Brexit discussion thread III

Peregrinus

Enzokk wrote: »

More waffle from the PM at PMQ's on the customs union. The UK will apparently leave the EU and customs union to make their own trade deals. They will also assure there is no border. They also wants as frictionless trade as possible. Then she asks what the Labour position is.

Whatever the Labour position is, it can hardly be as incoherent and self-contradictory as that Tory position.

Infini

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-02/no-deal-brexit-risk-is-back-as-barnier-warns-talks-could-fail

Barnier issuing another warning on the UK's BS strategy. I honestly think that unless there's a serious calling out on the Bullshyteers who continually spout plans and crap with no logical or realistic chance and someone gets into power who can basically sideline these fools utterly that the UK is gonna crash out hard.

For Forks Sake

Peregrinus wrote: »

Whatever the Labour position is, it can hardly be as incoherent and self-contradictory as that Tory position.

It's not far off.

EdgeCase

I think this will start to get a lot less polite as we get closer to the date, as essentially there's been no progress at all.

What do they think is going to happen? They're achieving nothing, other than reiterating the same illogical nonsense.

Econ_

The Tories are fighting over which one of their two customs plans they should choose to get formally rejected by the EU, as both have already been rejected in principle.

They are a ****ing joke of a party.

Econ_

EdgeCase wrote: »

I think this will start to get a lot less polite as we get closer to the date, as essentially there's been no progress at all.

What do they think is going to happen? They're achieving nothing, other than reiterating the same illogical nonsense.

They want to kick the can down the road as far as they can as it's easier to get people to swallow compromises. When the time frame is squeezed you can say 'we have no choice, it's too late' etc.

Parts of another ERG letter was leaked to the BBC last night and they made her aware that they're wise to that tactic.

'A decision to delay is a decision in itself' was in the letter.

steddyeddy

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The only thing keeping both of the major parties or coalitions together is the UK's FPTP voting system. Neither of the warring factions in both parties wants to lose their party's brand, identity and loyal voting base. So they trundle ever onwards while the seemingly inevitable split looms over both of them.

Looking at the list of candidates to replace Theresa May does not fill me with hope. The only would I would view in any positive way is Ruth Davidson who seems like a liberal Tory who recognises the need for real change. Sadly, she's both inexperienced and behind big names like Gove, Johnson and Rees-Mogg.

I agree with Ruth being the best of a bad bunch, but I feel she lacks the compsure for the role. In Parliment and during interviews she has acted quite bullish and rude IMHO.

J Mysterio

Enzokk wrote: »

I think the PM will be gone by the end of the week. She has called for a 3 line whip to suppress documents from the Windrush scandal. This with the news that there is no progress on Brexit and the elections on Thursday, my bet is she will be finished on Friday. It will be open season then on what happens next, no deal Brexit with JRM as leader, or a clown as PM with Boris Johnson who will change his views on what will keep him in power.

https://twitter.com/guardian/status/991622912380669952

She won't quit. She'll have to be dragged out of Downing St.

J Mysterio

Infini wrote: »

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-02/no-deal-brexit-risk-is-back-as-barnier-warns-talks-could-fail

Barnier issuing another warning on the UK's BS strategy. I honestly think that unless there's a serious calling out on the Bullshyteers who continually spout plans and crap with no logical or realistic chance and someone gets into power who can basically sideline these fools utterly that the UK is gonna crash out hard.

May has allowed this to spiral out of control.

LeinsterDub

J Mysterio wrote: »

May has allowed this to spiral out of control.

That would imply the UK was ever in control, the last time the had any semblance of control was before A50 was triggered and even then while they where in control they had no idea what they wanted to do with that control.

LuckyLloyd

If there's any positive here, it's in the fact that an awareness is gradually creeping into the discussion that the negotiations are going very badly indeed from the British perspective. While this seems silly to anyone following this thread, you can't ignore the fact that the pro Brexit press cheered on the Dec agreement and the in principle transition period as successes and David Davis ran away from the implications of same through the other side of his mouth on national TV almost as soon as they were agreed.

For the first time, real decisions are peculating to the surface where they can no longer be ignored. The anger at the House of Lords or Irish position or Labour or whatever is the first sign of a genuine puncturing of the bubble of confidence that has always buttressed the Brexit position. The EU keep saying no and the expected fissure among the member states has failed to materialize. In short, while we may have viewed their strategy as doomed to failure, it's only now that Brexiteers are beginning to sense that reality.

They also are starting to realise that the supposed "hole card" of threatening a No Deal Brexit and walking away from the talks is less and less realistic by the day. In that sense the constant models that indicate the catastrophic nature of that idea are helping, even if they too are met with initial anger and derision.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/05/01/brexit-meant-moment-renewal-turned-morale-sapping-mess/

So far the EU are playing this brilliantly. Barnier and Tusk have proven quite the able duo and the EU as a whole is demonstrating a capability and flair that should have been expected given its experience in negotiating matters of such wide ranging importance. I think we are moving towards an ever more polarised range of ultimate outcomes between Britain staying in the EU or crashing out with No Deal, as the middle option requires a weakness on the part of the EU or a decisiveness on the part of Britain that have so far been totally absent from the negotiations.

Peregrinus

J Mysterio wrote: »

May has allowed this to spiral out of control.

That implies there was a time when it was under control!

Leroy42

I have just read this line from the Express

As Brussels chiefs count the cost of life without the UK, EU nations will reportedly be ordered to fill the gaping £12bn Brexit sized hole by raising their contributions to around 1.1 per cent of the gross national income of member states - an increase on the current 1 per cent commitments.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/954176/Brexit-news-Nigel-Farage-Jean-Claude-Juncker-high-five-EU-budget

It states that the budget is 1.1 trillon, but I think that relates to the 7 years, so roughly 160bn a year. A loss of 12bn from the UK is no doubt an issue, but when put against those numbers is really is quite small in an overall context.

Now 0.1 of GNI is still quite a bit of extra money for each nation to find but these numbers really give the lie to the notion that the EU will collapse and struggle without the UK. There is little doubt it is stronger with an engaged UK, but surely the weight of the deal falls on the UK.

Strazdas

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

If there's any positive here, it's in the fact that an awareness is gradually creeping into the discussion that the negotiations are going very badly indeed from the British perspective. While this seems silly to anyone following this thread, you can't ignore the fact that the pro Brexit press cheered on the Dec agreement and the in principle transition period as successes and David Davis ran away from the implications of same through the other side of his mouth on national TV almost as soon as they were agreed.

For the first time, real decisions are peculating to the surface where they can no longer be ignored. The anger at the House of Lords or Irish position or Labour or whatever is the first sign of a genuine puncturing of the bubble of confidence that has always buttressed the Brexit position. The EU keep saying no and the expected fissure among the member states has failed to materialize. In short, while we may have viewed their strategy as doomed to failure, it's only now that Brexiteers are beginning to sense that reality.

They also are starting to realise that the supposed "hole card" of threatening a No Deal Brexit and walking away from the talks is less and less realistic by the day. In that sense the constant models that indicate the catastrophic nature of that idea are helping, even if they too are met with initial anger and derision.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/05/01/brexit-meant-moment-renewal-turned-morale-sapping-mess/

So far the EU are playing this brilliantly. Barnier and Tusk have proven quite the able duo and the EU as a whole is demonstrating a capability and flair that should have been expected given its experience in negotiating matters of such wide ranging importance. I think we are moving towards an ever more polarised range of ultimate outcomes between Britain staying in the EU or crashing out with No Deal, as the middle option requires a weakness on the part of the EU or a decisiveness on the part of Britain that have so far been totally absent from the negotiations.

The British are now in something of a lose - lose - lose situation. Every outcome of this will be a bad one for the Brexiteers : stay fully in the Single Market, free trade deal but with extremely limited access to the SM or crash out completely. It's all bad and will leave them very divided.

Leroy42

Strazdas wrote: »

The British are now in something of a lose - lose - lose situation. Every outcome of this will be a bad one for the Brexiteers : stay fully in the Single Market, free trade deal but with extremely limited access to the SM or crash out completely. It's all bad and will leave them very divided.

Many of the leading Brexiteers, Fox, Davies, JRM etc would be more than happy with a crash out completely outcome.

It is this drive that has led TM to continually kick the decision down the track. My own reading of it, based on the fact that only months ago TM was claiming Brexit means Brexit and her quite aggressive speech about red lines and no deal better than a bad deal, is that she can fully see that there is no positives to a crash out (at least for the short term, which as a politician is uppermost in her mind).

It is telling that there is still a debate going on in the cabinet about the negotiations. At this stage, since the EU has proven not to be open to any of the UK demands, TM should have simply walked away. What is the reason for the ongoing debate? It can only be down to the fact that the outcome of a no deal is so bad as to risk further splintering her party and the country.

They keep telling everyone that the people voted to leave and thats what they are going to do, and then spent ages agonising over how to leave without there being any meaningful impact.

And if I can see it, the EU can too.

PeadarCo

Strazdas wrote:

The British are now in something of a lose - lose - lose situation. Every outcome of this will be a bad one for the Brexiteers : stay fully in the Single Market, free trade deal but with extremely limited access to the SM or crash out completely. It's all bad and will leave them very divided.

The thing is it was very predictable. The UK has never had a clear plan on it wants from Brexit. The vote was decided by a very small margin and didn't give a clear mandate to the anyone who wanted to take the UK out of the EU. Nobody has had the courage or political strength to actually define a coherent brexit plan. I think part of that is due to the campaigning strategy in the referendum. A coherent plan would mean acknowledging that the remain sides points where not project fear. Given the small margin of victory its doubtful if the leave side would have won with a coherent plan to leave. Its the chickens coming home to roost.

The only bad thing is that a hard border is guaranteed in the UK leave without a deal.

EdgeCase

Honestly, I don't know why anyone takes anything written in The Daily Express seriously. They just waffle away reporting nonsense.

First of all, they're over-estimating the contribution, as they're not looking at the net figure. There's a significant amount of money sent back to the UK in the form of EU funding for various projects, CAP etc. Then there's the rather huge rebate.

It's roughly £8.1 billion net.

The EU will no longer be spending money in the UK, so you can strike that much out for a start.
Then you've also got to factor in things like tariffs on incoming UK goods and services, which cannot be calculated yet, as we don't know what they might be or how they will be set. Those could offset a considerable amount of the few billion that's going from the UK to the EU budget every year.

They may also opt to pay a market access fee of some sort, which could well be in the region of that kind of money anyway. So, it will seem smaller, because they won't be using their ridiculous rebate calculation and also the EU will be spending nothing in the UK, so they won't be making any contributions for that aspect. So, perhaps something like £8 to 10 billion a year for market access would probably seem reasonable, if not cheap.

In the big scheme of things, it's not actually all that significant at all, but is being blown out of all proportion for political reasons by the likes of the Daily Express.

I mean the reality is that access to the world's economically largest and probably most highly developed single market costs the UK significantly less than running Northern Ireland for 12 months and provides a LOT more benefits.

An Ciarraioch

Appears Javid has already blocked any Cabinet adoption of the customs partnership for the foreseeable future:

https://mobile.twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/991728078903791617

Hurrache

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Appears Javid has already blocked any Cabinet adoption of the customs partnership for the foreseeable future:

https://mobile.twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/991728078903791617

Sorta backs up the argument that he was given the position for optics given the scandal at the time and it looked good someone of his background having that role, and not because she was surrounding herself with allies given the civil war around her. More inept decision making by her?

An Ciarraioch

GFA motion passes 309-242:

https://mobile.twitter.com/estwebber/status/991736990122020864

Water John

Chris Patten, always a professional politician, in the best sense. That is a big majority.

BonnieSituation

Yeah one thing that Brexit has been clear to show that in a lot of cases the unelected Lords has the wellbeing of the citizens more in mind than the elected Commons do.

Capt'n Midnight

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Looking at the list of candidates to replace Theresa May does not fill me with hope. The only would I would view in any positive way is Ruth Davidson who seems like a liberal Tory who recognises the need for real change. Sadly, she's both inexperienced and behind big names like Gove, Johnson and Rees-Mogg.

It would be nearly worth it to see how the DUP react. :pac:

Ruth is expecting (that alone makes her as qualified as Andrea Leadsom ) but isn't married, her partner is from the South and isn't a man.

Capt'n Midnight

Cambridge Analytica is shutting down

PopePalpatine

Why should we trust the word of a company which worked through shell companies?

UsedToWait

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Why should we trust the word of a company which worked through shell companies?

Where's demfad when you need him?

Pretty sure there was a story a couple of weeks ago about new Mercer entities being registered..

Lemming

Is the name "Oxford/Stanford/insert-ivy-league-sounding-location-name Analytica" taken?

So CA is closing down; roughly translated as "our brand name is so toxic now that not even Deteurte will touch us, so we're rebranding" . Plus ca change and all that.

Oh look: a UK companies house filing for Emerdata. The people tab shall prove fascinating reading.

Leroy42

So 5 months until a deal is supppsed to ne agreed and the UK government can't even agree on what they are actually negotiating for.

Omnishambles comes to mind

Hurrache

This sums it up nicely I think
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/991737043062575112?s=19

Panrich

Lemming wrote: »

Is the name "Oxford/Stanford/insert-ivy-league-sounding-location-name Analytica" taken?

So CA is closing down; roughly translated as "our brand name is so toxic now that not even Deteurte will touch us, so we're rebranding" . Plus ca change and all that.

Oh look: a UK companies house filing for Emerdata. The people tab shall prove fascinating reading.

That shows the brass neck of these chancers.

The shift in the Overton Window for Brexit makes me think they're going to crash out. Before the vote there were those on the Brexit side saying they wouldn't leave the common market, customs union, whatever. Now look at the possible options they're sticking with.

sink

Deleted User wrote: »

The shift in the Overton Window for Brexit makes me think they're going to crash out. Before the vote there were those on the Brexit side saying they wouldn't leave the common market, customs union, whatever. Now look at the possible options they're sticking with.

I've been feeling this way since about February, ever since David Davis started backsliding on the December agreement. I feel that there is about a 50% chance of them crashing out. 40% chance of them caving and staying in a CU & the SM, or at least kicking the can down the road indefinitely. 10% chance of a collapse of government with a election resulting in a permanent postponement of Brexit and them remaining. 0% chance of them getting Brexit deal that satisfies anyone.

BonnieSituation

Lemming wrote: »

Is the name "Oxford/Stanford/insert-ivy-league-sounding-location-name Analytica" taken?

So CA is closing down; roughly translated as "our brand name is so toxic now that not even Deteurte will touch us, so we're rebranding" . Plus ca change and all that.

Oh look: a UK companies house filing for Emerdata. The people tab shall prove fascinating reading.

There wouldn't be any Mercers' on the board would there?

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/OWBlHDzf3sKzyqHVcpYSeZHvm_U/appointments

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/3EZ_w3CXSjTvnzZPQ_opr3Vatlg/appointments

Oh wait...

Gerry T

Leroy42 wrote: »

I have just read this line from the Express

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/954176/Brexit-news-Nigel-Farage-Jean-Claude-Juncker-high-five-EU-budget

It states that the budget is 1.1 trillon, but I think that relates to the 7 years, so roughly 160bn a year. A loss of 12bn from the UK is no doubt an issue, but when put against those numbers is really is quite small in an overall context.

Now 0.1 of GNI is still quite a bit of extra money for each nation to find but these numbers really give the lie to the notion that the EU will collapse and struggle without the UK. There is little doubt it is stronger with an engaged UK, but surely the weight of the deal falls on the UK.

But you can't totally discount the current Net contribution from the UK. In simplistic terms:
Crash out: EU charges tariffs on UK exports, circa 260b in 2016, even at an overall avg of 5% that's 13b.
A Deal: Plucking out of the air, if the UK stay in the CU/SM they will have to pay for the privilege. But that's an unlikely outcome. With some form of SM access, for certain goods only and not services, this will also cost - not as much as full access but the shortfall will be made up from the tariff's on the non SM access goods. The EU could easily structure this to net 13b.

There's a lot of guess work and assumption in the above, but one thing I strongly feel, at this moment in time, is the UK needs the EU far more than the EU needs the UK. Just to simply feed the nation the UK can't produce enough food for their people, supply chains for business are interwoven with the EU. Even with the greatest will I can't see the UK's dependence on the EU market being diminished simply because the time frame it will take them to setup trade deals with other countries. The time scale is more decades than years !

There is a third possibility, one I hadn't though was possible, and that's where the UK does a full about turn and stays in the EU. There's so much flux in the UK political arena I wouldn't discount that possibility, no mater how slim, becoming reality.

Capt'n Midnight

Leroy42 wrote: »

It states that the budget is 1.1 trillon, but I think that relates to the 7 years, so roughly 160bn a year. A loss of 12bn from the UK is no doubt an issue, but when put against those numbers is really is quite small in an overall context.

Now 0.1 of GNI is still quite a bit of extra money for each nation to find but these numbers really give the lie to the notion that the EU will collapse and struggle without the UK. There is little doubt it is stronger with an engaged UK, but surely the weight of the deal falls on the UK.

0.1% is a lot easier when you aren't at the bottom of the table for this year and next.

Atlantic Dawn

We are now sooner to the day when the EU put up the hard border. Without a customs union they will need it to protect EU jobs.

https://news.sky.com/story/peers-defeat-government-for-tenth-time-on-eu-withdrawal-bill-over-n-ireland-11356208

EdgeCase

They also tend to forget that many of those billions go into shared services at EU level from various EU agencies.

If they go it entirely alone, they’ll have to pay for all of those things anyway. They don’t happen at no cost simply because you’ve left the EU.

So a lot of the money they do actually spend (which is vastly less than the tabloid headlines would mislead you to believe) will be spent on duplicating pooled services.

The actual savings aren’t anything like what they’re claiming.

Spanish Eyes

EdgeCase wrote: »

They also tend to forget that many of those billions go into shared services at EU level from various EU agencies.

If they go it entirely alone, they’ll have to pay for all of those things anyway. They don’t happen at no cost simply because you’ve left the EU.

So a lot of the money they do actually spend (which is vastly less than the tabloid headlines would mislead you to believe) will be spent on duplicating pooled services.

The actual savings aren’t anything like what they’re claiming.

Can you give us the name of even a few of these shared services that they will still have to pay for even if they manage to leave?

That is not a criticism of you, I just wondered. Thanks.

EdgeCase

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Can you give us the name of even a few of these shared services that they will still have to pay for even if they manage to leave?

That is not a criticism of you, I just wondered. Thanks.

While some of them exist exclusively within the EU, others would be carrying out work at EU level that is used by national agencies and thus saving them money.

Just a few examples (there's a huge list of these)

European Medicines Agency (No real equivalent)
European Aviation Safety Agency
European Chemicals Agency
European GNSS (Global Navigation and Satellite Systems) Agency
Euratom Supply Agency
European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the development of Fusion Energy
EASME Executive Agency for Small and medium-sized Enterprises.
Research Executive Agency (REA)
European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS)
European Defence Agency (EDA)
European Union Agency for Railways (ERA)
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
...

Many of these bodies carry out and facilitate cooperative research, develop standards and so on. They're not just deadweight overheads, they actually perform useful functions that will have to be done at a UK-only level from now on.

Spanish Eyes

EdgeCase wrote: »

While some of them exist exclusively within the EU, others would be carrying out work at EU level that is used by national agencies and thus saving them money.

Just a few examples (there's a huge list of these)

European Medicines Agency (No real equivalent)
European Aviation Safety Agency
European Chemicals Agency
European GNSS (Global Navigation and Satellite Systems) Agency
Euratom Supply Agency
European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the development of Fusion Energy
EASME Executive Agency for Small and medium-sized Enterprises.
Research Executive Agency (REA)
European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS)
European Defence Agency (EDA)
European Union Agency for Railways (ERA)
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
...

Many of these bodies carry out and facilitate cooperative research, develop standards and so on. They're not just deadweight overheads, they actually perform useful functions that will have to be done at a UK-only level from now on.

Thanks.

Oh well, I suppose UK will say their standards are World Class and don't need any validation from UK (post Brexit)..... yep no problems there it seems.

EdgeCase

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Thanks.

Oh well, I suppose UK will say their standards are World Class and don't need any validation from UK (post Brexit)..... yep no problems there it seems.

They can do what they like with their standards. The issue isn't that. It's the fact that they'd have to develop all the agencies and in-country abilities to do all of these things, many of which they haven't done in decades or never did as they're new areas.

All that costs money and all they're doing is moving from a 'shared service' to a 'local service'.
The quality of what they do locally is entirely up to them.

All I'm saying is that by disconnecting from those agencies, they're not saving money, they're just spending it differently.

There are also some areas which are hugely problematic like aviation and nuclear safety where they have potentially big problems if they cut themselves off entirely.

Rjd2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The only thing keeping both of the major parties or coalitions together is the UK's FPTP voting system. Neither of the warring factions in both parties wants to lose their party's brand, identity and loyal voting base. So they trundle ever onwards while the seemingly inevitable split looms over both of them.

Looking at the list of candidates to replace Theresa May does not fill me with hope. The only would I would view in any positive way is Ruth Davidson who seems like a liberal Tory who recognises the need for real change. Sadly, she's both inexperienced and behind big names like Gove, Johnson and Rees-Mogg.

Genuinely don't get why people think Mogg is likely to replace May. He doesn't want the job and would never get enough support by MPS to reach the final two. If its a Brexiter it might be Gove who has kept his head down and is not as much as a fanatic as others. Raab or Cleverly outsiders also.

It's been said before that the next leader will likely be someone that the masses don't really know so whoever that is who knows. From all accounts there is close to 20 MPS who have serious ambitions of replacing May and are wheeling and dealing in the background.

Enzokk

The government defeated a vote to release documents from 2010 on the Windrush scandal that was brought by Labour. Theresa May demanded a 3 line whip to defeat the vote. This is why those Tory rebels are all hot air in my view. They can say they will not vote for Brexit, but when push comes to shove the Tories will look after the Tories.

Labour motion to see Windrush documents defeated in Commons

Peregrinus

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

We are now sooner to the day when the EU put up the hard border. Without a customs union they will need it to protect EU jobs.

https://news.sky.com/story/peers-defeat-government-for-tenth-time-on-eu-withdrawal-bill-over-n-ireland-11356208

It's not a question of "the EU putting up a hard border". A hard border is the default outcome of Brexit. Brexit - which is UK decision - will lead to a hard border unless the UK and the EU agree alternative arrangements to avoid one. This has nothing to do with protecting jobs in the EU, and everything to do with the EU and the UK respecting their obligations as members of the World Trade Organisation. And, we must not forget, it has a good deal to do with the Brexity preoccupation with "taking back control of our borders". Not even Brexiters are stupid enough to think that they can take back control of their borders by unilaterally abandoning control of their borders.

So, if there is a hard border, it will be the direct and foreseeable outcome of decisions taken and implemented by the UK. It won't be "put up" by the EU at all.

But fear not! The UK doesn't want a hard border, and indeed has "guaranteed" that, in Ireland at least, there won't be one. Which means that the UK is committed to doing what it needs to do to make a viable, functional open-border agreement with the EU. Obviously, a proposed agreement will be neither viable nor functional if it damages or jeopardises the interests of the EU - the EU obviously won't agree to it - so that kind of agreement can't be what the UK government has in mind, can it? Because, again, they can hardly be that stupid.

The teeny-tiny fly in the ointment is that, as well as leaving the EU, the British Government has decided to rule out a customs union, rule out participation in the single market, rule out lots of other things. Which means that they have ruled out all the existing mechanisms which were designed to keep borders open and which do in fact keep them open. Nevertheless they have guaranteed to keep the borders open. This means they are going to have to reinvent the wheel; come up with new arrangements for keeping borders open which are completely different from the current arrangements, not the same at all, no sir, but work just as well, and invite the EU to agree to them.

It's a tall order, and so fair their efforts have been less than impressive. One begins to suspect that they are losing heart; that they feel that, perhaps, they might be unable to invent a new wheel which is perfectly circular, and yet completely different from existing wheels. They fear they are not going to be able to deliver on their guarantee without abandoning some of their red lines.
And this trope of talking about the EU putting up hard borders, transparent nonsense that it is, looks like a pre-emptive attempt by Brexiters to avoid accepting responsiblity for the contradictions inherent in their own position.

First Up

The trade "deals" that the UK agrees with third countries may or may not be better than the terms they currently have as part of the EU.

But that's only the start. A trade "deal" is just an inter-government agreement on what terms apply to trade. It guarantees nothing; private sector companies still have to find and win the business. Trade is conducted one sale at a time.

If the post Brexit UK is to gain from better trade "deals", it will need UK companies to compete and win business in markets a lot further away than Europe and against competition from other suppliers who are likely to be a lot closer to those markets.

So as well as needing a competitive offer, UK exporting companies will also need to cover the extra cost marketing, sales and travel to more distant locations.

And that's no matter what trade "deals" are negotiated.

flatty

Enzokk wrote: »

The government defeated a vote to release documents from 2010 on the Windrush scandal that was brought by Labour. Theresa May demanded a 3 line whip to defeat the vote. This is why those Tory rebels are all hot air in my view. They can say they will not vote for Brexit, but when push comes to shove the Tories will look after the Tories.

Labour motion to see Windrush documents defeated in Commons

In fairness, it depends. The rebels are rebelling over brexit and brexit only. The Windrush documents need scrutiny, but not by the red tops imho.

Enzokk

flatty wrote: »

In fairness, it depends. The rebels are rebelling over brexit and brexit only. The Windrush documents need scrutiny, but not by the red tops imho.

They were asking for the documents to be released to the Home Affairs Select Committee. Should we trust the government to set up a proper review that could cause untold damage to the same government?

On the rebels, Theresa May gave a brilliant speech on the steps of 10 Downing Street when as PM in July 2016. She was saying she will fight the injustices in the UK for all of its citizens, she will make it fairer for everyone and she will help your ordinary man on the street. But she was part of the coalition government that made cuts to legal aid that made it more difficult for citizens to get the legal help they needed.

I haven't seen her redress this since her speech. Hence it seems to me that MPs from the Conservatives are all talk but when it comes to it they will fall in line even if they don't agree with it.

ArmaniJeanss

It wasn't a vote that Labour wanted to win, merely a stirring exercise.

They'd know that having to release every single Home Office document from this decade would make the work of any government department impossible.
It's an unreasonable thing to expect.

Danzy

Lemming wrote: »

Annnnnd the windrush scandal just keeps growing more legs ...

.. this time involving foreign students being accused by the Home Office, allegedly often under the flimsiest and suspect of "evidence", of cheating on english exams that are required for visas. Numbers up to 40,000 visas revoked.

Financial times link

Guardian link.

Sajid Javid has his work cut out for him, papering over the cracks in May's hostile environment rebranded "oh wont you just fvck off home, please" policy.

Javid is Thatcherite but he isn't so Neoliberal as to roll back on the stricter approach.

Rjd2

Danzy wrote: »

Javid is Thatcherite but he isn't so Neoliberal as to roll back on the stricter approach.

Yeah a Thatcherite and a massive Ayn Rand fan which probably gives a clue about his leanings.

It was widely expected he would back leave, but backed remain which a lot of people believed wasn't a change of heart due to realising remain was the sensible choice, but more due to the fact he did not want to be on the losing side. Career politician personified.