picked up again. It was by miles the strongest argument in favour of leaving, although how much difference it will actually make in practice remains to be seen.

    I'd challenge the idea that it was just about 'foreigners' though; that might have been the driver in communities where there had been a sudden and very large influx of EU migrants, changing the character of the area, but for many it was simply about numbers and the impact on the total population of this island.
  • Sean_F said:

    Essexit said:

    She won't be facing an entirely united Labour Party. There's the Labour Leavers plus Caroline Flint and other Brexit means Brexit Remainers. Tories flirting with the idea of rebelling night ask themselves if they really want to hand Jeremy Corbyn this victory.

    Country before party.

    A bad Brexit begets Corbyn as Prime Minister.

    Soubry, Grieve et al are acting like true patriots.
    How does their proposed amendment assist us?
    Protects trade and the economy ensuring no disruption to trade.

    It also solves the Irish Border question.
    No it doesn't. If you think that you really don't know what you are talking about.
    I have written reports from people who have worked, inter alia at the WTO, who say otherwise.

    I know they are experts but I'll place more faith in their views than yours.
    Of course you will, even when you are being dishonest or foolish you cannot afford to concede any points - just like you couldn't with the idiocy you were pushing about PCSOs on the previous thread.

    So.

    How exactly does being in the Customs Union but not the SM ensure no disruption to trade? (here's a clue, it doesn't)

    How exactly does being in the Customs Union but not the SM solve the Irish Border question? (here's another clue. It doesn't).

    I hope whoever you were writing reports for will be trying to get their money back if that is the garbage you are writing.
    Let us use the Turkish model.

    For non agricultural physical goods are there any customs restrictions between Turkey and The EU? Yes or No?
    I see that nice Mr Clegg has helpfully shown you are talking bollocks again TSE. Customs restrictions are not the only restrictions. That is why the Single Market and the Customs Union are not the same thing. Perhaps you should learn some basics before commenting on this again.
  • Mr. 1000, the Corbyn proposal, according to the BBC headline, is for permanent membership: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43189878

    A time-limited (transition period) membership is something for which a case can be made.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    rkrkrk said:

    Is there anything, other than a Customs Union, that will allow both frictionless trade between Ireland and NI, and between NI and Great Britain?

    Unilaterally declaring free trade with the whole world a la Patrick Minford presumably would.
    But would probably be fairly disastrous for our industry in other ways...
    Unilaterally declaring free trade with the whole world does not allow UK goods into Ireland without tariffs.
    Some of the advocates of unilateral free trade simultaneously want to adopt protectionist policies...
    https://twitter.com/johnredwood/status/967353876067373056
    I see no where in that quite where Redwood is advocating putting up barriers or adopting protectionist policies. Removing quotas and buying local rather than importing stuff we already produce here is not protectionism. It is common sense.
    I think the argument against Redwood here is that - if you look back to the time when the UK last had genuinely free trade with the rest of the world - then the average Brit got a greater proportion of their calories from overseas than now.

    And that was 120 years ago, when the costs of transportation were an order of magnitude higher than now.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881

    Mr. Rentool, the negotiation is a matter for the Executive. The EU seeking to influence the Commons by conniving with the Opposition to influence or defeat the Government is not edifying, and unlikely to delight either those who voted to Leave or those who voted Remain but believe the Commons should be acting in the interest of the UK rather than colluding with those facing us across the negotiating table.

    Still, Corbyn has never had the UK interest at heart, so not doubt he and the EU enjoyed a warm discussion.

    So Labour as opposition should announce they fully back whatever the Tories are negotiating!?
    Or they should aim to keep their views secret from the Commission?
    Or they should refuse to discuss what they would negotiate for with the EU?
    Because doubtless TM and her govt is only discussing issues with Mr Barnier and no one would ever dream of suggesting she seek to divide European nations to soften their negotiating stance.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    Sean_F said:

    Barnesian said:

    If there is a general election in the near term then tactical voting will be even more prevalent than usual.

    My reasoning is that there is now a reason for LibDems to tactically vote for Labour in Tory/Labour marginals. In 2017 there was little difference between the Tory and Labour manifesto regarding Brexit so little incentive for LibDems to loan Labour their votes. Now there is.

    I have analysed the Tory/Labour marginals in 2017, assumed 50% of LibDems will vote tactically for Labour and nothing else changes. Labour will gain 13 Tory marginals. (LibDems gain 5 Tory marginals if it is reciprocated). NB 50% is a reasonable target in a squeeze campaign.

    Factoring in the additional swing of 4% Tory to Labour since the GE gives Labour an extra 26 seats making 39 in total, reducing the Tory majority by 78.

    The 20 most marginal Conservative seats (with Labour second) already have the Lib Dems on an average 3.5% vote share. They've already been squeezed till the pips squeak.

    Take Calder Valley. Tory majority 609. LibDem vote 1952. No doubt the LD vote has already been squeezed but many of those 1952 LD voters were not to be squeezed because of Labour's Brexit policy. That will have changed.

    The 13 marginals are Broxtowe (perhaps an exception), Calder Valley, Chipping Barnet, Finchley, Hastings, Thurrock, Pudsey, Putney, Truro, Watford, Presele, S'Hpton Itchen, Southport.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Sean_F said:

    Scott_P said:
    I note that at the tail of that article, Hague implies that we may be heading toward an “abyss”.

    Another sceptic who got mugged by reality.
    He argued strongly for Remain.
    He allowed Hannan to go from ERG researcher to MEP and built most of his pitch against Blair around opposition to the EU and the Euro. The Brexit rot set in under his leadership.
    He was right, but at a time when the public were not ready to appreciate it. A kind of John the Baptist figure.
    Who do you see playing the Herod role?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    edited February 2018
    I make the starting points for the local elections:

    Con 1321
    Lab 2103
    LD 427
    Other 308

    That is all flavours of councillors (London, Unitary, Metropolitan & District)
    {Obviously no county this year}
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    edited February 2018

    Sean_F said:

    Essexit said:

    She won't be facing an entirely united Labour Party. There's the Labour Leavers plus Caroline Flint and other Brexit means Brexit Remainers. Tories flirting with the idea of rebelling night ask themselves if they really want to hand Jeremy Corbyn this victory.

    Country before party.

    A bad Brexit begets Corbyn as Prime Minister.

    Soubry, Grieve et al are acting like true patriots.
    How does their proposed amendment assist us?
    Protects trade and the economy ensuring no disruption to trade.

    It also solves the Irish Border question.
    No it doesn't. If you think that you really don't know what you are talking about.
    I have written reports from people who have worked, inter alia at the WTO, who say otherwise.

    I know they are experts but I'll place more faith in their views than yours.
    Of course you will, even when you are being dishonest or foolish you cannot afford to concede any points - just like you couldn't with the idiocy you were pushing about PCSOs on the previous thread.

    So.

    How exactly does being in the Customs Union but not the SM ensure no disruption to trade? (here's a clue, it doesn't)

    How exactly does being in the Customs Union but not the SM solve the Irish Border question? (here's another clue. It doesn't).

    I hope whoever you were writing reports for will be trying to get their money back if that is the garbage you are writing.
    Let us use the Turkish model.

    For non agricultural physical goods are there any customs restrictions between Turkey and The EU? Yes or No?
    I see that nice Mr Clegg has helpfully shown you are talking bollocks again TSE. Customs restrictions are not the only restrictions. That is why the Single Market and the Customs Union are not the same thing. Perhaps you should learn some basics before commenting on this again.
    Why don't you answer my question instead of acting like a de haut en bas twat?

    For non agricultural physical goods are there any customs restrictions between Turkey and The EU? Yes or No?

    My report was produced by people with a combined 15 years time at the WTO, what is your experience at the WTO and Sir Nick Clegg's?
  • rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Sean_F said:

    Essexit said:

    She won't be facing an entirely united Labour Party. There's the Labour Leavers plus Caroline Flint and other Brexit means Brexit Remainers. Tories flirting with the idea of rebelling night ask themselves if they really want to hand Jeremy Corbyn this victory.

    Country before party.

    A bad Brexit begets Corbyn as Prime Minister.

    Soubry, Grieve et al are acting like true patriots.
    How does their proposed amendment assist us?
    Protects trade and the economy ensuring no disruption to trade.

    It also solves the Irish Border question.
    No it doesn't. If you think that you really don't know what you are talking about.
    I have written reports from people who have worked, inter alia at the WTO, who say otherwise.

    I know they are experts but I'll place more faith in their views than yours.
    Tyndall and R Smithson were arguing amongst themselves recently about what a free trade deal would mean we could or couldn’t do.

    PB Leavers’ finest minds with no clue between them what Leaving actually meant.
    Errr no.

    I was merely pointing out that Turkey is in a customs union with the EU, rather than in the EU Customs Union.
    Indeed and I was pointing out that the Turkish Customs Union is not an advantageous position to be in. Something Topping and Corbyn both now seem to be advocating.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Scott_P said:
    I note that at the tail of that article, Hague implies that we may be heading toward an “abyss”.

    Another sceptic who got mugged by reality.
    He argued strongly for Remain.
    He allowed Hannan to go from ERG researcher to MEP and built most of his pitch against Blair around opposition to the EU and the Euro. The Brexit rot set in under his leadership.
    He was right, but at a time when the public were not ready to appreciate it. A kind of John the Baptist figure.
    Who do you see playing the Herod role?
    Or indeed the Salome role?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545
    rcs1000 said:

    The issue with chlorinated chicken is the same issue that exists with pretty much all attempts to remove NTBs.

    Let's say we allow US chicken to be sold in the US (which I am 100% in favour of). British farmers will, correctly, complain that they are required to produce their food more expensively (higher standards of animal welfare) than US peers.

    Do we:

    - lower UK standards so they meet the lowest level of our competitors, to protect the British farming industry?
    - allow the British farming industry to be undercut by people who produce to lower standards?

    There's a very real example of this. The Quebec Provincial Government passed a law requiring that food that contained GMOs be labelled as such. Monsanto took Quebec to an ISDS tribunal, arguing that this requirement to label constituted a Non Tariff Barrier, and the ISDS sided with Monsanto, and resulting in the law being withdrawn.

    Which is one argument for standardisation (there are others). It doesn't matter so much what the rules are, as long as they are the same for everyone. Unless you are party to the decision-making, this means rule-taking.

  • Mr. Eagles, the Turkish model? Making us subject to the EU negotiating deals, whereby third party nations can enjoy benefits exporting to us (as per EU nations) but we do not enjoy the corresponding benefits exporting to them (unlike EU nations but like Turkey)?

    It's almost as if staying in A/The/Ze/I Can't Believe It's Not The Customs Union is a bad idea.

    I used the Turkish model because it is the most relevant case in this situation.

    I expect ours would be more favourable given the difference in the economies of The UK and Turkey and relative importance of us to the EU27.
    Mr Clegg says you are talking out of your arse again.
  • Mr. rkrkrk, there are two sides in this negotiation. Given Corbyn's past and more recent utterances, a charitable man might say it's unclear which side of the table he's sat on.

    Mr. 1000, Herod comes across as a very interesting figure in Josephus' The Jewish War. Heroic in his youth, generally a good king, but too fond of overmighty towers funded by punitive taxation.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    rcs1000 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Is there anything, other than a Customs Union, that will allow both frictionless trade between Ireland and NI, and between NI and Great Britain?

    Unilaterally declaring free trade with the whole world a la Patrick Minford presumably would.
    But would probably be fairly disastrous for our industry in other ways...
    Unilaterally declaring free trade with the whole world does not allow UK goods into Ireland without tariffs.
    Some of the advocates of unilateral free trade simultaneously want to adopt protectionist policies...
    https://twitter.com/johnredwood/status/967353876067373056
    I see no where in that quite where Redwood is advocating putting up barriers or adopting protectionist policies. Removing quotas and buying local rather than importing stuff we already produce here is not protectionism. It is common sense.
    I think the argument against Redwood here is that - if you look back to the time when the UK last had genuinely free trade with the rest of the world - then the average Brit got a greater proportion of their calories from overseas than now.

    And that was 120 years ago, when the costs of transportation were an order of magnitude higher than now.
    120 years ago our trade with the rest of the world was less free than it is now if you look at average tariffs on total imports.
    image

  • Why don't you answer my question instead of acting like a de haut en bas twat?

    For non agricultural physical goods are there any customs restrictions between Turkey and The EU? Yes or No?

    My report was produced by people with a combined 15 years time at the WTO, what is your experience at the WTO and Sir Nick Clegg's?

    No. There are no customs restrictions.

    Now you answer mine fuckwit. Are customs restrictions the only ones that exist between countries inside and outside the Single Market? If not you are once again using straw man arguments to cover your own ignorance.

    Something we are very familiar with on here when you are on the wrong side of reality.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    rcs1000 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Is there anything, other than a Customs Union, that will allow both frictionless trade between Ireland and NI, and between NI and Great Britain?

    Unilaterally declaring free trade with the whole world a la Patrick Minford presumably would.
    But would probably be fairly disastrous for our industry in other ways...
    Unilaterally declaring free trade with the whole world does not allow UK goods into Ireland without tariffs.
    Some of the advocates of unilateral free trade simultaneously want to adopt protectionist policies...
    https://twitter.com/johnredwood/status/967353876067373056
    I see no where in that quite where Redwood is advocating putting up barriers or adopting protectionist policies. Removing quotas and buying local rather than importing stuff we already produce here is not protectionism. It is common sense.
    I think the argument against Redwood here is that - if you look back to the time when the UK last had genuinely free trade with the rest of the world - then the average Brit got a greater proportion of their calories from overseas than now.

    And that was 120 years ago, when the costs of transportation were an order of magnitude higher than now.
    120 years ago our trade with the rest of the world was less free than it is now if you look at average tariffs on total imports.
    image
    I don't think that's a weighted average number, but a simple average.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    edited February 2018

    Sean_F said:

    Essexit said:

    She won't be facing an entirely united Labour Party. There's the Labour Leavers plus Caroline Flint and other Brexit means Brexit Remainers. Tories flirting with the idea of rebelling night ask themselves if they really want to hand Jeremy Corbyn this victory.

    Country before party.

    A bad Brexit begets Corbyn as Prime Minister.

    Soubry, Grieve et al are acting like true patriots.
    How does their proposed amendment assist us?
    Protects trade and the economy ensuring no disruption to trade.

    It also solves the Irish Border question.
    No it doesn't. If you think that you really don't know what you are talking about.
    I have written reports from people who have worked, inter alia at the WTO, who say otherwise.

    I know they are experts but I'll place more faith in their views than yours.
    I hope whoever you were writing reports for will be trying to get their money back if that is the garbage you are writing.
    Let us use the Turkish model.

    For non agricultural physical goods are there any customs restrictions between Turkey and The EU? Yes or No?
    I see that nice Mr Clegg has helpfully shown you are talking bollocks again TSE. Customs restrictions are not the only restrictions. That is why the Single Market and the Customs Union are not the same thing. Perhaps you should learn some basics before commenting on this again.
    Why don't you answer my question instead of acting like a de haut en bas twat?

    For non agricultural physical goods are there any customs restrictions between Turkey and The EU? Yes or No?

    My report was produced by people with a combined 15 years time at the WTO, what is your experience at the WTO and Sir Nick Clegg's?
    It’s 2010. Who would predict that in just 8 years time,

    - A Marxist would be leading the Labour Party and feted by the business community for his speech on European issues?

    - Donald Trump would be US President on the back of seeming interfence from a hostile power?

    - Tyndall and TSE would be arguing bitterly about the Turkish customs union?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    edited February 2018
    rcs1000 said:

    John_M said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Is there anything, other than a Customs Union, that will allow both frictionless trade between Ireland and NI, and between NI and Great Britain?

    Unilaterally declaring free trade with the whole world a la Patrick Minford presumably would.
    But would probably be fairly disastrous for our industry in other ways...
    Even that, disasterous though it would be, wouldn't achive a frictionless IRE/NI border because Ireland couldn't allow unrestricted imports from NI that might include, for example, substandard electricals from China and/or chlorinated chicken from the US (which those countries would happily dump on us once we declare free trade with the whole world.)
    I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how we're going to be forced to buy this radioactive chicken (which I've eaten in the US many times, lovely). This vision we peddle of our sheep-like consumers belies my personal experience.

    Most people I know are incredibly picky about food, particularly meat; food miles is still a thing out here in the sticks.
    The issue with chlorinated chicken is the same issue that exists with pretty much all attempts to remove NTBs.

    Let's say we allow US chicken to be sold in the US (which I am 100% in favour of). British farmers will, correctly, complain that they are required to produce their food more expensively (higher standards of animal welfare) than US peers.

    Do we:

    - lower UK standards so they meet the lowest level of our competitors, to protect the British farming industry?
    - allow the British farming industry to be undercut by people who produce to lower standards?

    There's a very real example of this. The Quebec Provincial Government passed a law requiring that food that contained GMOs be labelled as such. Monsanto took Quebec to an ISDS tribunal, arguing that this requirement to label constituted a Non Tariff Barrier, and the ISDS sided with Monsanto, and resulting in the law being withdrawn.
    I didn't know about the Quebec GMO example. It shows the danger of the ISDS provision that the US will insist on in any US/UK FTA.

    If UK consumers want to know whether their chickens are from the US and reared in such filthy conditions that they need to be sterilised in Domestos they may not be able too. Tyson* could insist via ISDS that Sainsburys do not label any food "made in the US" on the grounds that it might damage their profits.

    * Tyson Foods

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,768
    Barnesian said:

    Sean_F said:

    Barnesian said:

    If there is a general election in the near term then tactical voting will be even more prevalent than usual.

    My reasoning is that there is now a reason for LibDems to tactically vote for Labour in Tory/Labour marginals. In 2017 there was little difference between the Tory and Labour manifesto regarding Brexit so little incentive for LibDems to loan Labour their votes. Now there is.

    I have analysed the Tory/Labour marginals in 2017, assumed 50% of LibDems will vote tactically for Labour and nothing else changes. Labour will gain 13 Tory marginals. (LibDems gain 5 Tory marginals if it is reciprocated). NB 50% is a reasonable target in a squeeze campaign.

    Factoring in the additional swing of 4% Tory to Labour since the GE gives Labour an extra 26 seats making 39 in total, reducing the Tory majority by 78.

    The 20 most marginal Conservative seats (with Labour second) already have the Lib Dems on an average 3.5% vote share. They've already been squeezed till the pips squeak.

    Take Calder Valley. Tory majority 609. LibDem vote 1952. No doubt the LD vote has already been squeezed but many of those 1952 LD voters were not to be squeezed because of Labour's Brexit policy. That will have changed.

    The 13 marginals are Broxtowe (perhaps an exception), Calder Valley, Chipping Barnet, Finchley, Hastings, Thurrock, Pudsey, Putney, Truro, Watford, Presele, S'Hpton Itchen, Southport.
    The 1952 are the people who would never vote any other way, or who met the candidate and liked him and thought they'd vote for him, or who are pleased the local Lib Dem councillor cleared up the dog mess outside their house. I don't think that more than a penny packet will be tactical voters.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,768
    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Scott_P said:
    I note that at the tail of that article, Hague implies that we may be heading toward an “abyss”.

    Another sceptic who got mugged by reality.
    He argued strongly for Remain.
    He allowed Hannan to go from ERG researcher to MEP and built most of his pitch against Blair around opposition to the EU and the Euro. The Brexit rot set in under his leadership.
    He was right, but at a time when the public were not ready to appreciate it. A kind of John the Baptist figure.
    Who do you see playing the Herod role?
    Alistair Campbell.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Is there anything, other than a Customs Union, that will allow both frictionless trade between Ireland and NI, and between NI and Great Britain?

    Unilaterally declaring free trade with the whole world a la Patrick Minford presumably would.
    But would probably be fairly disastrous for our industry in other ways...
    Unilaterally declaring free trade with the whole world does not allow UK goods into Ireland without tariffs.
    Some of the advocates of unilateral free trade simultaneously want to adopt protectionist policies...
    https://twitter.com/johnredwood/status/967353876067373056
    I see no where in that quite where Redwood is advocating putting up barriers or adopting protectionist policies. Removing quotas and buying local rather than importing stuff we already produce here is not protectionism. It is common sense.
    I think the argument against Redwood here is that - if you look back to the time when the UK last had genuinely free trade with the rest of the world - then the average Brit got a greater proportion of their calories from overseas than now.

    And that was 120 years ago, when the costs of transportation were an order of magnitude higher than now.
    120 years ago our trade with the rest of the world was less free than it is now if you look at average tariffs on total imports.
    image
    I don't think that's a weighted average number, but a simple average.
    If it's just looking at tariff revenue versus total imports doesn't the weighting take care of itself?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881

    Mr. rkrkrk, there are two sides in this negotiation. Given Corbyn's past and more recent utterances, a charitable man might say it's unclear which side of the table he's sat on.

    Mr. 1000, Herod comes across as a very interesting figure in Josephus' The Jewish War. Heroic in his youth, generally a good king, but too fond of overmighty towers funded by punitive taxation.

    There are far more than two sides in this negotiation.
    Corbyn’s job is to oppose the govt and get the best Brexit he can, if he gets the chance.
    Judging by what is reported f the parliamentary arithmetic, and the govts own economic analysis - he’s doing better than May at the moment.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    TOPPING said:

    tpfkar said:

    Scott_P said:
    I note that at the tail of that article, Hague implies that we may be heading toward an “abyss”.

    Another sceptic who got mugged by reality.
    I think that's harsh - he was an effective advocate for Remain in the campaign. With his track record of campaigning against the Euro "24 hours to save the pound" his journey on the issue is quite a story, he could have been used more effectively by Remain in my view.

    The ones being mugged by reality are those attacking Treasury forecasts because they don't like what they say, and those pretending there are no costs to Brexit in all scenarios.
    Why is it a 'journey'? It's perfectly sensible to argue against membership of the Euro and for remaining in the EU (especially with Dave's deal). I know this, because it was exactly my position.

    I agree he could have been used in the campaign more effectively.
    Nick Herbert was on such a journey, or had completed it, and led the Remain Cons group, having done the same for Business for Sterling earlier.

    But he had absolutely no response, on DP, to Kate Hoey asking him how, if we remained in the EU, the UK was going to restrict immigration. That for me was a defining moment.

    And all the PB Leavers tell us it is nothing to do with foreigners.
    Do they? Why would they say that, and which ones actually, specifically, have? More generally, either you personally believe that anyone in the world, by virtue of being a human being, can come to this country and live and work here, for ever, or you do not believe that, in which case you believe in immigration controls, in which case you believe in dividing foreigners into those who can come here, and those who cannot. Therefore you believe in DISCRIMINATING AGAINST FOREIGNERS, YOU XENOPHOBE.

    Infantile strawmanning is really irritating, isnt it?.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    Interesting to hear Jezza say that he thinks the EU's bluffing over their position on a customs union.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,768
    rkrkrk said:

    Mr. rkrkrk, there are two sides in this negotiation. Given Corbyn's past and more recent utterances, a charitable man might say it's unclear which side of the table he's sat on.

    Mr. 1000, Herod comes across as a very interesting figure in Josephus' The Jewish War. Heroic in his youth, generally a good king, but too fond of overmighty towers funded by punitive taxation.

    There are far more than two sides in this negotiation.
    Corbyn’s job is to oppose the govt and get the best Brexit he can, if he gets the chance.
    Judging by what is reported f the parliamentary arithmetic, and the govts own economic analysis - he’s doing better than May at the moment.
    Corbyn's only job is to cause as much trouble for the government as he can. That's what the Opposition leader is there for.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    I now know that Jeremy Corbyn is stupid as well as incompetent.

    Listening to the speech he read out this morning, he said that Labour would support the UK being in a customs union, PROVIDING the EU allowed Britain an independent say in drawing up trade deals. When asked what would happen if the EU said NO -as it does to all countries in such customs unions -he replied that the UK would negotiate.

    And what would happen if the EU still said NO Jeremy-as it does to all other countries in such customs unions.

    No answer.

    Stop treating us like the fools that you and your supporters are Jeremy.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Barnesian said:

    Sean_F said:

    Barnesian said:

    If there is a general election in the near term then tactical voting will be even more prevalent than usual.

    My reasoning is that there is now a reason for LibDems to tactically vote for Labour in Tory/Labour marginals. In 2017 there was little difference between the Tory and Labour manifesto regarding Brexit so little incentive for LibDems to loan Labour their votes. Now there is.

    I have analysed the Tory/Labour marginals in 2017, assumed 50% of LibDems will vote tactically for Labour and nothing else changes. Labour will gain 13 Tory marginals. (LibDems gain 5 Tory marginals if it is reciprocated). NB 50% is a reasonable target in a squeeze campaign.

    Factoring in the additional swing of 4% Tory to Labour since the GE gives Labour an extra 26 seats making 39 in total, reducing the Tory majority by 78.

    The 20 most marginal Conservative seats (with Labour second) already have the Lib Dems on an average 3.5% vote share. They've already been squeezed till the pips squeak.

    Take Calder Valley. Tory majority 609. LibDem vote 1952. No doubt the LD vote has already been squeezed but many of those 1952 LD voters were not to be squeezed because of Labour's Brexit policy. That will have changed.

    The 13 marginals are Broxtowe (perhaps an exception), Calder Valley, Chipping Barnet, Finchley, Hastings, Thurrock, Pudsey, Putney, Truro, Watford, Presele, S'Hpton Itchen, Southport.
    Given UKIP got 1466 votes in Calder Valley in June 2017, Tory+UKIP is frequently bigger than Labour+LD in many of those marginals
  • stevef said:

    I now know that Jeremy Corbyn is stupid as well as incompetent.

    Listening to the speech he read out this morning, he said that Labour would support the UK being in a customs union, PROVIDING the EU allowed Britain an independent say in drawing up trade deals. When asked what would happen if the EU said NO -as it does to all countries in such customs unions -he replied that the UK would negotiate.

    And what would happen if the EU still said NO Jeremy-as it does to all other countries in such customs unions.

    No answer.

    Stop treating us like the fools that you and your supporters are Jeremy.

    He's not negotiating though. He's angling for ways to bring a no confidence vote sooner.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited February 2018
    Pulpstar said:

    I make the starting points for the local elections:

    Con 1321
    Lab 2103
    LD 427
    Other 308

    That is all flavours of councillors (London, Unitary, Metropolitan & District)
    {Obviously no county this year}

    So Corbyn already has about 50% more seats than the Tories in May to defend
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044

    stevef said:

    I now know that Jeremy Corbyn is stupid as well as incompetent.

    Listening to the speech he read out this morning, he said that Labour would support the UK being in a customs union, PROVIDING the EU allowed Britain an independent say in drawing up trade deals. When asked what would happen if the EU said NO -as it does to all countries in such customs unions -he replied that the UK would negotiate.

    And what would happen if the EU still said NO Jeremy-as it does to all other countries in such customs unions.

    No answer.

    Stop treating us like the fools that you and your supporters are Jeremy.

    He's not negotiating though. He's angling for ways to bring a no confidence vote sooner.
    Ah so he was lying to the British people for party political advantage in parliament.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,587

    I have just been trawling through the comments on Twitter about Corbyn's speech. I was impressed by the speech itself, but the support it is getting is quite surprising. The phobes are as negative as ever, but the remainers seem surprisingly happy. Quite a few very pro tweets that don't look like they come from partisans.

    Whatever else we have learned, Corbyn shouldn't be underestimated.

    I detest the ****, and I remain disappointed in Labour's continued hostility towards EU membership, but compared to the government position it is a step in the right direction.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545
    If you want to spend two minutes to find out what a customs union with the EU does for Turkey, as well its limitations, take a peek at this video.

    https://twitter.com/mpc_1968/status/966749788950749184
  • The unions v Momentum.

    Popcorn time.

  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited February 2018

    The unions v Momentum.

    Popcorn time.

    The unions are already squabbling amongst themselves, GMB vs Unite. Meanwhile the levers of power within the party continue to fall to the infiltrators. They are going to be bloody difficult to get rid of if the party does come to its senses.
  • stevef said:

    stevef said:

    I now know that Jeremy Corbyn is stupid as well as incompetent.

    Listening to the speech he read out this morning, he said that Labour would support the UK being in a customs union, PROVIDING the EU allowed Britain an independent say in drawing up trade deals. When asked what would happen if the EU said NO -as it does to all countries in such customs unions -he replied that the UK would negotiate.

    And what would happen if the EU still said NO Jeremy-as it does to all other countries in such customs unions.

    No answer.

    Stop treating us like the fools that you and your supporters are Jeremy.

    He's not negotiating though. He's angling for ways to bring a no confidence vote sooner.
    Ah so he was lying to the British people for party political advantage in parliament.
    Unprecedented in the long annals of British democracy.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited February 2018
    ......And a big black cloud hangs over Jeremy if my latest chance encounter means anything.

    I bumped into a girl who I last met a year ago and who looks like an escapee from Greenham Common.

    'Hallo' I said quietly admiring her black Che Guevara beret. 'You wouldn't believe it but I'm now with you. I've had a Damascene conversion and i've joined Jeremy's fan club!

    'What? He's worse than fuc*ing Blair! she said

    'What's happened?' I asked.

    'You couldn't put a fag paper between him and UKIP.'

    A list of woes followed including that he'd lost Momentum 'for good this time. We're sick of being taken for granted'....... 'If he sat on any more fences he'd bifurcate himself......'

    At that point I said my goodbyes and headed for a dictionary....
  • The far left always, absolutely always, ends up eating itself ...
    https://twitter.com/lukeakehurst/status/968191228159451136
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,587
    stevef said:

    stevef said:

    I now know that Jeremy Corbyn is stupid as well as incompetent.

    Listening to the speech he read out this morning, he said that Labour would support the UK being in a customs union, PROVIDING the EU allowed Britain an independent say in drawing up trade deals. When asked what would happen if the EU said NO -as it does to all countries in such customs unions -he replied that the UK would negotiate.

    And what would happen if the EU still said NO Jeremy-as it does to all other countries in such customs unions.

    No answer.

    Stop treating us like the fools that you and your supporters are Jeremy.

    He's not negotiating though. He's angling for ways to bring a no confidence vote sooner.
    Ah so he was lying to the British people for party political advantage in parliament.
    Like you I don't like Corbyn. Today Corbyn had a good day. I doubt it will last but credit where it is due, today he moved the debate forward.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Roger said:

    ......And a big black cloud hangs over Jeremy if my latest chance encounter means anything.

    I bumped into a girl who I last met a year ago and who looks like an escapee from Greenham Common.

    'Hallo' I said quietly admiring her black Che Guevara beret. 'You wouldn't believe it but I'm now with you. I've had a Damascene conversion and i've joined Jeremy's fan club!

    'What? He's worse than fuc*ing Blair! she said

    'What's happened?' I asked.

    'You couldn't put a fag paper between him and UKIP.'

    A list of woes followed including that he'd lost Momentum 'for good this time. We're sick of being taken for granted'....... 'If he sat on any more fences he'd bifurcate himself......'

    At that point I said my goodbyes and headed for a dictionary....

    Clearly she does not speak for Momentum, Momentum have always been lukewarm about the EU at best
  • The unions v Momentum.

    Popcorn time.

    The unions are already squabbling amongst themselves, GMB vs Unite. Meanwhile the levers of power within the party continue to fall to the infiltrators. They are going to be bloody difficult to get rid of if the party does come to its senses.

    McCluskey is finding he cannot control the beast he helped to create. Lansman represent a decisive move away from union power towards individual members. This is a big moment in Labour history.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Ishmael_Z said:

    TOPPING said:

    tpfkar said:

    Scott_P said:
    I note that at the tail of that article, Hague implies that we may be heading toward an “abyss”.

    Another sceptic who got mugged by reality.
    I think that's harsh - he was an effective advocate for Remain in the campaign. With his track record of campaigning against the Euro "24 hours to save the pound" his journey on the issue is quite a story, he could have been used more effectively by Remain in my view.

    The ones being mugged by reality are those attacking Treasury forecasts because they don't like what they say, and those pretending there are no costs to Brexit in all scenarios.
    Why is it a 'journey'? It's perfectly sensible to argue against membership of the Euro and for remaining in the EU (especially with Dave's deal). I know this, because it was exactly my position.

    I agree he could have been used in the campaign more effectively.
    Nick Herbert was on such a journey, or had completed it, and led the Remain Cons group, having done the same for Business for Sterling earlier.

    But he had absolutely no response, on DP, to Kate Hoey asking him how, if we remained in the EU, the UK was going to restrict immigration. That for me was a defining moment.

    And all the PB Leavers tell us it is nothing to do with foreigners.
    Do they? Why would they say that, and which ones actually, specifically, have? More generally, either you personally believe that anyone in the world, by virtue of being a human being, can come to this country and live and work here, for ever, or you do not believe that, in which case you believe in immigration controls, in which case you believe in dividing foreigners into those who can come here, and those who cannot. Therefore you believe in DISCRIMINATING AGAINST FOREIGNERS, YOU XENOPHOBE.

    Infantile strawmanning is really irritating, isnt it?.
    You’re not at all irritating, perhaps sadly for you.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    stevef said:

    I now know that Jeremy Corbyn is stupid as well as incompetent.

    Listening to the speech he read out this morning, he said that Labour would support the UK being in a customs union, PROVIDING the EU allowed Britain an independent say in drawing up trade deals. When asked what would happen if the EU said NO -as it does to all countries in such customs unions -he replied that the UK would negotiate.

    And what would happen if the EU still said NO Jeremy-as it does to all other countries in such customs unions.

    No answer.

    Stop treating us like the fools that you and your supporters are Jeremy.

    Ummm:

    Turkey is in *a* customs union with the EU, and his its own trade deals.

    See: https://www.export.gov/article?id=Turkey-Trade-Agreements
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    TOPPING said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    TOPPING said:

    tpfkar said:

    Scott_P said:
    I note that at the tail of that article, Hague implies that we may be heading toward an “abyss”.

    Another sceptic who got mugged by reality.
    I think that's harsh - he was an effective advocate for Remain in the campaign. With his track record of campaigning against the Euro "24 hours to save the pound" his journey on the issue is quite a story, he could have been used more effectively by Remain in my view.

    The ones being mugged by reality are those attacking Treasury forecasts because they don't like what they say, and those pretending there are no costs to Brexit in all scenarios.
    Why is it a 'journey'? It's perfectly sensible to argue against membership of the Euro and for remaining in the EU (especially with Dave's deal). I know this, because it was exactly my position.

    I agree he could have been used in the campaign more effectively.
    Nick Herbert was on such a journey, or had completed it, and led the Remain Cons group, having done the same for Business for Sterling earlier.

    But he had absolutely no response, on DP, to Kate Hoey asking him how, if we remained in the EU, the UK was going to restrict immigration. That for me was a defining moment.

    And all the PB Leavers tell us it is nothing to do with foreigners.
    Do they? Why would they say that, and which ones actually, specifically, have? More generally, either you personally believe that anyone in the world, by virtue of being a human being, can come to this country and live and work here, for ever, or you do not believe that, in which case you believe in immigration controls, in which case you believe in dividing foreigners into those who can come here, and those who cannot. Therefore you believe in DISCRIMINATING AGAINST FOREIGNERS, YOU XENOPHOBE.

    Infantile strawmanning is really irritating, isnt it?.
    You’re not at all irritating, perhaps sadly for you.
    oh good, so you'll be happy to answer the question, then. Who ever said "it is nothing to do with foreigners"?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    'Fire and Fury' author Michael Wolff says there are only 3 Britons Team Trump rates - Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson and Tony Blair

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/fire-and-fury-author-michael-wolff-trump-has-no-f-idea-a3775991.html
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I make the starting points for the local elections:

    Con 1321
    Lab 2103
    LD 427
    Other 308

    That is all flavours of councillors (London, Unitary, Metropolitan & District)
    {Obviously no county this year}

    So Corbyn already has about 50% more seats than the Tories in May to defend
    Yes.

    However, it is worth remembering that this year the whole of London votes (32 Boroughs multiplied by a little more than 50 councillors on average, gives 1,700 odd in London.

    Plus there are the whole of Birmingham (101), Leeds (99), Manchester (96) and Newcastle-upon-Tyne (78).

    And then there are a third of 30 more Metropolitan Boroughs, including Barnsley, Bolton, Bradford, Coventry, Gateshead, Liverpool, Rochdale, North Tyneside, St Helens, Salford, Sheffield, Sunderland and Wigan.

    Of course, some of these councils are already utterly dominated by Labour. (Manchester, for instance, has 95 Labour councillors, and one LibDem).
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,922
    edited February 2018

    stevef said:

    stevef said:

    I now know that Jeremy Corbyn is stupid as well as incompetent.

    Listening to the speech he read out this morning, he said that Labour would support the UK being in a customs union, PROVIDING the EU allowed Britain an independent say in drawing up trade deals. When asked what would happen if the EU said NO -as it does to all countries in such customs unions -he replied that the UK would negotiate.

    And what would happen if the EU still said NO Jeremy-as it does to all other countries in such customs unions.

    No answer.

    Stop treating us like the fools that you and your supporters are Jeremy.

    He's not negotiating though. He's angling for ways to bring a no confidence vote sooner.
    Ah so he was lying to the British people for party political advantage in parliament.
    Unprecedented in the long annals of British democracy.
    The claim that 'x is playing politics' is the final accusation of desperation from the out-manoeuvred. They're politicians; the clue is in the name.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,085
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I make the starting points for the local elections:

    Con 1321
    Lab 2103
    LD 427
    Other 308

    That is all flavours of councillors (London, Unitary, Metropolitan & District)
    {Obviously no county this year}

    So Corbyn already has about 50% more seats than the Tories in May to defend
    Yes.

    However, it is worth remembering that this year the whole of London votes (32 Boroughs multiplied by a little more than 50 councillors on average, gives 1,700 odd in London.

    Plus there are the whole of Birmingham (101), Leeds (99), Manchester (96) and Newcastle-upon-Tyne (78).

    And then there are a third of 30 more Metropolitan Boroughs, including Barnsley, Bolton, Bradford, Coventry, Gateshead, Liverpool, Rochdale, North Tyneside, St Helens, Salford, Sheffield, Sunderland and Wigan.

    Of course, some of these councils are already utterly dominated by Labour. (Manchester, for instance, has 95 Labour councillors, and one LibDem).
    The number of these that will need active defence this year is a small minority.
This discussion has been closed.