The current ‘deal’ (lol) will not get through Parliament. No deal will never be accepted.
Looking like the 27 November will be a very important date. That is when the European Court of Justice adjudicates on whether the invocation of Article 50 can be revoked.
Apparently, advance consensus amongst legal experts is that the ECJ will say yes.
If so, and it were invoked, that would allow time for a real negotiation based on this week’s 26 page document and even, potentially, a fresh referendum.
Unless the revocation of Article 50 also requires EU member state agreement. Then things may get even more complex.
Tomorrow’s the day ... will be interesting to say the least. May has tried to stop this but failed.
Mmm, here’s a viewpoint I hadn’t considered:
“While a ruling that the UK government can revoke Article 50 might encourage a second referendum, it would also empower Eurosceptics such as Viktor Orban to cause merry hell by issuing their own Article 50 notices they intend to withdraw at the last minute (perhaps as a way of pressuring the Council and Commission over other issues). This is why I suspect the ECJ will rule Article 50 can’t be revoked: it remains a political court and it is unlikely to set a precedent that cause massive headaches for the EU in the long run.”
Whether or not it is political, and I don't really think that it is, beyond, strangely, being positive towards the EU Treaties and acquis - it would be a very contrary judgement that would allow withdrawal of Article 50 to be set at a lower bar than that of simply extending it.
So, I think that the agreement of the EU27 seems to be a logical requirement, rather than allowing for unilateral revocation.
What amazes me, however, is that much of today's debate seems to centre around the Withdrawal Agreement being the end state of trade negotiations. All this agreement does is give breathing space for trade negotiations - which may, very well, see HMG decide to reconsider its red lines, and could see the EFTA/EEA option reconsidered as a permanent solution.
The current ‘deal’ (lol) will not get through Parliament. No deal will never be accepted.
Looking like the 27 November will be a very important date. That is when the European Court of Justice adjudicates on whether the invocation of Article 50 can be revoked.
Apparently, advance consensus amongst legal experts is that the ECJ will say yes.
If so, and it were invoked, that would allow time for a real negotiation based on this week’s 26 page document and even, potentially, a fresh referendum.
Unless the revocation of Article 50 also requires EU member state agreement. Then things may get even more complex.
Tomorrow’s the day ... will be interesting to say the least. May has tried to stop this but failed.
Mmm, here’s a viewpoint I hadn’t considered:
“While a ruling that the UK government can revoke Article 50 might encourage a second referendum, it would also empower Eurosceptics such as Viktor Orban to cause merry hell by issuing their own Article 50 notices they intend to withdraw at the last minute (perhaps as a way of pressuring the Council and Commission over other issues). This is why I suspect the ECJ will rule Article 50 can’t be revoked: it remains a political court and it is unlikely to set a precedent that cause massive headaches for the EU in the long run.”
Whether or not it is political, and I don't really think that it is, beyond, strangely, being positive towards the EU Treaties and acquis - it would be a very contrary judgement that would allow withdrawal of Article 50 to be set at a lower bar than that of simply extending it.
So, I think that the agreement of the EU27 seems to be a logical requirement, rather than allowing for unilateral revocation.
What amazes me, however, is that much of today's debate seems to centre around the Withdrawal Agreement being the end state of trade negotiations. All this agreement does is give breathing space for trade negotiations - which may, very well, see HMG decide to reconsider its red lines, and could see the EFTA/EEA option reconsidered as a permanent solution.
Genuinely wonder what the mood of the UK will be the day it officially leaves the EU, if there will actually be any celebrations or if at least half the people will be disillusioned with the decision to leave and the people who actually voted for it thinking it's probably not a clear enough break. Hard to think of a historical parallel of such a momentous occasion that could be met with such disappointment. Who, if any, will actually be celebrating on the day?
The current ‘deal’ (lol) will not get through Parliament. No deal will never be accepted.
Looking like the 27 November will be a very important date. That is when the European Court of Justice adjudicates on whether the invocation of Article 50 can be revoked.
Apparently, advance consensus amongst legal experts is that the ECJ will say yes.
If so, and it were invoked, that would allow time for a real negotiation based on this week’s 26 page document and even, potentially, a fresh referendum.
Unless the revocation of Article 50 also requires EU member state agreement. Then things may get even more complex.
Tomorrow’s the day ... will be interesting to say the least. May has tried to stop this but failed.
Mmm, here’s a viewpoint I hadn’t considered:
“While a ruling that the UK government can revoke Article 50 might encourage a second referendum, it would also empower Eurosceptics such as Viktor Orban to cause merry hell by issuing their own Article 50 notices they intend to withdraw at the last minute (perhaps as a way of pressuring the Council and Commission over other issues). This is why I suspect the ECJ will rule Article 50 can’t be revoked: it remains a political court and it is unlikely to set a precedent that cause massive headaches for the EU in the long run.”
Whether or not it is political, and I don't really think that it is, beyond, strangely, being positive towards the EU Treaties and acquis - it would be a very contrary judgement that would allow withdrawal of Article 50 to be set at a lower bar than that of simply extending it.
So, I think that the agreement of the EU27 seems to be a logical requirement, rather than allowing for unilateral revocation.
What amazes me, however, is that much of today's debate seems to centre around the Withdrawal Agreement being the end state of trade negotiations. All this agreement does is give breathing space for trade negotiations - which may, very well, see HMG decide to reconsider its red lines, and could see the EFTA/EEA option reconsidered as a permanent solution.
Do you think the EU27 would agree to revocation?
Only if they believed that there was a genuine change of approach.
The huge fear in the EU27, IMHO, would be that the UK would seek to stay in negotiations semi-permanently, diverting their attention from other, for them, more pressing problems.
Before people get too excited about a "Norway option" let me tell you how it works in practice, for ordinary people. And trust me, in the last few weeks i've looked into this closely with my Swedish buddy who lives in Norway (and calls it a Soviet state).
A Norwegian bloke who was a guest on BBC PM this evening blithely told Evan Davies that Norway is in the Single Market. Well that is only partly true. Try taking, lets say 5 litres of beer into Norway, you will be stopped and done for duty. Lots of duty. If you do this by road, you will think no one will notice, because Norway is in Schengen. No barriers at the border. But the Norwegians do frequent stop and search behind the border. My buddy loaded his car up with beer from here last week but he either gives it away as Xmas presents, to Swedish or Denmark based friends and family, or keeps most of it in his Swedish summer house.
If on the other hand he wants to move a lot of his household possessions from his Oslo to his Swedish house, the Swedes will charge him 25% VAT. Never mind that the stuff is used, and his property. Never mind that he paid 25% in Norway too. There is a limit of value below €300 which isn't charged, but that is per trip, not per item.
So what under the Norway model do you think is going to happen to those white vans groaning with cheap booze from Calais?. And what do you think is going to happen to all those UK small businesses who sell a bit of, I dunno, sparkling wine or decent British lamb in other EU countries, under this Norway option?
Don't believe the bullshit. There is no such thing as a soft Brexit. Brexit means Brexit.
We love a tangential debate. Morbidity, the projection/ estimation loop much of it based on assumptions of which we know not and another traverse through the crimes of the many Tory governments elected over the past 60yrs, though the the Falklands conflict maybe debatable.
Working for an ex RAF Liaison officer (late 80s) once part of the logistics team (Navy, Army, US & others) deploying an effective military force into a modern war zone 7000 nautical miles away he argued the creation of ANY such effective conflict force was long viewed as an exceptional process. I too can condemn the horror of war but then I was not a Falkland islander facing military oppression.
The relevance today is, as per the 2008 crash, the conflict was decades in the making. I can point to the Wilson government dialogue which fermented Argentine expectations.
For today add the machinations of the media and "an" elite to the debate and off we go. There are several elites. The "real elite" is one you do not see. I encountered the lower echelons. Excessive wealth & power driving ever more personal advantage. In western "democracy" deregulation is their friend. The EU is not.
Respecting the result I viewed the referendum and its outcome as flawed. In accentuating division I view it as seriously diminishing the UK & the EU. Unsurprisingly the Draft Withdrawal Agreement is flawed.
The UK is the 5th largest (the EU CU is 2nd) global economy. The UK taxpayer pays the EU a large fee for tariff & quota free trade. It incentivises global & domestic investors to invest in UK jobs and the economy which funds our defence, security & social infrastructure.
It is clear however all within our society do not enjoy the benefits of our global status.
I am unclear where the EU is responsible for this imbalance.
The obsession with personalities is hugely misplaced though Dorries maybe an exception. A voice for chaos she is consumed by her prospects at the next election. If you saw the preening exhibitions of vested interest in Parliament over the last weeks I suggest Ken Clarke is the last person of concern. He exposes the paucity of talent in today's politics.
The endless self indulgent diametrically opposed ambitions, pursuing separate agenda take us nowhere. The repetitive baying for different end games without evidencing a viable pathway is the noise we have heard for 2yrs. Whether you share the privilege of the Balliol cabal or not most of us have to work to the realities of life.
No matter who is at the helm the challenges do not change.
Nobody gets to play fast & loose with the global agreements you enter into without consequence.
Insulting May may make you feel better but it takes us no further forward.
Everyone has had 2yrs to lay out their strategies & policies to address their goals, define their preferred path and enunciate the benefits and the challenges and how they propose to meet those challenges.
No fan of her or her politics I respected her performance in delivering her statement and responding to 3 hours of often rabid & facile questioning. It was professional.
The content was miserably limited in scope & detail.
Avoid the furore around the debate.
The media deals in soundbites. I view we are where we are because of soundbite politics. We are beset by soundbite politicians. Our future is worth more than a formal & social media circus.
It is obvious to everyone, including its sponsor, the proposed Agreement is flawed.
Any politician not understanding the challenges of this process is either disingenuous or a fool. Rabb not having the cojones to stand by his work speaks to the nature of the political animal. What is it in the human psyche which fights to avoid accountability?
The Draft is at least 6 months late with Brexit leaders integral to the process; - Could the first Brexit Secretary charged with delivering a successful negotiation have displayed more incompetence? - Could a Brexit Foreign Secretary key to securing foreign support to achieving a successful negotiation fail to engage so completely?
Then to just run away! Was brinkmanship all they had to offer?
We have A TRANSITION AGREEMENT.
Intended to satisfy elements of the demands of all factions the proposals offends them all. It is the nature of compromise. It is flawed because it seeks to address the schism within Cabinet, Party, Parliament and the country.
It does not yet define our future relationship with Europe. Anyone putting a 2yr time limit on completing a fully fledged trading agreement is either a fool, a liar or patently never expected an agreement.A transition is required.
We have the right to savage the outcome but to malign only those who steered one course is simplistic. So stuff the factions & personalities what is on offer?
1. Exiting the Single Market. We regain border control of the movement of people 2. A Customs Union. Tariff & Quota free trade protecting; - inward investment in & existing trading for UK jobs & the economy. - an open border as defined by the GFA - a pathway to new trade deals with the EU and the ROW 3. The phased removal of the financial burden of EU membership 4. The UK exit from the Common Agricultural & the Common Fisheries Policy.
It does not;
Unequivocally remove the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
I am yet to learn where the ECJ disadvantages the UK citizen, workers rights or trading freedoms. Every global agreement I signed defined its jurisdiction. It is the cost of international trade IN ANY MARKET. ECJ referral is an exception.
Include, within the backstop, any definitive UK independent exit trigger
Why, because the EU seeks to protect the rights conferred to a member state by a freely negotiated GFA between sovereign states.
In contract terms it is a fatal flaw. There has to be an independent mechanism for determining any agreement. I do not regard the creation of a such a mechanism as insurmountable.
If Parliament reject these proposals where do we go?
Leave the EU defaulting to WTO trade terms?
Reject EU departure by overturning the June 2016 result?
If not one faction holds sufficient support to a) carry the deal b) force departure with no deal c) keep the country in the EU, then Parliament is in deadlock.
There is no second deal here unless we have a termination clause.
Thus the seat of democracy empowered by the people has failed. If democracy is to be respected the decision has to be returned to the people. The "established" mechanism is a General Election.
In itself it will not solve the problem. The underlying challenges will remain.
What we have is not Project Fear it is Project Vacuum.
Where do Brexiteers wish to take us? Can someone please put some substance behind what these supposed new freedoms will deliver, not, if, could, can or would but some real facts, figures and numbers?
If you want to pursue a strategy then own it and sell it warts all "I don't know" doesn't cut it.
If the referendum result was winning the war then you still have to win the "peace"
For example, WTO terms do not fulfill frictionless trade nor protect the GFA. If it can be negotiated WTO rules breaches the GFA.
If this is your path pursue it not by default but by coherent, cogent planning laying out its strengths & challenges and how those challenges are to be met. Let's have the price up front. What are its supporters frightened of? Do they not know the price?
If Remain or Norway, Canada style deals are your solutions spit it out and back it up.
We the electorate do not get to run away. In the next few weeks, months we face the likelihood of actively reviewing the decisions being made on our behalf via a General Election or directly via a new referendum IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST. Hopefully 2yrs wiser we will be more circumspect as to the tangible pitfalls and opportunities.
Before people get too excited about a "Norway option" let me tell you how it works in practice, for ordinary people. And trust me, in the last few weeks i've looked into this closely with my Swedish buddy who lives in Norway (and calls it a Soviet state).
A Norwegian bloke who was a guest on BBC PM this evening blithely told Evan Davies that Norway is in the Single Market. Well that is only partly true. Try taking, lets say 5 litres of beer into Norway, you will be stopped and done for duty. Lots of duty. If you do this by road, you will think no one will notice, because Norway is in Schengen. No barriers at the border. But the Norwegians do frequent stop and search behind the border. My buddy loaded his car up with beer from here last week but he either gives it away as Xmas presents, to Swedish or Denmark based friends and family, or keeps most of it in his Swedish summer house.
If on the other hand he wants to move a lot of his household possessions from his Oslo to his Swedish house, the Swedes will charge him 25% VAT. Never mind that the stuff is used, and his property. Never mind that he paid 25% in Norway too. There is a limit of value below €300 which isn't charged, but that is per trip, not per item.
So what under the Norway model do you think is going to happen to those white vans groaning with cheap booze from Calais?. And what do you think is going to happen to all those UK small businesses who sell a bit of, I dunno, sparkling wine or decent British lamb in other EU countries, under this Norway option?
Don't believe the bullshit. There is no such thing as a soft Brexit. Brexit means Brexit.
Norway is not in the Customs Union. Hence serious duty on alcohol import at the border and full on border control for ALL lorry trafic between Norway and Sweden.
BINO = Norway PLUS CU membership. Perhaps that's what people sometimes mean when they refer to Norway option? Certainly Farage, Johnson and Gove did not make any distinctions in the 2016 campaign.
The WA offers CU membership and, as per the link from @NornIrishAddick there is the possibility to revisit the Single Market and free movement question during the transition period. But the WA is the opposite of Norway given that there's an end to free movement and an end to SM membership.
Hopefully we will have a mix of clarity and perhaps chaos after the vote next month. Ideally we can attempt to be precise in the terminology and not get too irrational for this debate is going to heat up significantly in the weeks and months to come.
I don’t agree with her stance on Brexit but she makes so many excellent points about the paucity of competence and judgement in our political strata.
I’m beginning to think that May will do anything to stay in power and Corbyn will do anything to get into power ... and neither give a shit about the damage it will do to the UK.
I agree that the 'agreed' version would have been after invoking Article 50, but an enormous amount of negotiations could have gone on before, unlike the farcical 'talks' that have proceeded so far with our 'politicians' not having a clue what the word 'negotiation' means.
It's an interesting exercise for me to go through the 'Political Declaration' (PD) and compare the content with my vision as I had posted in the past.
1. As proposed by the Brussels-based think tank Bruegel in August 2016 a ‘continental partnership’ – a new form of ‘outer circle’ for a post-Brexit UK (and other non-EU countries) that want to belong to the Single Market and have some say over its rules but don’t want to play a part in the political institutions of the EU. (Also supported in a European Commission paper in March 2017 proposing sub-groups of member states pursuing their own integration agendas). PD - The Union and United Kingdom are determined to work together to safeguard the rules-based international order, the rule of law and promotion of democracy, and high standards of free and fair trade and workers’ rights, consumer and environmental protection, and cooperation against internal and external threats to their values and interests. In that spirit, this declaration establishes the parameters of an ambitious, broad, deep and flexible partnership across trade and economic cooperation, law enforcement and criminal justice, foreign policy, security and defence and wider areas of cooperation. The future relationship will be based on a balance of rights and obligations, taking into account the principles of each Party. This balance must ensure the autonomy of the Union’s decision making and be consistent with the Union’s principles, in particular with respect to the integrity of the Single Market and the Customs Union and the indivisibility of the four freedoms. It must also ensure the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and the protection of its internal market, while respecting the result of the 2016 referendum including with regard to the development of its independent trade policy and the ending of free movement of people between the Union and the United Kingdom.
2. Work with the EU, not as part of it, but as a partner with it in a free-trade zone, whilst not restricting ourselves in our dealings with other parts of the world, having the freedom to deal with other countries as we see appropriate, not bound by EU rules and trade tariffs. PD - The Parties agree to develop an ambitious, wide-ranging and balanced economic partnership. This partnership will be comprehensive, encompassing a free trade area as well as wider sectoral cooperation where it is in the mutual interest of both Parties. It will be underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition. It should facilitate trade and investment between the Parties to the extent possible, while respecting the integrity of the Union's Single Market and the Customs Union as well as the United Kingdom's internal market, and recognising the development of an independent trade policy by the United Kingdom beyond this economic partnership. The Parties envisage comprehensive arrangements that will create a free trade area, combining deep regulatory and customs cooperation, underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition.
3. Reconcile with the aims of global free trade as upheld by the WTO (in particular, implementing legally binding commitments not to raise tariffs). PD - The Parties should conclude ambitious, comprehensive and balanced arrangements on trade in services and investment in services and non-services sectors, respecting each Party's right to regulate. The Parties should aim to deliver a level of liberalisation in trade in services well beyond the Parties’ World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments and building on recent Union Free Trade Agreements (FTAs).
4. Support digitalisation of Trade. PD - In the context of the increasing digitalisation of trade covering both services and goods, the Parties should establish provisions to facilitate electronic commerce, address unjustified barriers to trade by electronic means, and ensure an open, secure and trustworthy online environment for businesses and consumers, such as on electronic trust and authentication services or on not requiring prior authorisation solely on the grounds that the service is provided by electronic means.
Definitely an approach that I could have supported ... and benefited both sides. .
Whisper it quietly, while there may be differences in detail, I agree with you...
I suspect there is a lot of difference in reality on points 1 and 2. On 1, I don't see too much appetite at present for a two speed Europe within the EU and on 2. I would see the reference to a level playing field as running counter to the idea of having "freedom to deal with other countries as appropriate". The other thing that needs to be appreciated is that future trade relationships after we withdraw, rather than the withdrawal agreement itself, are not subject to qualified majority voting but can be vetoed by each individual EU member. The Brexiteer clowns Johnson, Fox and Davis, ably abetted by a Prime Minister who has put her own Party before the Country, have in effect wasted the past three years because they had no coherent or consistent vision of where we wanted to go after withdrawal. The Political Declaration is just aspirational tosh and its sole purpose was just to kick the can a further two years down the road, while in the meantime investment in the economy and ordinary peoples livelihoods suffer. We need to stop this madness and have a People's Vote.
Macron is actually very supportive of the 'concentric circle' approach.
Yes but it has gone down like a lead balloon in Central Europe, the very zone where Macron assumes the outer concentric circle would be...
The other feature of concentric circles is that they all share the same centre - which I somehow doubt is where anyone in the UK or anyone else in the EU is keen to go.
I don’t agree with her stance on Brexit but she makes so many excellent points about the paucity of competence and judgement in our political strata.
I’m beginning to think that May will do anything to stay in power and Corbyn will do anything to get into power ... and neither give a shit about the damage it will do to the UK.
Sad times.
Did you not anticipate this before the referendum?
WTF! I thought I had seen the worst of the current batch of Labour politicians. No. The MP they put up for Newsnight tonight had the charisma and intelligence of a dog turd.
It is naive to expect Corbyn to openly manufacture another referendum. It has to come from the chaos of the government. Many Remainers call Brexiters thick and idiots when they are often the idiots. What is the point of getting a referendum and losing it FFS?
Genuinely wonder what the mood of the UK will be the day it officially leaves the EU, if there will actually be any celebrations or if at least half the people will be disillusioned with the decision to leave and the people who actually voted for it thinking it's probably not a clear enough break. Hard to think of a historical parallel of such a momentous occasion that could be met with such disappointment. Who, if any, will actually be celebrating on the day?
There will definitely be celebrations on “Brexit day” - those people will be hugely misguided but I guarantee it will happen.
I don’t agree with her stance on Brexit but she makes so many excellent points about the paucity of competence and judgement in our political strata.
I’m beginning to think that May will do anything to stay in power and Corbyn will do anything to get into power ... and neither give a shit about the damage it will do to the UK.
Sad times.
Did you not anticipate this before the referendum?
Genuinely wonder what the mood of the UK will be the day it officially leaves the EU, if there will actually be any celebrations or if at least half the people will be disillusioned with the decision to leave and the people who actually voted for it thinking it's probably not a clear enough break. Hard to think of a historical parallel of such a momentous occasion that could be met with such disappointment. Who, if any, will actually be celebrating on the day?
I don’t agree with her stance on Brexit but she makes so many excellent points about the paucity of competence and judgement in our political strata.
I’m beginning to think that May will do anything to stay in power and Corbyn will do anything to get into power ... and neither give a shit about the damage it will do to the UK.
Sad times.
Did you not anticipate this before the referendum?
No, my crystal ball wasn’t working. Sorry.
Regardless of political viewpoints, I don't think either front bench in 2016 could have been accused of being very competent. Cameron and Osborne in particular were more interested in playing little games than doing the best for the country, and Labour were in meltdown with lots of resignations. The EU were always going to be well prepared for negotiations.
I didn't expect Davis to be so useless but the rest of them have lived up to expectations.
If leaving the EU was the right thing to do, it was always going to be a big project and need a very competent government to deliver. If someone like me could see that the current generation of politicians weren't up to it, I'm surprised you couldn't.
Genuinely wonder what the mood of the UK will be the day it officially leaves the EU, if there will actually be any celebrations or if at least half the people will be disillusioned with the decision to leave and the people who actually voted for it thinking it's probably not a clear enough break. Hard to think of a historical parallel of such a momentous occasion that could be met with such disappointment. Who, if any, will actually be celebrating on the day?
Chippy.
Mate I can only echo what Stig said a few pages back. Chippy doesn’t post on this thread anymore and I appreciate that you might mean this in a light hearted way and as a bit of banter but if we could please try not to bring up other posters unnecessarily that would be much appreciated. This thread still has the potential to become very combustible very quickly. To try and keep it civil I think it’s important we don’t try and wind up those with alternate views to our own
I’m not having a pop at you just using this as a reminder that we don’t want things to descend into silliness again - cheers
I don’t agree with her stance on Brexit but she makes so many excellent points about the paucity of competence and judgement in our political strata.
I’m beginning to think that May will do anything to stay in power and Corbyn will do anything to get into power ... and neither give a shit about the damage it will do to the UK.
Sad times.
Did you not anticipate this before the referendum?
No, my crystal ball wasn’t working. Sorry.
Regardless of political viewpoints, I don't think either front bench in 2016 could have been accused of being very competent. Cameron and Osborne in particular were more interested in playing little games than doing the best for the country, and Labour were in meltdown with lots of resignations. The EU were always going to be well prepared for negotiations.
I didn't expect Davis to be so useless but the rest of them have lived up to expectations.
If leaving the EU was the right thing to do, it was always going to be a big project and need a very competent government to deliver. If someone like me could see that the current generation of politicians weren't up to it, I'm surprised you couldn't.
Tbf there weren't any clues that the government that gave us the word "omnishambles" wouldn't be up for the most complex set of long term, impactful, complicated and wide ranging negotiations in peacetime.
WTF! I thought I had seen the worst of the current batch of Labour politicians. No. The MP they put up for Newsnight tonight had the charisma and intelligence of a dog turd.
Do you remember the name?
I've been swotting up on Cat Smith before writing to her. Seems that despite being one of Corbyn's top supporters in the leadership election she also campaigned for Remain. I can't square that at all. Neither can I work out why a "remainer" would seek to deny a vote to a bloc of citizens most obviously negatively affected by Brexit.
Maybe they see the world a bit differently in Fleetwood, which she represents...
WTF! I thought I had seen the worst of the current batch of Labour politicians. No. The MP they put up for Newsnight tonight had the charisma and intelligence of a dog turd.
Do you remember the name?
I've been swotting up on Cat Smith before writing to her. Seems that despite being one of Corbyn's top supporters in the leadership election she also campaigned for Remain. I can't square that at all. Neither can I work out why a "remainer" would seek to deny a vote to a bloc of citizens most obviously negatively affected by Brexit.
Maybe they see the world a bit differently in Fleetwood, which she represents...
Comments
So, I think that the agreement of the EU27 seems to be a logical requirement, rather than allowing for unilateral revocation.
What amazes me, however, is that much of today's debate seems to centre around the Withdrawal Agreement being the end state of trade negotiations. All this agreement does is give breathing space for trade negotiations - which may, very well, see HMG decide to reconsider its red lines, and could see the EFTA/EEA option reconsidered as a permanent solution.
The huge fear in the EU27, IMHO, would be that the UK would seek to stay in negotiations semi-permanently, diverting their attention from other, for them, more pressing problems.
A Norwegian bloke who was a guest on BBC PM this evening blithely told Evan Davies that Norway is in the Single Market. Well that is only partly true. Try taking, lets say 5 litres of beer into Norway, you will be stopped and done for duty. Lots of duty. If you do this by road, you will think no one will notice, because Norway is in Schengen. No barriers at the border. But the Norwegians do frequent stop and search behind the border. My buddy loaded his car up with beer from here last week but he either gives it away as Xmas presents, to Swedish or Denmark based friends and family, or keeps most of it in his Swedish summer house.
If on the other hand he wants to move a lot of his household possessions from his Oslo to his Swedish house, the Swedes will charge him 25% VAT. Never mind that the stuff is used, and his property. Never mind that he paid 25% in Norway too. There is a limit of value below €300 which isn't charged, but that is per trip, not per item.
So what under the Norway model do you think is going to happen to those white vans groaning with cheap booze from Calais?. And what do you think is going to happen to all those UK small businesses who sell a bit of, I dunno, sparkling wine or decent British lamb in other EU countries, under this Norway option?
Don't believe the bullshit. There is no such thing as a soft Brexit. Brexit means Brexit.
Working for an ex RAF Liaison officer (late 80s) once part of the logistics team (Navy, Army, US & others) deploying an effective military force into a modern war zone 7000 nautical miles away he argued the creation of ANY such effective conflict force was long viewed as an exceptional process. I too can condemn the horror of war but then I was not a Falkland islander facing military oppression.
The relevance today is, as per the 2008 crash, the conflict was decades in the making. I can point to the Wilson government dialogue which fermented Argentine expectations.
For today add the machinations of the media and "an" elite to the debate and off we go. There are several elites. The "real elite" is one you do not see. I encountered the lower echelons. Excessive wealth & power driving ever more personal advantage. In western "democracy" deregulation is their friend. The EU is not.
Respecting the result I viewed the referendum and its outcome as flawed. In accentuating division I view it as seriously diminishing the UK & the EU. Unsurprisingly the Draft Withdrawal Agreement is flawed.
The UK is the 5th largest (the EU CU is 2nd) global economy. The UK taxpayer pays the EU a large fee for tariff & quota free trade. It incentivises global & domestic investors to invest in UK jobs and the economy which funds our defence, security & social infrastructure.
It is clear however all within our society do not enjoy the benefits of our global status.
I am unclear where the EU is responsible for this imbalance.
The obsession with personalities is hugely misplaced though Dorries maybe an exception. A voice for chaos she is consumed by her prospects at the next election. If you saw the preening exhibitions of vested interest in Parliament over the last weeks I suggest Ken Clarke is the last person of concern. He exposes the paucity of talent in today's politics.
The endless self indulgent diametrically opposed ambitions, pursuing separate agenda take us nowhere. The repetitive baying for different end games without evidencing a viable pathway is the noise we have heard for 2yrs. Whether you share the privilege of the Balliol cabal or not most of us have to work to the realities of life.
No matter who is at the helm the challenges do not change.
Nobody gets to play fast & loose with the global agreements you enter into without consequence.
Insulting May may make you feel better but it takes us no further forward.
Everyone has had 2yrs to lay out their strategies & policies to address their goals, define their preferred path and enunciate the benefits and the challenges and how they propose to meet those challenges.
No fan of her or her politics I respected her performance in delivering her statement and responding to 3 hours of often rabid & facile questioning. It was professional.
The content was miserably limited in scope & detail.
Avoid the furore around the debate.
The media deals in soundbites. I view we are where we are because of soundbite politics. We are beset by soundbite politicians. Our future is worth more than a formal & social media circus.
It is obvious to everyone, including its sponsor, the proposed Agreement is flawed.
Any politician not understanding the challenges of this process is either disingenuous or a fool. Rabb not having the cojones to stand by his work speaks to the nature of the political animal. What is it in the human psyche which fights to avoid accountability?
The Draft is at least 6 months late with Brexit leaders integral to the process;
- Could the first Brexit Secretary charged with delivering a successful negotiation have displayed more incompetence?
- Could a Brexit Foreign Secretary key to securing foreign support to achieving a successful negotiation fail to engage so completely?
Then to just run away! Was brinkmanship all they had to offer?
We have A TRANSITION AGREEMENT.
Intended to satisfy elements of the demands of all factions the proposals offends them all. It is the nature of compromise. It is flawed because it seeks to address the schism within Cabinet, Party, Parliament and the country.
It does not yet define our future relationship with Europe. Anyone putting a 2yr time limit on completing a fully fledged trading agreement is either a fool, a liar or patently never expected an agreement.A transition is required.
We have the right to savage the outcome but to malign only those who steered one course is simplistic. So stuff the factions & personalities what is on offer?
1. Exiting the Single Market. We regain border control of the movement of people
2. A Customs Union. Tariff & Quota free trade protecting;
- inward investment in & existing trading for UK jobs & the economy.
- an open border as defined by the GFA
- a pathway to new trade deals with the EU and the ROW
3. The phased removal of the financial burden of EU membership
4. The UK exit from the Common Agricultural & the Common Fisheries Policy.
It does not;
Unequivocally remove the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
I am yet to learn where the ECJ disadvantages the UK citizen, workers rights or trading freedoms. Every global agreement I signed defined its jurisdiction. It is the cost of international trade IN ANY MARKET. ECJ referral is an exception.
Include, within the backstop, any definitive UK independent exit trigger
Why, because the EU seeks to protect the rights conferred to a member state by a freely negotiated GFA between sovereign states.
In contract terms it is a fatal flaw. There has to be an independent mechanism for determining any agreement. I do not regard the creation of a such a mechanism as insurmountable.
If Parliament reject these proposals where do we go?
Leave the EU defaulting to WTO trade terms?
Reject EU departure by overturning the June 2016 result?
If not one faction holds sufficient support to a) carry the deal b) force departure with no deal c) keep the country in the EU, then Parliament is in deadlock.
There is no second deal here unless we have a termination clause.
Thus the seat of democracy empowered by the people has failed. If democracy is to be respected the decision has to be returned to the people. The "established" mechanism is a General Election.
In itself it will not solve the problem. The underlying challenges will remain.
What we have is not Project Fear it is Project Vacuum.
Where do Brexiteers wish to take us? Can someone please put some substance behind what these supposed new freedoms will deliver, not, if, could, can or would but some real facts, figures and numbers?
If you want to pursue a strategy then own it and sell it warts all "I don't know" doesn't cut it.
If the referendum result was winning the war then you still have to win the "peace"
For example, WTO terms do not fulfill frictionless trade nor protect the GFA. If it can be negotiated WTO rules breaches the GFA.
If this is your path pursue it not by default but by coherent, cogent planning laying out its strengths & challenges and how those challenges are to be met. Let's have the price up front. What are its supporters frightened of? Do they not know the price?
If Remain or Norway, Canada style deals are your solutions spit it out and back it up.
We the electorate do not get to run away. In the next few weeks, months we face the likelihood of actively reviewing the decisions being made on our behalf via a General Election or directly via a new referendum IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST. Hopefully 2yrs wiser we will be more circumspect as to the tangible pitfalls and opportunities.
BINO = Norway PLUS CU membership. Perhaps that's what people sometimes mean when they refer to Norway option? Certainly Farage, Johnson and Gove did not make any distinctions in the 2016 campaign.
The WA offers CU membership and, as per the link from @NornIrishAddick there is the possibility to revisit the Single Market and free movement question during the transition period. But the WA is the opposite of Norway given that there's an end to free movement and an end to SM membership.
Hopefully we will have a mix of clarity and perhaps chaos after the vote next month. Ideally we can attempt to be precise in the terminology and not get too irrational for this debate is going to heat up significantly in the weeks and months to come.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/26/letter-jeremy-corbyn-peoples-vote-brexit-labour-gina-miller?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
I’m beginning to think that May will do anything to stay in power and Corbyn will do anything to get into power ... and neither give a shit about the damage it will do to the UK.
Sad times.
I didn't expect Davis to be so useless but the rest of them have lived up to expectations.
If leaving the EU was the right thing to do, it was always going to be a big project and need a very competent government to deliver. If someone like me could see that the current generation of politicians weren't up to it, I'm surprised you couldn't.
I’m not having a pop at you just using this as a reminder that we don’t want things to descend into silliness again - cheers
#pastytax
I've been swotting up on Cat Smith before writing to her. Seems that despite being one of Corbyn's top supporters in the leadership election she also campaigned for Remain. I can't square that at all. Neither can I work out why a "remainer" would seek to deny a vote to a bloc of citizens most obviously negatively affected by Brexit.
Maybe they see the world a bit differently in Fleetwood, which she represents...