Brexit discussion thread IV

fash

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Fairly easy to do a deal when you give everyone what they want. Unfortunately they now have to make a lovely roast beef while also being vegan friendly

That metaphor offers some great opportunities to describe Brexit without referring to cake:
"Brexit: the Halal pork chop"

Trasna1

fash wrote: »

That metaphor offers some great opportunities to describe Brexit without referring to cake:
"Brexit: the Halal pork chop"

Can I just say the constant referring to "cake" and "unicorns" on this thread is not befitting of a serious political discussion and more inportantly, really annoying.

It's more suited to Twitter tbh.

listermint

Trasna1 wrote: »

Can I just say the constant referring to "cake" and "unicorns" on this thread is not befitting of a serious political discussion and more inportantly, really annoying.

It's more suited to Twitter tbh.

Are you ever in the thread bar a fleeting monthly visit.

I can't imagine it annoys a non contributor that much tbh

judeboy101

Trasna1 wrote: »

Can I just say the constant referring to "cake" and "unicorns" on this thread is not befitting of a serious political discussion and more inportantly, really annoying.

It's more suited to Twitter tbh.

In fairness the UK are talking about unicorns so much, voldemort is lining up for some serious bloodsucking.

Nody

Trasna1 wrote: »

Can I just say the constant referring to "cake" and "unicorns" on this thread is not befitting of a serious political discussion and more inportantly, really annoying.

It's more suited to Twitter tbh.

It would potentially become a serious political discussion if there were two adults at the table doing negotiation; at the moment there's adults on one side and a bunch of children screaming on the opposite side. It's a bit hard having a serious discussion in such a situation esp. when the children refuses to even accept basic facts about reality. As a side note the cake was added by Boris himself; a key player after all.

Leroy42

The term cake is annoying, but as pointed out it was officially used by both Boris and IDS so it is part of the language of Brexit.

In terms of the Chequers Brexit agreement, I really cannot see how the likes of Boris et al can continue on in Government. The thinking seems to be that the EU will reject it anyway, but what has actually happened it the PM has gone in almost the complete opposite direction that they have been calling for. Have they fundamentally changed their view on what Brexit means or have they concluded that all their talk in the campaign was unrealistic (easy trade deals etc).

Surely the likes of Gove and Boris, being as they were very much at the head of the campaign, must now acknowledge that since they have had a major change of heart that the only correct thing to do is to extend that to the people. Another vote based on the actual realities that they now accept? I cannot understand why the media is not all over that point. They seem to be almost gleeful that an agreement has been researched, forgetting that A) this is only a deal within the UK government itself and is marks a complete waste of 2 years on behalf of the government.

What of Liam Fox? All his hard work getting all these trade deals ready to go seems to have been wasted. He must be gutted.

An Ciarraioch

http://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1015627581012566021/photo/1

mickoneill31

Trasna1 wrote: »

Can I just say the constant referring to "cake" and "unicorns" on this thread is not befitting of a serious political discussion and more inportantly, really annoying.

It's more suited to Twitter tbh.

We had the PM rabbiting "Brexit means Brexit" for months. Was that befitting a serious discussion?
More recently shes been talking about the Brexit dividend that we know exists as much as a unicorn does.

Then we could have a look at Gove, Johnson, Fox, Rees Mogg or IDS etc. etc.

When they're serious, we can stop talking about cake.

EdgeCase

It's basically a weird scenario of a total leadership vacuum on both sides of the house and a ridiculous proposal that nobody's willing to call out as undeliverable. So instead, they're willing to walk the country into an economic disaster.

It's the Emperor's New Clothes of political objectives and absolutely nobody who has any power to do anything about it is willing to call it for what it is : sheer idiocy.

They either end up with a hard Brexit that causes economic chaos and unsettles the fragile Northern Ireland peace process, amongts other things.

Or they get a soft Brexit which reduces them to an associate member of the EU that has to comply with all the rules while having no input into how they're formed.

Or, they could call the whole thing off and keep their highly privileged existing arrangement where they're on the inner circle of the EU but have more opt outs than a Hollywood prenuptial agreement.

Leroy42

And this is the point I was trying to make. Everytime anyone does raise any concerns they are met with "The will of the people" or some version of the people voted for Brexit.

But clearly the likes of Boris, Gove, Davies and Fox have now all decided that the version of Brexit that they portrayed during the campaign and up until two days ago, is no longer (it never was but in terms of what they believed) available.

So surely the will of the people is a nonsense, since the people never voted for this. And the vote should be held again. I cannot understand how they can simply continue on as if everything is the way it was planned

Enzokk

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

http://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1015627581012566021/photo/1

Here is a link to the article from the tweet.

Under her plan for UK-EU relations - agreed by cabinet on Friday - unlimited immigration from the EU will end.

But speaking to the BBC, Mrs May did not rule out preferential treatment for EU citizens after Brexit.

"We recognise that people will still want to have opportunities in each other's countries," she said.

Asked if it was possible EU citizens might get some preferential treatment, the prime minister said: "We are going to decide. What we're going to do is say what works for the UK, what's right for the United Kingdom?"

As for us stop talking about cakes and unicorns, here we have the UK Government telling us they will stop free movement of people but somehow they will still have no borders. Can someone please tell them to get real. You cannot pick and choose what you want to abide by from the EU. If you want frictionless trade you take all that comes with that. If you don't want some of what the EU wants, you will not have frictionless trade and you will have to decide whether to uphold the GFA and have an border in the Irish Sea, or you tear up the GFA and have a border between the UK and the EU.

My hope is that Theresa May has set herself up to allow for her to row back on her promises. She has now said she will do what is right for the UK. I foresee an almighty fudge where she will dress up "membership" of the EU as a free choice by the UK and in no way going against the referendum. She will sell that, or try to sell it, to the people as them taking back control.

briany

Leroy42 wrote: »

And this is the point I was trying to make. Everytime anyone does raise any concerns they are met with "The will of the people" or some version of the people voted for Brexit.

But clearly the likes of Boris, Gove, Davies and Fox have now all decided that the version of Brexit that they portrayed during the campaign and up until two days ago, is no longer (it never was but in terms of what they believed) available.

So surely the will of the people is a nonsense, since the people never voted for this. And the vote should be held again. I cannot understand how they can simply continue on as if everything is the way it was planned

The problem with having another vote is the possibility of another slim majority one way or the other. It points to problem as big as, or bigger than, Brexit itself - namely a political class and electorate who are hopelessly divided and at war with themselves. In a very real sense, the UK has found itself in a spot where democracy hasn't really worked because democracy is all about doing right by the majority, but the word almost rings hollow when the minority is so very large that it could become the majority by a whisker if public opinion shifts even a little.

It's true that you can have compromise in a democracy, which would be the normal solution, but to add to the UK's woes we're talking about an issue where too many on either side are diametrically opposed. So, that combination of two halves being so opposed makes me wonder how much another vote would solve.

I notice that ever since the vote, there's still been a lot of fear being peddled by Remain, which I think is the wrong tack. They're essentially trying to combat negative feelings toward the EU with more negativity, and they've been trotting out far too many middle-class intellectuals and celebrities to stump up for the cause. I'm not knocking those kinds of people, but it shows a weird out-of-touch mentality when you had Eddie Izzard going around in lipstick and a pink beret advocating for the EU, and I like Eddie Izzard as a comedian but it doesn't take much to see how he's not going to connect with Joe Soap up in Sunderland. Funny, but I think Danny Dyer with his rant on the ineptitude of Brexit has done more for Remain's cause than the past two years of debates and Question Times.

Leroy42

Not another vote just on leave or stay, but leave with no deal or stay.

That dramatically, at least IMO, changes the nature of the debate. There would be no big bus. No we can have everything we want.

Leave and this is the outcome. That was diluted the last time with made up nonsense and dreams.

briany

Leroy42 wrote: »

Not another vote just on leave or stay, but leave with no deal or stay.

That dramatically, at least IMO, changes the nature of the debate. There would be no big bus. No we can have everything we want.

Leave and this is the outcome. That was diluted the last time with made up nonsense and dreams.

You could put that vote to the people, and I think Remain would win, but if you phrased the choice like that, you're giving the anti-EU crowd huge capital to work with. They can go to the public and say, "Well, it looks like the EU and their buddies in Westminster got what they wanted - they (deliberately) fudged the deal, that would have been mutually agreeable, and then put a gun to the head of the public."

You still have to take a Remain vote and then salve concerns about EU membership, such that UKIP isn't the majority party in 10 years, because they'll definitely be re-grouping.

Leroy42

Yeah, didn't say it was going to be easy, and of course the likes of UKIP would argue that it was all a vast conspiracy.

But who would be on the leave side. Can't be any of the current minister as the first question to all of them is why they did not get a better deal the first time - Davies in particular would have to concede that it was his fault. The others would have to argue directly against the PM.

So Boris, a leading light of the Leave campaign would be gone. Same to for Gove. And on and on. Bascially, you are left with JRM and Farage. They would certainly bring people along with them, but the plan would surely be to focus on their plan.

The last campaign was really all about how terrible the EU was, with the implication that Leave would make everything better, and new one should really all be about what am I voting leave for?

Anyway, its academic. There will not be a vote. The UK will probably not have another ref for at least a generation, because as you alluded to it will really solve nothing in terms of the divisions

ancapailldorcha

briany wrote: »

You still have to take a Remain vote and then salve concerns about EU membership, such that UKIP isn't the majority party in 10 years, because they'll definitely be re-grouping.

The thing is that people know that voting Leave didn't grant the promised utopia. It simply exposed how divided and incompetent the Conservative party is.

A referendum on the final deal with the option to retain EU membership would succeed in my opinion because it forces both sides onto equal footing. No more magical promises made on the sides of buses, no more meaningless rhetoric about glorious trade deals, regulatory bonfires or magical border control. No, both sides would be rooted in tangible circumstances whereas in 2016, only one side was which helped to cost them the referendum.

This is why so many are so opposed to another referendum. Farage, Johnson, Gove, Rees-Mogg, Banks, Cummings & co know that they just about edged this thing over the line thanks to the perfect storm I mentioned above. Take away any one piece, the refugee crisis, the NHS bus, Greece, economic stagnation and it doesn't make the cut. The result is that we now have a government which is still negotiating what it wants not with Mr. Barnier, but with itself. Did it ever even start negotiating with the EU because so far it seems that they've just capitulated?

According to this, 48 percent of voters in a survey want a "People's vote" while only 25 percent did not. The vote has revealed what a mess UK politics is at the moment and, arguably has been in a long time with governments who haven't won the majority of votes cast implementing policies most of the public didn't vote for and in some cases actively opposed. Remaining in the EU won't fix the UK's problems but it's a good starting point.

An Ciarraioch

The ERG are stirring (in all ways):

https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1015665066832809985

trellheim

The ERG are stirring (in all ways):

https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/s...65066832809985

Though in fairness, stripped of the rhetoric he's not wrong.

Edit - the obvs next step is to kill this in favour of no deal as its the worst of all worlds for the ERG

First Up

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

briany wrote: »

You still have to take a Remain vote and then salve concerns about EU membership, such that UKIP isn't the majority party in 10 years, because they'll definitely be re-grouping.

A referendum on the final deal with the option to retain EU membership would succeed in my opinion because it forces both sides onto equal footing.

That option is not available to the UK. Any other ideas?

lawred2

briany wrote: »

The problem with having another vote is the possibility of another slim majority one way or the other. It points to problem as big as, or bigger than, Brexit itself - namely a political class and electorate who are hopelessly divided and at war with themselves. In a very real sense, the UK has found itself in a spot where democracy hasn't really worked because democracy is all about doing right by the majority, but the word almost rings hollow when the minority is so very large that it could become the majority by a whisker if public opinion shifts even a little.

It's true that you can have compromise in a democracy, which would be the normal solution, but to add to the UK's woes we're talking about an issue where too many on either side are diametrically opposed. So, that combination of two halves being so opposed makes me wonder how much another vote would solve.

I notice that ever since the vote, there's still been a lot of fear being peddled by Remain, which I think is the wrong tack. They're essentially trying to combat negative feelings toward the EU with more negativity, and they've been trotting out far too many middle-class intellectuals and celebrities to stump up for the cause. I'm not knocking those kinds of people, but it shows a weird out-of-touch mentality when you had Eddie Izzard going around in lipstick and a pink beret advocating for the EU, and I like Eddie Izzard as a comedian but it doesn't take much to see how he's not going to connect with Joe Soap up in Sunderland. Funny, but I think Danny Dyer with his rant on the ineptitude of Brexit has done more for Remain's cause than the past two years of debates and Question Times.

Middle class intellectuals? As opposed to what other types of intellectuals?

Who is it you'd prefer to hear from?

ancapailldorcha

First Up wrote: »

That option is not available to the UK. Any other ideas?

I disagree. A final deal being ratified by Parliament is all but an impossibility. Labour are frothing at the bit to get into government while the differing factions within the Tory party want mutually exclusive things.

Capt'n Midnight

fash wrote: »

That metaphor offers some great opportunities to describe Brexit without referring to cake:
"Brexit: the Halal pork chop"

All that effort and the EU will say its not kosher.

It's Canada unless they relax the red lines enough to get BINO.

And the best BINO isn't much better than using the existing powers to sending home EU citizens without means of support after three months. Without Brexit they'd be sharing the concerns of the the Eastern EU contries, Austria and Italy and Greece on migrants. Time and time again the spectre of the evil EU has been undermined by the simple priciple of concent.

They have lots of opt-outs at present. What would happen if the EU tore those up when the UK leaves and insisted that they negotiate them back as a third party ?? What will happen if the EU decides quite rightly that the UK isn't a safe place to store EU citizens data ?




Does the British public know that thanks to recent free trade deals the whole raison d'etre of Japanese car factories hangs in the balance ??

Their only reason to exist was so the Japanes could avoid EU tariffs of 10% on cars and 3% on parts on imports.


Unless the UK stays in The Customs Union their cars will get hit with a tripple whammy.
1 - tariffs and delays on imported parts - cost of production and capital tied up in stores soars
2 - rules of origin mean tariffs on exports to EU and Turkey
3 - Japanese exports to EU won't have to pay these tariffs



Shipping 6,500 cars from Japan uses about 33 tonnes of fuel a day which represents half the cost of the voyage. At a price of $470 a tonne for fuel oil means $15,500. So a cost of $31,000 per day. Or less than a fiver per car per day.

A month at sea would be $150 or £112 vs. 10% ON TOP of the extra costs in the UK if there's a hard Brexit.

Historically Italy kept it's manufacturing industry competitive by repeatedly dropping the value of the Lira. The UK doesn't have that luxury for political reasons, nevermind economics and food imports.

First Up

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

That option is not available to the UK. Any other ideas?

I disagree. A final deal being ratified by Parliament is all but an impossibility. Labour are frothing at the bit to get into government while the differing factions within the Tory party want mutually exclusive things.

The sovereign UK government has activated Article 50. The EU is only dealing with the sovereign UK government. What the UK parliament does from here on is its own business.

ancapailldorcha

First Up wrote: »

The sovereign UK government has activated Article 50. The EU is only dealing with the sovereign UK government. What the UK parliament does from here on is its own business.

Including reversing Article 50. Brexit doesn't benefit anyone save for a few dodgy fund managers and ideologues who seem to resent the EU for some nebulous reason. The EU has said that the British would be welcomed back in on numerous occasions so it stands to reason that they would be extremely amenable to reversing Article 50.

First Up

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

The sovereign UK government has activated Article 50. The EU is only dealing with the sovereign UK government. What the UK parliament does from here on is its own business.

Including reversing Article 50. Brexit doesn't benefit anyone save for a few dodgy fund managers and ideologues who seem to resent the EU for some nebulous reason. The EU has said that the British would be welcomed back in on numerous occasions so it stands to reason that they would be extremely amenable to reversing Article 50.

It can't reverse A50. It can ask that the other 27 member states agree to its withdrawl.

Two problems with that;

1) The UK government needs to be empowered through its own parliamentary system to make the request.

2) All 27 member states need to agree.

And that all has to happen by March 29th 2019.

Good luck with that.

Silent Running

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Including reversing Article 50. Brexit doesn't benefit anyone save for a few dodgy fund managers and ideologues who seem to resent the EU for some nebulous reason. The EU has said that the British would be welcomed back in on numerous occasions so it stands to reason that they would be extremely amenable to reversing Article 50.

It doesn't seem to matter whether it benefits anyone or not. There seems to be a large number of ordinary Brits willing to go to the wall to achieve what they see as freedom from the tyranny of the EU.

ancapailldorcha

First Up wrote: »

It can't reverse A50. It can ask that the other 27 member states agree to its withdrawl.

Two problems with that;

1) The UK government needs to be empowered through its own parliamentary system to make the request.

2) All 27 member states need to agree.

And that all has to happen by March 29th 2019.

Good luck with that.

Only one of those is a problem. It's in everyone's interest to keep the UK in the EU. The Eastern states get to send their youngsters who would otherwise be unemployed there to send remittances back home. Richer countries get to sell their wares to the British.

The government, however is a problem but then it is an incredibly unstable government with a hairthin majority when you include the DUP MP's. A Brexit deal that will be approved by Parliament is an impossibility. It doesn't exist because it can't exist and it can't exist because what the Paleosceptics and the Whigs want are mutually exclusive. We only got this far because the ERG and its ilk refused to see reality when the EU refused to be divided and conquered.

A referendum could be quickly and easily organised. The arguments for and against have been doing the rounds for some time now. Then it's just another matter of sending a letter and getting it rubberstamped by EU Parliaments. Of course, the transition period agreement could be worded to accommodate this contingency as I don't think anyone expects Theresa May to be PM in 2020.

flutered

Silent Running wrote: »

It doesn't seem to matter whether it benefits anyone or not. There seems to be a large number of ordinary Brits willing to go to the wall to achieve what they see as freedom from the tyranny of the EU.

after 40 years of indoctorination that has to be expected, add on a lack of second never mind third level education also compounds matters

Capt'n Midnight

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

A referendum could be quickly and easily organised. The arguments for and against have been doing the rounds for some time now. Then it's just another matter of sending a letter and getting it rubberstamped by EU Parliaments. Of course, the transition period agreement could be worded to accommodate this contingency as I don't think anyone expects Theresa May to be PM in 2020.

The real problem is that the have-nots will use this as a protest vote again.

A lot of the Brexit vote could be explained as if you have nothing, you've nothing to loose.

Do UK voters understand that the UK has a veto and "control" was ceeded to the EU and not taken, and that the UK has opt-outs ?


Is there any large UK employer that's pro-Brexit ?
Ones like Dysan that have offshored long ago don't count.



The UK could take back control of fishing tomorrow by insisting that catch is landed at UK ports as per regs, AND imposing fines and disqualifying ships , crew and companies that have broken the rules. Declare temporay marine parks "so fish stocks can recover" until the domestic fleet can rebuild. But there's no political will to do anything except allow the large foreign companies to act with near impunity.

Capt'n Midnight

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Only one of those is a problem. It's in everyone's interest to keep the UK in the EU.

yes , but at what cost ?

Certainly not the cost of risking permenant damage to the EU.
"we destroyed the village in order to save it"


The view from Europe is still when "you're ready to talk seriously we'll talk", until but until they aren't letting Brexit get in the way of other EU business
https://www.dw.com/en/where-germany-stands-on-brexit/a-44535577

Eric Schweitzer, President of the Association of German Chambers of Industry and Commerce (DIHK) wrote in a newspaper column in June. "All the advantages of the single common market would be lost. In terms of trade, the UK would then have the same status as, say, Mongolia."

...
At the recent EU summit, Merkel admitted the council spent 15 minutes discussing Brexit while most of the discussion centered on managing immigration.

First Up

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

It can't reverse A50. It can ask that the other 27 member states agree to its withdrawl.

Two problems with that;

1) The UK government needs to be empowered through its own parliamentary system to make the request.

2) All 27 member states need to agree.

And that all has to happen by March 29th 2019.

Good luck with that.

Only one of those is a problem. It's in everyone's interest to keep the UK in the EU. The Eastern states get to send their youngsters who would otherwise be unemployed there to send remittances back home. Richer countries get to sell their wares to the British.

The government, however is a problem but then it is an incredibly unstable government with a hairthin majority when you include the DUP MP's. A Brexit deal that will be approved by Parliament is an impossibility. It doesn't exist because it can't exist and it can't exist because what the Paleosceptics and the Whigs want are mutually exclusive. We only got this far because the ERG and its ilk refused to see reality when the EU refused to be divided and conquered.

A referendum could be quickly and easily organised. The arguments for and against have been doing the rounds for some time now. Then it's just another matter of sending a letter and getting it rubberstamped by EU Parliaments. Of course, the transition period agreement could be worded to accommodate this contingency as I don't think anyone expects Theresa May to be PM in 2020.

The government is the problem alright. The EU cares less if there is another referendum but it needs a UK government to ask the EU's other 27 members' permission to withdraw A50.

How such a UK government could be constituted is anyone's guess but its hard to see it happening within the current parliamentary set up. So we would need the collapse of the current Tory/DUP arrangement and either the complete dis-integration of both the Tory and Labour parties and/or a General Election that would return a pro Remain majority either within one party or on some sort of cross-party arrangement. And all to happen in time for a government decision/request and its ratification by 27 countries by end March next.

Any bets?

ancapailldorcha

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The real problem is that the have-nots will use this as a protest vote again.

A lot of the Brexit vote could be explained as if you have nothing, you've nothing to loose.

Very much so except there's now over 2 years of mind-boggling incompetence that no amount of magic promises can cover up. The NHS will not be receiving more money. Prominent leavers will find the British public a lot less supportive this time around.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Do UK voters understand that the UK has a veto and "control" was ceeded to the EU and not taken, and that the UK has opt-outs ?

Nope but then you don't see EU signs on roads and other building projects either.

Is there any large UK employer that's pro-Brexit ?
Ones like Dysan that have offshored long ago don't count. [/QUOTE]

I wouldn't count Dyson to be honest. "We should believe in Britain but only so far as I don't have to do anything".

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The UK could take back control of fishing tomorrow by insisting that catch is landed at UK ports as per regs, AND imposing fines and disqualifying ships , crew and companies that have broken the rules. Declare temporay marine parks "so fish stocks can recover" until the domestic fleet can rebuild. But there's no political will to do anything except allow the large foreign companies to act with near impunity.

Of course but it was ever thus. Mind you, the fact that a certain Mr. Farage only attended one out of 43 fisheries meetings didn't exactly help. No British voice means that British fishermen's (and women's) concerns go unheeded and this is the result.

briany

briany wrote: »

Funny, but I think Danny Dyer with his rant on the ineptitude of Brexit has done more for Remain's cause than the past two years of debates and Question Times.

He was bang on especially in describing Question Time as a comedy. Obviously he didn't put his point across wonderfully (:pac:) but I empathised with the expression on his face afterwards, pure exasperation. He's sick of people bluffing as if they know what they're on about being in power and explaining things. Yes it could be viewed as an extension of "People are sick of experts" but when your leaders are doing that to you it must be bloody galling.

Capt'n Midnight

May won't rule out special rights for EU citizens

Asked if it was possible EU citizens might get some preferential treatment, the prime minister said: "We are going to decide. What we're going to do is say what works for the UK, what's right for the United Kingdom?"

Great, the 2.9 million EU residents in the UK will sleep sounder tonight after that clarification.

Capt'n Midnight

Link to 3 page white paper

Final Satement ? LOL

more like an initial position that still ignores the reality of the many treaties the EU has with third parties.


a. The UK and the EU would maintain a common rulebook for all goods including agri-food,
vs.
Parliament would have oversight of the incorporation of these rules into
the UK’s legal order – with the ability to choose not to do so, recognising that this would have
consequences.



The UK would commit to apply a common rulebook on state aid, and establish
cooperative arrangements between regulators on competition.
vs.
Corbyn's hatred of the Single Market rules on state aid - by not backing remain he's dumped all that lovely EU social legleslation for nothing, not even the prospect of a cople of beans. Even if Labour won the next election and offered state aid, it would be reversed on the election after that , but hey ideals before party before country , just like the other side.


d. The UK and the EU would work together on the phased introduction of a new Facilitated
Customs Arrangement
vs.
why would the EU help them other than set out the requirements in stone and demand 100% compliance (ie. an impossible task)



a. ensure that the UK and the EU have frictionless access to each other's markets for goods,
vs.
g. restore the supremacy of UK courts, ending the jurisdiction of the CJEU in the UK
and
the UK would have its own seat at the WTO, be able to
set tariffs for our trade with the rest of the world, and have the ability to secure trade deals
with other countries

An Ciarraioch

Fair to say the Sunday papers won't be happy reading for TM - Johnson trashes the deal, businesses say it doesn't meet their requirements, and MPs suggest a 1997-style meltdown could be on the cards.

FrancieBrady

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Johnson trashes the deal,

Where is that?

LuckyLloyd

Leaving aside the fact that the EU can't accept it and how ridiculous it is, you can't argue that it would be a very terrible deal for Brexiteers / Britain generally. Of course, anything the EU can agree to is a lessor scenario for Britain than what they have. That's the essential point of why this is so stupid. Brexiteers want something they can't have: out of the EU; free of its rules / regulations / ECJ oversight; no tariff access to the EU market for goods and services; no freedom of movement. All the benefits for none of the obligations. If that isn't happening, it is entirely logical that a hard exit is preferable to May's proposal or Norway or whatever as they at least get some of what they want, even without any of the market access.

As such, the ERG should be foaming at the mouth right now, even if it is logical to think the EU will reject it anyway (which is probably what Davis, Johnson et al are banking on). I can no longer see any way out of this from the internal British political perspective because they are horribly divided and a large swathe of what should be the political and social opposition to Brexit are willing to gamble on it, such is the deteriorating nature of the British experience after 8 years of savage ideologically driven austerity.

All talk of a second referendum sans polling data that says it's wanted and would be carried is silly - and you need a bank of parliamentary support to make it possible to start with. So I can't see Brexit being reversed. I can't see the EU being able to agree to this. Finally I can't see how May can move the internal political consensus towards Norway because, frankly, there's no way it could ever be sold as a better deal than what they have now. Because it isn't.

Hard Brexit beckons.

Water John

Boris referred to it as, polishing a turd. When he said that? Yesterday I think.

An Ciarraioch

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where is that?

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1015703452448690177

Hurrache

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where is that?

It's a turd he apparently claims

https://twitter.com/vittart75/status/1015716393549955072?s=09/[URL][/url]

An Ciarraioch

Labour and Lib Dems both up in the latest poll:

https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1015710779272761344

FrancieBrady

Hurrache wrote: »

It's a turd he apparently claims

https://twitter.com/vittart75/status/1015716393549955072?s=09/[URL][/url]

Thanks!
Beginning of the end of May?

PopePalpatine

Goodness no, that may involve some work, and worse still, accountability!

Imreoir2

Trasna1 wrote: »

Can I just say the constant referring to "cake" and "unicorns" on this thread is not befitting of a serious political discussion and more inportantly, really annoying.

It's more suited to Twitter tbh.

It might be annoying to you, much like "we are where we are", and "going forward" became annoying phrases during the recession, but cakeism and unicorns have entered the political lexicon on he Brexit issue now.

murphaph

Johnson is a coward of the highest order if that turd statement is true. If that's his belief (and he's admitted being a liar in the past so who knows) then he should have resigned on Friday.

CelticRambler

Ahhh, those Tory rascals! Remember how they claimed the other day that the new Package Travel Regulations were (pretty much) entirely thanks to their efforts? Well ... industry fears new rules will punish Britain’s hotels

B&Bs and hotels need extra insurance if they want to reserve guests a table at the hotel’s own restaurant or book them a taxi to a local pub, according to the Tourism Alliance, which represents more than 50 tourism industry bodies.

... the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy extended the rules to cover any service not part of the room rate – something no other EU country has done, according to Kurt Janson, director of the Tourism Alliance.

On the one hand, they refuse to apply approved migration-limiting rules and blame the EU for an invasion of foreigners; on the other, they take reasonable EU directives, add unnecessary extra complexity and blame the EU for something of their own creation. :rolleyes:

EdgeCase

They're not capable of delivering anything. May has clearly got no authority. She's not enforcing cabinet collectivity and it's increasingly clear that this is going to be an utter mess without any agreement by March.

They're just repeating the same routine over and over.

You can even negotiate with a government that has no cohesion and seems to think spin is interchangeable with facts.

briany

EdgeCase wrote: »

They're not capable of delivering anything. May has clearly got no authority. She's not enforcing cabinet collectivity and it's increasingly clear that this is going to be an utter mess without any agreement by March.

They're just repeating the same routine over and over.

Usual story. Brexiteers angry, but not angry enough to mount an effective challenge for leadership. None of them seem to want the job, but they reserve the right to dictate how it should be done.

Itssoeasy

murphaph wrote: »

Johnson is a coward of the highest order if that turd statement is true. If that's his belief (and he's admitted being a liar in the past so who knows) then he should have resigned on Friday.

well it's a long way back to London without a car.