EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[rory_20_uk]

This is closer to my sentiments than the leaders of the two main parties.

So... any minority in any state should get representation at the EU if they want it? Or only if the EU wants them to? For a pretence at Democracy might he like to address the c. 17 million that voted to leave? Might they be betrayed if the UK stays? A mere inconvenience of the clinically insane / xenophobes and troglodytes who can be ignored for their own good.

"Betrayal" might be a more accurate term to use when the populace was not asked at all. Apparently that wasn't a problem - even when the vote was either ignored or redone. Only when things don't go the way the EU wants. The term "betrayal" wasn't even used when the UK was taken to war against sovereign states with no UN mandate and demonstrations of over 2 million.

[Pannonian]

So... any minority in any state should get representation at the EU if they want it? Or only if the EU wants them to? For a pretence at Democracy might he like to address the c. 17 million that voted to leave? Might they be betrayed if the UK stays? A mere inconvenience of the clinically insane / xenophobes and troglodytes who can be ignored for their own good.

"Betrayal" might be a more accurate term to use when the populace was not asked at all. Apparently that wasn't a problem - even when the vote was either ignored or redone. Only when things don't go the way the EU wants. The term "betrayal" wasn't even used when the UK was taken to war against sovereign states with no UN mandate and demonstrations of over 2 million.

So, are you going to accept responsibility for the consequences of no deal or whatever the UK ends up with? I've asked Brexiteers a number of times, but every time the answer demands rights but accepts no responsibility. What do you think of the promises made by Leave? Do you think Brexit should be based around these promises? Should Brexit be judged on whether or not the NHS budget increases by 350m/week?

[Husar]

So... any minority in any state should get representation at the EU if they want it? Or only if the EU wants them to? For a pretence at Democracy might he like to address the c. 17 million that voted to leave? Might they be betrayed if the UK stays? A mere inconvenience of the clinically insane / xenophobes and troglodytes who can be ignored for their own good.

"Betrayal" might be a more accurate term to use when the populace was not asked at all. Apparently that wasn't a problem - even when the vote was either ignored or redone. Only when things don't go the way the EU wants. The term "betrayal" wasn't even used when the UK was taken to war against sovereign states with no UN mandate and demonstrations of over 2 million.

I don't see how that relates to him apparently arguing that UK citizens should get to vote for the EU parliament as long as the UK is in the EU via an extension that the UK asked for. As I understand it, he's arguing (to the EU parliament) that not letting the British vote in the upcoming EU election because the UK wants to leave would betray the citizens who don't want to leave and appreciate the extension.

If you're angry about the extension, take that anger to your own government and not the EU.
To me it looks like you're just externalizing your anger over internal issues of the UK unless you can show me that I completely misunderstood the unsourced quote (no, I won't google it myself, it's not my argument).
You didn't blame the EU when it granted the UK government's request for a rebate, did you?

[rory_20_uk]

So, are you going to accept responsibility for the consequences of no deal or whatever the UK ends up with? I've asked Brexiteers a number of times, but every time the answer demands rights but accepts no responsibility. What do you think of the promises made by Leave? Do you think Brexit should be based around these promises? Should Brexit be judged on whether or not the NHS budget increases by 350m/week?

Perhaps you are rather slow. So I'll try again...

We live in a representative democracy, Not my dictatorship. I have not been advocating spending two years on wasting time. The vote was the first time we were allowed to express a view. I had wished for integration to have stopped decades ago.

To your points - again:

I did not believe the promises of Leave any more than I believed Gordon Brown's "end of boom and bust", Cameroon's "compassionate Conservatism" or any other facile phrase spat out by a focus group.
I do not think Brexit should have been based around those promises. I would have rather that we'd never got to "Brexit" and not abandoned our trading partners from the 1970's onwards in a rush to get in with Europe. Yes, then I was the child and this is the future those that voted then ruined for me now.
I do not think that the main priority is to pour money into the NHS, but to sort out what resources are spent on for starters and secondly do some wel overdue integration of social services and the NHS to alleviate the chronic bed blocking.
I didn't vote based on any "promises" made by Leave. I was interested in the Sovereignty of the country. Not freedom of movement. Not freedom of goods. I'm happy for joint standards - just like how the internet works for example.

So - do you hold those who allowed deeper integration with the EU responsible for the current situation? If they had done more we would not be in this mess now.

[Beskar]

We usually order in advance for the Christmas meal with work colleagues and this came up the other day. Usually, we book for this restaurant which is nice and affordable, but we go every year kind of thing. Then there was talk about this new restaurant opening up which promised the everything for nothing sort of thing. We had a vote and it is was pretty even split, 1 vote more for the new place, so the decision was made to explore what kind of options and deal we can get with them. People were mildly optimistic.

Anyway, this restaurant got really bad reviews and they wouldn't offer any special deals or anything. You simply go and pay a lot for it. You know, 1/5 rating, rat droppings on the plate, small portions, overpriced, etc sort of thing. My boss trying to be diplomatic, even though she wanted to regular place, tried to reason with them, but a vocal minority are those trouble makers who are unreasonable, throwing a wobbler as they want to go to the new place.

Obviously people's opinions changed since the initial vote, cannot blame them for initially wanting to try something new that sounded good, but it turns out it is a solid no win, so we discussed having a new vote on the subject just to settle it. Now, these people are being labelled enemies of the workplace, also being called backstabbers as they changed their mind. The whole thing is a real mess, and the deadline for the regular place is running out.

Looks like I am in for a Christxit.

[rory_20_uk]

Wow. That metaphor has shown how wrong I was. How everything I think is in fact merely a fiction. Only by remaining in the EU can we eat, have medicine and remain a functioning society.

Or perhaps it was a facile and trite example that tries to link the future of a country to the choice of a meal.

[InsaneApache]

You would have thought that the warnings of people starving, denied medicine so that they die, rampant clap, death of the first born and a plague of locusts would have persuaded the racist bigoted, low information and basically thick leave voters the error of their ways. Alas not, as the thick bastards are, well, too thick to understand.

These sorts really shouldn't have the vote.

Still at least we'll have Article 13 to save us from those bastards American media platforms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmO7BdPcmlU

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Pannonian:

The number of political leaders who staunchly accept the responsibility for an unpopular decision or a decision which, good or bad, comes at a high cost to their constituency, is fairly small. Kennedy's Profiles in Courage was anecdotal, since there were too few examples to do anything statistical. You might argue that Parliament has more of a history of ethical behavior and admission of responsibility than does the US Senate. I would be skeptical.

Rory:

The Tusk quotation isn't about representing minorities, really. It is about taking time to allow England to 'come to her senses' and return to the fold, chastened, repudiating Brexit and thus more or less squelching similar efforts from other nations in the EU. One of those "more in sorrow than in anger" angles.

[Goalum]

We usually order in advance for the Christmas meal with work colleagues and this came up the other day. Usually, we book for this restaurant which is nice and affordable, but we go every year kind of thing. Then there was talk about this new restaurant opening up which promised the everything for nothing sort of thing. We had a vote and it is was pretty even split, 1 vote more for the new place, so the decision was made to explore what kind of options and deal we can get with them. People were mildly optimistic.

Anyway, this restaurant got really bad reviews and they wouldn't offer any special deals or anything. You simply go and pay a lot for it. You know, 1/5 rating, rat droppings on the plate, small portions, overpriced, etc sort of thing. My boss trying to be diplomatic, even though she wanted to regular place, tried to reason with them, but a vocal minority are those trouble makers who are unreasonable, throwing a wobbler as they want to go to the new place.

Obviously people's opinions changed since the initial vote, cannot blame them for initially wanting to try something new that sounded good, but it turns out it is a solid no win, so we discussed having a new vote on the subject just to settle it. Now, these people are being labelled enemies of the workplace, also being called backstabbers as they changed their mind. The whole thing is a real mess, and the deadline for the regular place is running out.

Looks like I am in for a Christxit.

lucky guess: you lot are english?

[rory_20_uk]

Rory:

The Tusk quotation isn't about representing minorities, really. It is about taking time to allow England to 'come to her senses' and return to the fold, chastened, repudiating Brexit and thus more or less squelching similar efforts from other nations in the EU. One of those "more in sorrow than in anger" angles.

Yes, I am not so vainglorious that the EU really cares about the UK beyond the money in and as a lesson to others. It is just more posturing - but again when it is the EU is it somehow wonderful statements of reasonable wisdom whereas Brexiteers are the raving words of the criminally insane.

Making the UK grovel for each small extension until nothing is really done beyond beg for longer to remain in the EU. Not exactly subtle imagery.

[Goalum]

Making the UK grovel for each small extension until nothing is really done beyond beg for longer to remain in the EU. Not exactly subtle imagery.

According to the brexiteers all you had to do is get out for things to get really better in a flash - so why is your government even asking extensions knowing all too well that it will be made to grovel if it does?

Unlikely that the uk government wants to "be made to grovel" i'd say.. so perhaps it tries to show to the brexit crowd that believed the lies that were said for the referendum, that leaving is actually a very bad idea by trying to make it happen - in that way the conservative party will stop [actually let it on its own to go to a halt] the brexit without losing its political strength among those that voted for exit.

Teresa May was appointed successor by David Cameron and it may well be that what we are witnessing is his plan-b to remedy the situation as it evolved, without the conservative party collapsing electorally

Leaving is bad for the uk in every respect - and not just economically. Also politically, diplomatically and even culturally.

Your government knows that all too well.

Yes, I am not so vainglorious that the EU really cares about the UK beyond the money in and as a lesson to others.

The eu is a league of nations that have close ties of all sorts and strong reasons to maintain them, not an organisation in its own right. In that sense it does care about the uk way more about the money and a lesson to others, although these factors are in play in the negotiations.

Brussels bureaucrats are just responsible managers and executers - when leaders of strong nations speak they back down if you closely pay notice. The uk was/is the second strongest of these nations - and in terms of diplomatic influence, the first [Germany does not have nuclear weapons [it can develop very quickly, but that's another story] nor a seat in the UN's security council, nor the US cultural and economica ties that the uk has].

The very idea of the eu as a separate entity from the nations that comprise them is a joke and brexiteering propaganda - either connected to the far-right or the far-left.

It is just more posturing - but again when it is the EU is it somehow wonderful statements of reasonable wisdom whereas Brexiteers are the raving words of the criminally insane.

There is content even in posturing - even reason needs to be marketed and even lack of it can be marketed also.

The raving is in the content of what the brexiteers say - as are the wonderful statements of reasonable wisdom of the eu representatives - not in the posturing

[rory_20_uk]

According to the brexiteers all you had to do is get out for things to get really better in a flash - so why is your government even asking extensions knowing all too well that it will be made to grovel if it does?

Unlikely that the uk government wants to "be made to grovel" i'd say.. so perhaps it tries to show to the brexit crowd that believed the lies that were said for the referendum, that leaving is actually a very bad idea by trying to make it happen - in that way the conservative party will stop [actually let it on its own to go to a halt] the brexit without losing its political strength among those that voted for exit.

Teresa May was appointed successor by David Cameron and it may well be that what we are witnessing is his plan-b to remedy the situation as it evolved, without the conservative party collapsing electorally

Leaving is bad for the uk in every respect - and not just economically. Also politically, diplomatically and even culturally.

Your government knows that all too well.



The eu is a league of nations that have close ties of all sorts and strong reasons to maintain them, not an organisation in its own right. In that sense it does care about the uk way more about the money and a lesson to others, although these factors are in play in the negotiations.

Brussels bureaucrats are just responsible managers and executers - when leaders of strong nations speak they back down if you closely pay notice. The uk was/is the second strongest of these nations - and in terms of diplomatic influence, the first [Germany does not have nuclear weapons [it can develop very quickly, but that's another story] nor a seat in the UN's security council, nor the US cultural and economica ties that the uk has].

The very idea of the eu as a separate entity from the nations that comprise them is a joke and brexiteering propaganda - either connected to the far-right or the far-left.



There is content even in posturing - even reason needs to be marketed and even lack of it can be marketed also.

The raving is in the content of what the brexiteers say - as are the wonderful statements of reasonable wisdom of the eu representatives - not in the posturing

A lot to unpack there.

First off, "Brexeteers" are only united in their wish to leave the EU. Their reasons are varied and can not be simply lumped together. Many think that economically things will get worse at least in the short term. But sometimes principles are worth more than money. Some might have completely based their ideas on the side of a bus - but since we've never trusted politicians before, it seems more to me that they wanted to believe the lie, rather than the lie persuaded them.

Politically and diplomatically? Really? Why? Surely all small countries would be desperate to join bigger blocks. And I personally think the UK is far to quick to meddle abroad in matters that are not our concern. Culturally is even more of a stretch - will the EU suddenly stop bothering to learn English? England was fortunate to peak when they did since the language has spread to all corners of the world. Unfortunate in that what is definitely English culture is pretty limited, since we were flooded with ideas from the colonies and now are proudly "multicultural". This will not change with or without the EU - since those from the EU tend to be those most keen to integrate.

What was the EU might have been a loose collection of states. But unless you've failed to notice the overseas diplomats, the unified currency everyone has to join, oversight of national budgets, the start of an army... what facet of a state are they not quietly creating? Then the veto is ever so slowly eroded. To help make decisions more effective, of course. It is a long way from what it was 25 years ago.

[Goalum]

A lot to unpack there.

First off, "Brexeteers" are only united in their wish to leave the EU.

Certainly

Their reasons are varied and can not be simply lumped together.

Their resons no, them as a political camp, yes.

Many think that economically things will get worse at least in the short term. But sometimes principles are worth more than money.

What is the principle exactly that is being tarnished?

Some might have completely based their ideas on the side of a bus - but since we've never trusted politicians before, it seems more to me that they wanted to believe the lie, rather than the lie persuaded them.

Absolutely. Yet in terms of result is one and the same, because someone is spreading the lies at the side of a bus.

Politically and diplomatically? Really? Why? Surely all small countries would be desperate to join bigger blocks. And I personally think the UK is far to quick to meddle abroad in matters that are not our concern.

There are none such matters [of "no concern"] especially for the strong nations. They have an interest to participate in coallitions, because exactly they can influence and lead them more than weaker nations and in so doing they will consolidate and preserve and even expand their power. So did all great powers, so they are doing today.

Culturally is even more of a stretch - will the EU suddenly stop bothering to learn English? England was fortunate to peak when they did since the language has spread to all corners of the world. Unfortunate in that what is definitely English culture is pretty limited, since we were flooded with ideas from the colonies and now are proudly "multicultural". This will not change with or without the EU - since those from the EU tend to be those most keen to integrate.

To clarify: i am not a leftist. I am a center right winger. I believe in human rights, free economy, and open society but up to a point. A culture, in order to develop healthily, needs to have a certain inertia in how fast its changing as well as certain core characteristics [for the english people common sense is one such characteristic for example]. That inertia is its traditions, its cultural heritage.

This changes over time - because, well things change and sometimes new elements need to be integrated for a culture to survive and thrive.

New ways of thinking, new approaches, new relations - from history even new peoples can/need to be integrated. English history in particular has many such examples. The roman conquest, the anglo-saxon conquest, the viking invasions, the norman conquest - all these brought new blood, new ways, even new languages, that over time were integrated in what is now recognisably "english".

The key is in slow integration of the new cultural elements. If a culture changes too fast, it loses its compass and social cohesion and if it changes none at all is superseded by the times - plenty of such examples.

What was the EU might have been a loose collection of states. But unless you've failed to notice the overseas diplomats, the unified currency everyone has to join, oversight of national budgets, the start of an army... what facet of a state are they not quietly creating? Then the veto is ever so slowly eroded. To help make decisions more effective, of course. It is a long way from what it was 25 years ago.

Why would you want to veto any of these things?

The currency has made the eu nations ever stronger in a zillion ways - including the uk that didn't join - ask anyone that does bank transactions in your country.

The eu army will give the eu nations' diplomatic will a very strong arm to enforcing it or making it respected - and that will, will be determined more to the will of its strong nations, who will also reap the most benefits from its enforcement/being respected. I don't see the problem, especially for the uk.

oversight of national budgets

This is to keep in check populist governments - far right or far left ones, like we have in my country [greece]. The greek economic crisis was exactly because greek politicians had no one to give account to.

Equally Italy, Spain, Portugal and many of the ex-eastern block countries, have strong traditions of large black market economies [transactions that are not being taxed as they are done "in private"] as well as rampant corruption and nepotism, that do not allow their economies and societies to grow.

In England, political corruption has never been a problem - and i remember that well from when i lived in England. You are very fortunate that you have politicians as accountable as you have over there

The eu nations have made rules for how a nation functions healthily, its not the interventionist nightmare the brexiteering camp presents it to be.

Consider quitting Rory, smoking makes you poorer and less healthier - tried and tested for 17 years

[Montmorency]

Referendums on domestic policy often turn out well for breaking political deadlock on popular ideas. Referendums on foreign policy more clearly cut against the grain of representative government, and so probably should be excluded from the mechanism unless the proposed policy is the abolition of foreign policy (e.g. full political union).

But sometimes principles are worth more than money.

Can't you have some other principles?

What was the EU might have been a loose collection of states. But unless you've failed to notice the overseas diplomats, the unified currency everyone has to join, oversight of national budgets, the start of an army... what facet of a state are they not quietly creating? Then the veto is ever so slowly eroded. To help make decisions more effective, of course. It is a long way from what it was 25 years ago.

That baby in the crib may not be the Herakles you imagine, but if it were I would welcome our new EU overlords. :P

[Pannonian]

I don't see how that relates to him apparently arguing that UK citizens should get to vote for the EU parliament as long as the UK is in the EU via an extension that the UK asked for. As I understand it, he's arguing (to the EU parliament) that not letting the British vote in the upcoming EU election because the UK wants to leave would betray the citizens who don't want to leave and appreciate the extension.

If you're angry about the extension, take that anger to your own government and not the EU.
To me it looks like you're just externalizing your anger over internal issues of the UK unless you can show me that I completely misunderstood the unsourced quote (no, I won't google it myself, it's not my argument).
You didn't blame the EU when it granted the UK government's request for a rebate, did you?

The EU leadership, unlike the UK leadership, and certainly unlike the rank and file Brexiteers, have been consistent in supporting a constitutional solution for the UK, decided by the UK. In return for this, Brexiteers have continued to blame them for everything, for sticking their oar in. Eg. the ECJ, rory's bete noir, supported the UK deciding on whether to stick with article 50 or not. That's confirming the UK's sovereignty, unlike the UK government, who argued that this was out of their control, ie. arguing that the UK did not have sovereignty. In the case of Tusk, he was chiding the EU's member states for feeling fed up with the UK, and supporting the UK's people in making their own decision. Once again, supporting the UK's sovereignty. And rory doesn't like this, once again a Brexiteer criticising the EU for impinging on the UK's sovereignty when it's nothing of the sort. Throughout all this, Brexiteers have always been destructive in nature, opposing everything European whilst offering no constructive answers.

In today's votes, the closest to a majority were Ken Clarke's customs union that PFH is horrified at us "being trapped in", although he's declined my request for an answer as to why he dislikes it, and Margaret Beckett's second referendum. Tusk would support either, as he and the EU leadership would support any UK decision, as long as it had constitutional support. Incidentally, revoking article 50 got more support than May's agreement got in its last outing (defeated by 109 votes, versus around 150 votes for MV2 and 200+ for MV1).

[Pannonian]

Pannonian:

The number of political leaders who staunchly accept the responsibility for an unpopular decision or a decision which, good or bad, comes at a high cost to their constituency, is fairly small. Kennedy's Profiles in Courage was anecdotal, since there were too few examples to do anything statistical. You might argue that Parliament has more of a history of ethical behavior and admission of responsibility than does the US Senate. I would be skeptical.

Rory:

The Tusk quotation isn't about representing minorities, really. It is about taking time to allow England to 'come to her senses' and return to the fold, chastened, repudiating Brexit and thus more or less squelching similar efforts from other nations in the EU. One of those "more in sorrow than in anger" angles.

On the first paragraph: it's a matter of Leave having a manifesto to be judged on. Remain had a manifesto: the EU as it is at the time of voting. Heck, IA sticks what's happened since, without our voice, as a reason for not remaining. That's how much of a tangible manifesto Remain had. In comparison, Leave has dropped all its promises, with the most well known (350m per week for the NHS) being excused as inadvisable but an aspiration, not a promise. Things that Remain said would happen (manufacturing would leave) has happened. Yet Leave maintains its mandate on the grounds that they won, Remain lost. The closest that Leave has to a manifesto is May's withdrawal agreement, and Parliament has rejected that twice; out of the four biggest government defeats in British history, May's WA suffered two of them. Even revoking article 50 and reversing Brexit without further ado got more support than Leave's manifesto. And since Leave's only concrete manifesto has so little support, what mandate does Leave have? Legally no deal is the eventual result, but every Brexiteer says "I didn't vote for this, not my fault".

On the second, the EU would be happy for the UK to leave on May's deal. It would even accept the UK leaving on no deal: the EU has announced that its preparations for no deal are complete. What the EU wants above all else, as every EU official dealing with May's government has stated, is for the UK to make a decision on something concrete. Which brings us back to the above: Leave had no solid manifesto in its campaign, and has disclaimed all promises made during it. What Brexiteers have to do is settle on one solution and stick with it, and the EU will support that. Hell, it has gone out of its way to facilitate May's WA, the WA that has suffered two of the biggest government defeats in British history. The EU wishes the UK to make a decision; PFH criticises it for being inflexible and bullying the UK. The EU gives the UK time to make a decision: rory criticises it for pushing the UK around. Brexit has always been about blaming the EU. Even when the EU defends the UK's sovereignty and allows it time and freedom to make its own decision, Brexiteers still blame the EU.

[Furunculus]

[duplicate post]

[Furunculus]

In today's votes, the closest to a majority were Ken Clarke's customs union that PFH is horrified at us "being trapped in", although he's declined my request for an answer as to why he dislikes it...

If you're voting for a CU, you're doing because you want friction less trade in goods. but that is only 15-20 percent of the total friction, so what you're really voting for is an alignment against single market goods regs. to deal with the 80-85 percent. This is remarkably close to chequers/WA+PD.

But you have never really said what you find so fundamentally objectionable about those proposals?

-------------------------------

I’ve long had a nagging suspicion that Liam Fox has the unrewarding task of setting up a fiefdom that exists only to scrapped as a bargaining chip in the great brexit unwinding. Customs Unions are dangerous beasts, but they don’t do much damage – sovereignty wise – in and of themself.

That is if we are to consider Customs Unions as separate from Single Markets.

But you can’t consider them separately and the problem comes from the necessity for regulatory alignment behind the barrier, because we’re talking non-tariff barriers here. But if you’re happy to have regulatotory alignment on Goods two things fall out: 1. You don’t have much to offer third parties in the realms of trade agreements, and, 2. You aren’t losing much by going the whole hog and being in an EU Customs Unions… for Goods.

Britain is a Services based economy, and to a much larger degree than most european countries we are a Services exporting country, but Services has never really featured in the EU. Either internally, as a corporeal and fully fledged internal market, or as a feature of external relations via trade agreements. Germany, principally – but one among many – taking a very possessive view of Services regulations, and this has severely stunted any move to make a real Services market. An attempt to create a Services passport died in 2012 with Cameron’s “No, No, No!”.

Back to Liam and his heavy burden in the wake of Salzburg: Yeah, they’not so keen on a common rule book with a cumbersome customs arrangement that permits british FTA’s and complex systems for collecting each others tariffs. Where to go from here? Have a common rule book for Good, and as per Chequers keep Services out of the ambit of the European Union. Then, have a Customs Union with the EU… for Goods. What does this achieve?

It achieves three things:

1. It preserves the sovereignty of Parliament for an enormous swath of the UK Law, where there is less to be gained from being part of the EEA (because a Services market is nascent at best). What sovereinty it gives away to the EU it has already sold the pass on via the Common Rule Book for Goods, and this is largely determined by the likes of UNECE anyway.
2. It allows the UK to make Services based Trade Agreements, and lets not forget there are about a billion new middle class being added every decade. Once they’ve bought their BMW from the Germans, they’re going to want to think about Insurance, Legal Services, Finance, etc. Trade agreements of the like that we’ll never get via the EU!
3. It allows a ‘total package’ for Goods which keeps us in all the EU trade agreements, the Single market, and dedramatises sticky issues like NI. Thus bringing the backstop back to only those things necessary for the All Island Economy and the GFA. Sanitory, Phyto-Sanitory, etc. Oh, and it ditches all that complexity around varying tariff regimes that pleased precisely nobody.

Would the EU prefer the UK to break and go for EFTA/EEA? Sure, why wouldn’t you want to keep a leash on a strategic competitor! Might it be possible to negotiate an exemption from ECJ jurisdiction on key strategic Services industries within the EEA? Like, financial and legal services, which are european industries that the UK absolutely dominates and would be daft to give up (not much love lost for the anglo-saxon model). Well, its possible, but I wouldn’t want to bet on it in the current climate!

So, full alignment in Goods in both regulation and trade, and a rather more limited remit for Liam. Just a thought.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In today's votes, the closest to a majority were Ken Clarke's customs union that PFH is horrified at us "being trapped in", although he's declined my request for an answer as to why he dislikes it, and Margaret Beckett's second referendum. Tusk would support either, as he and the EU leadership would support any UK decision, as long as it had constitutional support. Incidentally, revoking article 50 got more support than May's agreement got in its last outing (defeated by 109 votes, versus around 150 votes for MV2 and 200+ for MV1).

You have not been paying attention, because I have been very clear.

In theory ending up in a Customs union with the EU is not a bad thing, at least in the medium term. However, the Backstop "traps" the UK in a Customs Union if negotiations break down. Given that Macron has indicated that future UK access to EU markets will be contingent on the UK taking the CFP this is not acceptable. If we had negotiated our future trade relationship with the EU alongside our withdrawal this might not have been a problem but because we are now expected to sign a contingent provisional agreement and THEN negotiate a trade deal it is.

If the UK signs up to the Backstop then, when negotiations break down, it will have three options.

1. Except the Backstop as permanent, leaving the UK in a perpetual trade limbo half attached to the EU, half not, with no room to make our own deals.

2. Sell the Irish down the river to free the rest of the UK.

3. Break the agreement, which may be possible in international law, and walk away.

Options 2 and 3 betray someone in Northern Ireland whilst Option 1 would likely leave the UK economy stagnant due to the perpetual uncertainty.

So the problem is not a Customs Union per se, the problem is being tripped up and forced into one being trapped their by a negotiating partner you don't trust.

Clear enough?

[Furunculus]

1. Except the Backstop as permanent, leaving the UK in a perpetual trade limbo half attached to the EU, half not, with no room to make our own deals.

The customs union would not allow the UK to differ from EU trade/tariff policy on goods but it could strike independent deals on services, investor protections and so on, and would have some ability to resist new EU trade deals.

[Pannonian]

I said to a cabinet minister, why is the Prime Minister holding a vote when she's pretty sure she's going to lose? And using very strong language, this cabinet minister said to me, Fuck knows (sic), I'm past caring, it's like the living dead in here.

Newsnight

[Montmorency]

That is if we are to consider Customs Unions as separate from Single Markets.

But you can’t consider them separately and the problem comes from the necessity for regulatory alignment behind the barrier, because we’re talking non-tariff barriers here. But if you’re happy to have regulatotory alignment on Goods two things fall out: 1. You don’t have much to offer third parties in the realms of trade agreements, and, 2. You aren’t losing much by going the whole hog and being in an EU Customs Unions… for Goods.

Britain is a Services based economy, and to a much larger degree than most european countries we are a Services exporting country, but Services has never really featured in the EU. Either internally, as a corporeal and fully fledged internal market, or as a feature of external relations via trade agreements. Germany, principally – but one among many – taking a very possessive view of Services regulations, and this has severely stunted any move to make a real Services market. An attempt to create a Services passport died in 2012 with Cameron’s “No, No, No!”.

Back to Liam and his heavy burden in the wake of Salzburg: Yeah, they’not so keen on a common rule book with a cumbersome customs arrangement that permits british FTA’s and complex systems for collecting each others tariffs. Where to go from here? Have a common rule book for Good, and as per Chequers keep Services out of the ambit of the European Union. Then, have a Customs Union with the EU… for Goods. What does this achieve?

It achieves three things:

1. It preserves the sovereignty of Parliament for an enormous swath of the UK Law, where there is less to be gained from being part of the EEA (because a Services market is nascent at best). What sovereinty it gives away to the EU it has already sold the pass on via the Common Rule Book for Goods, and this is largely determined by the likes of UNECE anyway.
2. It allows the UK to make Services based Trade Agreements, and lets not forget there are about a billion new middle class being added every decade. Once they’ve bought their BMW from the Germans, they’re going to want to think about Insurance, Legal Services, Finance, etc. Trade agreements of the like that we’ll never get via the EU!
3. It allows a ‘total package’ for Goods which keeps us in all the EU trade agreements, the Single market, and dedramatises sticky issues like NI. Thus bringing the backstop back to only those things necessary for the All Island Economy and the GFA. Sanitory, Phyto-Sanitory, etc. Oh, and it ditches all that complexity around varying tariff regimes that pleased precisely nobody.

Would the EU prefer the UK to break and go for EFTA/EEA? Sure, why wouldn’t you want to keep a leash on a strategic competitor! Might it be possible to negotiate an exemption from ECJ jurisdiction on key strategic Services industries within the EEA? Like, financial and legal services, which are european industries that the UK absolutely dominates and would be daft to give up (not much love lost for the anglo-saxon model). Well, its possible, but I wouldn’t want to bet on it in the current climate!

So, full alignment in Goods in both regulation and trade, and a rather more limited remit for Liam. Just a thought.

Freedom of movement of services is technically one of the Single Market's Four Freedoms.

If the complaint is that actual intermember exchange of goods is more robust than exchange in services - well, why would leaving the single market suddenly change that? IIRC the majority of British exports in services are to the EU. If one is dissatisfied with exports of services to the EU within the single market, why would one entertain that leaving the single market would facilitate exports of services either to the EU or to the rest of the world? Leaving aside that post-industrial economies are overwhelmingly service-oriented and perhaps most of this economic activity is too local to be amenable to inducements to cross-border trade. Britain is too big to organize its economy solely around financial services exports - it's not Cyprus or Malta -and why don't you think the cocoon of the Single Market is what allows London finance to flourish? Isn't it easier for British services to compete in the single market than equally across the world?

Critique of Chequers in terms of remaining in market for goods but not market for services.

My impression is still that your ideas about sovereignty and comparative advantage are more ideological and abstract than evidence-based.

So the problem is not a Customs Union per se, the problem is being tripped up and forced into one being trapped their by a negotiating partner you don't trust.

Clear enough?

How about, do what the American executive did over legislative recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital between Clinton and Trump, and delay certification (of Brexit) until the next year, every year.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

How about, do what the American executive did over legislative recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital between Clinton and Trump, and delay certification (of Brexit) until the next year, every year.

This option is being seriously mooted, to put it off at least until 2022 (next election).

May is bringing (part) of the deal back tomorrow - something she previously said was impossible. If/when she fails to get the votes a third time that HAS to trigger a no confidence vote. At this point in the crisis at least one major party should start to unravel as MP's default to what their electorate wants vs party loyalty. Interestingly, our FPTP system makes this more likely whereas in a wretched PR system some MP's are always beholden to their Party and will remain loyal.

This is Corbyn's ball to drop. If he fluffs it (and I have no great expectation he won't) we could well end up with all three main parties having no leader come May, given Vince Cable has said he will resign. At that point Parliament will basically have to pick someone to go to Brussels and beg for more time.

Unless, of course, the Queen just dissolves Parliament.

[Pannonian]

Freedom of movement of services is technically one of the Single Market's Four Freedoms.

If the complaint is that actual intermember exchange of goods is more robust than exchange in services - well, why would leaving the single market suddenly change that? IIRC the majority of British exports in services are to the EU. If one is dissatisfied with exports of services to the EU within the single market, why would one entertain that leaving the single market would facilitate exports of services either to the EU or to the rest of the world? Leaving aside that post-industrial economies are overwhelmingly service-oriented and perhaps most of this economic activity is too local to be amenable to inducements to cross-border trade. Britain is too big to organize its economy solely around financial services exports - it's not Cyprus or Malta -and why don't you think the cocoon of the Single Market is what allows London finance to flourish? Isn't it easier for British services to compete in the single market than equally across the world?

Critique of Chequers in terms of remaining in market for goods but not market for services.

My impression is still that your ideas about sovereignty and comparative advantage are more ideological and abstract than evidence-based.

How about, do what the American executive did over legislative recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital between Clinton and Trump, and delay certification (of Brexit) until the next year, every year.

The Anti Tax Avoidance Directive

This has to be implemented by 1st January 2020. The leaders of Brexit are desperate to get the UK out and away from this before that date.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Unless, of course, the Queen just dissolves Parliament.

I thought the act that fixed parliament terms basically did away with that power?

[Furunculus]

The Anti Tax Avoidance Directive

This has to be implemented by 1st January 2020. The leaders of Brexit are desperate to get the UK out and away from this before that date.

^ Guilty of spreading fake news. ^

https://twitter.com/PJChapman74/stat...99242914099201

[InsaneApache]

I thought the act that fixed parliament terms basically did away with that power?

I'm pretty sure that Brenda can still dissolve Parliament whenever she wishes.

...and so democracy dies in the UK after 101 years of universal suffrage.

This will not end well.

[Gilrandir]

This will not end well.

Do you mean this thread? Aren't you guys tired of chewing the same gum for 82 pages?

[InsaneApache]

Very funny.

The message is this. If you vote the 'wrong way' then the politicians will ignore you and carry on as before. I don't know what that is but it isn't democracy.

Be careful what you wish for, it may come true.

[Pannonian]

Very funny.

The message is this. If you vote the 'wrong way' then the politicians will ignore you and carry on as before. I don't know what that is but it isn't democracy.

Be careful what you wish for, it may come true.

Are you disappointed that May hasn't got her deal through on the third attempt? Do you think she might get it through at the fourth time of asking? What was that you said about voting the wrong way? Are Parliament supposed to wave through whatever the PM dictates, even though the PM does not command a majority in this or in the House as a whole? Are there any other issues you'd like the House to wave through without discussing or voting on it?