Politics, politics, politics

[SpurMeUp]

Not advised by the electoral commission as it confuses voters, not needed anyway as the manifesto would effectively be the referendum.

I think it would be a hung parliament anyway if there was another election.

If a voter can't distinguish between two quetions, do they deserve a vote?

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

Not advised by the electoral commission as it confuses voters, not needed anyway as the manifesto would effectively be the referendum.

I think it would be a hung parliament anyway if there was another election.

And yet police and crime commissioner elections and local elections and mayoral elections are held simultaneously all the time without voters getting muddled. Oh well. The electoral conmission’s views on what voters will understand are strongly-held, unpredictable and unevidenced. Not my favourite quango.

 

[ringo]

Essentially on one side there are intense efforts to stall by any means until he clock runs out and we leave on No Deal.
Against this are efforts to extend Article 50 and avoid us leaving at end of March.
This will be the main battleground and all the rest is noise, for the moment.

Then if Article 50 is extended it will only be with the proviso that there is a mechanism by which the leave No Deal lobby consider that they have a chance of winning or at least engineering as hard a Brexit as possible. Then there will be probably be the dirtiest, most fiercely contested battle that British politics has ever seen.

For those who discount the very real possibility of No Deal it is worth remembering that WW1 was a war that few in power believed would happen right up until the moment that it did. Everyone thought someone else would take action to avoid it.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Essentially on one side there are intense efforts to stall by any means until he clock runs out and we leave on No Deal.
Against this are efforts to extend Article 50 and avoid us leaving at end of March.
This will be the main battleground and all the rest is noise, for the moment.

Then if Article 50 is extended it will only be with the proviso that there is a mechanism by which the leave No Deal lobby consider that they have a chance of winning or at least engineering as hard a Brexit as possible. Then there will be probably be the dirtiest, most fiercely contested battle that British politics has ever seen.

For those who discount the very real possibility of No Deal it is worth remembering that WW1 was a war that few in power believed would happen right up until the moment that it did. Everyone thought someone else would take action to avoid it.

I thnk MPs are fully aware of the dangers. Hence some trying to change laws now to avoid no deal and crashing out. Hence the Chancelor telling biz leaders that no deal was not going to happen. If you think about it, it is a real minority who want no deal. Europe doesn't want it, and a very few MPs want it. Even the ERG, not all of the members want no deal. Many want to threaten no deal, to negotiate with the EU, but almost all favour an exit agreement.

In the UK population those who favour no deal have been pushed into the position, because every other exit possibility has been defined and understood as being worse for the UK. No Deal sticks it to the establishment - we want our Brexit - and it holds the hope of being something. Becuase no deal hasn't been fully defined yet it still has promise.

But no deal would, in one stroke, relegate the UK. It would be like Spurs saying they want to leave the Premier League, give up regular Champions League and the money, and instead enter the Championship. Except football is a game. Having a lot less money would impact Spurs - the playing staff, the stadium loans etc. - but for the UK, it impacts schools, NHS spending, house prices, everyone's prosperity and prospects. Swathes of people would be out out of work, whole industries would close - without an exit deal. That is why even the more hardline Leavers don't really want a hard exit. If you understand what no deal means, by definition almost, you don't want it.

 

[ringo]

I thnk MPs are fully aware of the dangers. Hence some trying to change laws now to avoid no deal and crashing out. Hence the Chancelor telling biz leaders that no deal was not going to happen. If you think about it, it is a real minority who want no deal. Europe doesn't want it, and a very few MPs want it. Even the ERG, not all of the members want no deal. Many want to threaten no deal, to negotiate with the EU, but almost all favour an exit agreement.

In the UK population those who favour no deal have been pushed into the position, because every other exit possibilility has been defined and understood as being worse for the UK. No Deal sticks it to the establishment - we want our Brexit - and it holds the hope of being something. Becuase no deal hasn't been fully defined yet it still holds promise.

But no deal would, in one stroke, relegate the UK. It would be like Spurs saying they want to leave the Premier League, give up regular Champions League money, and instead enter the Championship. Except football is a game. Having a lot less money would impact Spurs - the playing staff, the stadium loans etc. - but for the UK, it impacts schools, NHS spending, house prices, everyone's prosperity and prospects. Swathes of people would be out out of work, whole industries would close - without an exit deal. That is why even the more hardline Leavers don't really want a hard exit. If you understand what no deal means, by definition almost, you don't want it.

I understand the argument against no deal. Unlike many of those who advocate such a course or fairly extreme Brexit, I do not consider Patrick Minford's view of the world plausible.
But I wouldn't underestimate the power or dogma of those who favour this outcome, even though they may be a minority. There is a hard core of exceptionally wealthy individuals who are avowed free market libertarians, here and in the the US, who have been planning such an outcome for a very long time. The likes of Legatum, Atlantic Bridge etc. And they won't let it get away from them without a struggle. I have had first hand experience of these people and I know for certain that they philosophically and profoundly believe that you are truly mistaken in your assertions as to what would inevitably be bad for the country. It is tantamount to a religion.

I know many people who voted for Leave predominately because of immigration. I'm not judging their motives, but I'm fairly sure that the ability to control immigration was not high on the agenda of the leave lobby I am referring to. Only to the extent that it served to help them win the broader argument. What is high on their agenda is a) the ability to strike free trade deals with other countries independently b) the ability do so unfettered by EU regulations and laws.

 

[monkeybarry]

If a voter can't distinguish between two quetions, do they deserve a vote?

Add that to a long list of reasons......

 

[SpurMeUp]

I understand the argument against no deal. Unlike many of those who advocate such a course or fairly extreme Brexit, I do not consider Patrick Minford's view of the world plausible.
But I wouldn't underestimate the power or dogma of those who favour this outcome, even though they may be a minority. There is a hard core of exceptionally wealthy individuals who are avowed free market libertarians, here and in the the US, who have been planning such an outcome for a very long time. The likes of Legatum etc. And they won't let it get away from them without a struggle. I have had first hand experience of these people and I know for certain that they philosophically and profoundly believe that you are truly mistaken in your assertions as to what would inevitably be bad for the country. It is tantamount to a religion.

I know many people who voted for Leave predominately because of immigration. I'm not judging their motives, but I'm fairly sure that the ability to control immigration was not high on the agenda of the leave lobby I am referring to. Only to the extent that it served to help them win the broader argument. What is high on their agenda is a) the ability to strike free trade deals with other countries independently b) the ability do so unfettered by EU regulations and laws.

I agree. There is a powerful few who see full unabated capitalism as a dream. I've read Atlas Shrugs. I've spoken to business leaders who somehow think they are sentient beings and everyone should get what they deserve with laissez-faire capitalism. Reese-Mogs ideology is driven by his father's book, which has had an audience in Silicon Vally representing their digital disruption. There is no doubt, people love to believe in doctrine. We need more vision.

As you outline, I think it is important that the people understand the true motives behind Brexit. For the elite, Brexit represents a way to pursue unabated capitalism.

Debating the merits of unrestricted capitalism is another (fascinating) arguement, but I'd simply say that the worlds economic system was perilously close to collapse only a few years ago. To the extend that people might have gone to the bank, and found all their money was a gone. Busineses likewise. WIthout intervention, what kind of chaos would capitalism been in?

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Brexit: A guide to MPs' Brexit amendments

• 1 hour ago

MPs are trying to change the course of Brexit in a number of ways, after rejecting the deal the prime minister struck with the European Union.

Theresa May will return to the Commons on 29 January to set out the next steps in the process.

However, the opposition and backbench MPs have been tabling amendmentsto her motion in a bid to force the government to change direction.

Several different courses have been proposed and, in normal circumstances, one would be selected for 90 minutes of debate.

However, it is expected that the government will allow time for MPs to discuss more options.



Labour frontbench amendment
Instructs the government to rule out a "disastrous No Deal" scenario and allow Parliament to consider - and vote on - options including:

• An alternative Brexit deal involving its plan for a permanent customs unionwith Brussels and a version of the EU's single market
• Legislating to hold a public vote on either a deal or a proposition that has MPs' support

It is thought this amendment would struggle to get the backing it needs from Conservative backbenchers to succeed in forcing the government's hand.

Labour MP Yvette Cooper's amendment
Attempts to rule out the UK leaving the EU without a formal deal (the no-deal option is supported by some Brexiteers but many MPs fear it will cause chaos at ports and disruption for businesses) by allowing parliamentary time to pass a new law.

The bill to bring in the new law would require Theresa May to seek to postpone Brexit day (currently 29 March) until 31 December, if MPs do not approve her deal by 26 February.

The prime minister would do this by asking the EU to agree to extend the two-year limit on Article 50 - the mechanism paving the way for the UK to leave the EU.

With the backing of senior Conservative backbenchers such as Nicky Morgan and Oliver Letwin, former Lib Dem health minister Norman Lamb and Plaid Cymru's Ben Lake, it is thought the initial amendment has a good chance of success.

Conservative MP Dominic Grieve's amendment
Forces the government to make time for MPs to discuss a range of alternatives to the prime minister's Brexit plan on six full days in the Commons before 26 March.

MPs would be able to table amendments to be voted on at the end of the debate, which could include alternative Brexit options such as Labour's plan, a second referendum, no deal and the Norway-style relationship preferred by some MPs.

This has the backing of some Labour backbenchers, as well as the SNP's Philippa Whitford, Lib Dem Tom Brake, Plaid Cymru's Jonathan Edwards and Caroline Lucas, of the Greens.

Labour MP Stella Creasy's amendment
Requires the government to ask the EU to postpone Brexit day and give the public more say in the Brexit process through a 250-member "Citizens' Assembly".

This would:

• comprise a "representative sample of the population" to make recommendations on the Brexit process after 10 weeks of consideration
• be supported by an "expert advisory group"
• require the government to respond within two weeks

Labour MP Hilary Benn's amendment
Calls on the government to hold a series of "indicative votes", allowing MPs to indicate whether they might support the following options:

• To vote again on Theresa May's deal in its current form, which sets out the terms of the UK's withdrawal - including a "transition period" aimed at minimising disruption - and outlines future relations with the EU
• To leave with a "no-deal" exit, without any such agreements and no transition period
• To request the government tries to renegotiate the deal by seeking to either change the Irish "backstop" arrangement, pursue a "Canada-style" deal or aim to join the EEA and remain in the EU's customs union
• Hold a referendum to allow British people to decide on the kind of Brexit deal they want

Labour MP Rachel Reeves' amendment
Requires the government to ask the EU to postpone Brexit day.

Dame Caroline Spelman (Conservative) and Jack Dromey (Labour) amendment
Attempts to prevent a "No-Deal" Brexit by adding to the PM's motion that Parliament "rejects the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework for the Future Relationship".

None of these amendments, if successful, would be binding on the government, although support for any of them would put political pressure on Theresa May to follow their direction.

However, if Yvette Cooper's amendment was successful, and she then managed to get MPs to approve her bill, it would become law and so place an obligation on the government.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Brexit: What is Labour's customs union policy?
By Reality CheckBBC News

• 22 January 2019

Claim: Labour is proposing a new permanent customs union with the European Union (EU) after Brexit which would allow the UK "a say" in future trade deals.

Reality Check Verdict: EU law currently does not allow non-EU members to have a formal say or veto in its trade talks. Labour says the EU has shown flexibility in the past and its proposal cannot be ruled out until the party has had a chance to negotiate formally.

There's renewed focus on Labour's Brexit policy as Theresa May holds discussions with opposition MPs, in the wake of the historic defeat of her Brexit deal.

One area under the spotlight is Labour's plan for the UK to have a new permanent customs union with the EU after Brexit and the power to have a say in future EU trade talks.

The idea that the UK would be allowed such a say has been dismissed by Michael Gove, the Environment Secretary.

He's declared Labour's position "an unprecedented legal and political novelty of the kind that is rightly called a unicorn".

So how realistic is Labour's plan?

First, the basics - what is a customs union?
The purpose of a customs union is to make trade easier.

Countries in a customs union agree not to impose charges - known as tariffs - or custom checks on each other's goods.

The rules also mean that any goods coming in from the rest of the world pay the same tariff - irrespective of where in the customs union those goods first enter.

This is known as a common tariff.

For example, a car from the US entering the EU customs union currently attracts a tariff of 10% of the car's value. It doesn't matter if the car arrives in France, Spain or anywhere else - the same one-off 10% charge is applied.

That car can then move between all the customs union countries without incurring extra costs or custom checks.

The EU customs union includes the 28 EU member states as well as Monaco.

The EU also has customs union arrangements with non-EU members: Turkey, Andorra and San Marino.

But under (the EU's) customs union rules, members cannot negotiate their own independent trade deals with countries from the rest of the world.

Instead, free trade deals (ie agreements that reduce or eliminate tariffs between countries) can only be negotiated by the EU as a whole.

As a result, Theresa May's government has ruled out remaining in the customs union after Brexit, arguing it would prevent the UK from setting its own trade policy

Would the EU agree to Labour's plan?
At the moment, the EU is negotiating trade agreements with 21 countries.

So what are the chances of Labour's proposal of leaving "the" EU customs union and replacing it with "a" customs union arrangement where the UK could have a say in those talks?

It somewhat depends on what Labour means by a "say".

Barry Gardiner, the shadow international trade secretary, told the Commons that he favoured: "A new customs union in which the UK would be able to reject any agreement it believed was concluded to its disadvantage."

He told MPs that this position should have been adopted at the start of the Brexit talks.

But allowing the UK a formal role in EU trade talks after Brexit, would not be allowed under current EU rules:

"Trade outside the EU is an exclusive responsibility of the EU.... this means the EU institutions make laws on trade matters, negotiate and conclude international trade agreements," says the European Commission.

Holger Hestermeyer, an expert in international dispute resolution at the British Academy, agrees it would be very difficult:

"To give the UK a say in the EU's talks, the procedure, as set out in EU treaties, would need to be changed.

"A treaty change in that respect will not happen and to give the UK a say without such a change is legally doubtful and politically impossible," he says.

Labour points out that the EU is already in favour of the UK remaining in a customs union after Brexit. Therefore it believes the EU may well be receptive to the idea of the UK also having a say in future trade deals.

Jeremy Corbyn told the BBC that "the EU is well-known for its ability to be flexible".

If a "say" means something less formal, it may be more achievable.

But even then it would still be unique - the EU currently has no relationship with any country like the one Labour is asking for.

A Labour source told Reality Check that determining exactly how the arrangement could work would be subject to any future negotiation with the EU.

What about Turkey?
Turkey has often been held up as example of a non-EU country entering into a customs union arrangement with the EU.

It's had a customs union deal with the EU since 1995, although it's not as comprehensive as the one Labour is seeking.

That's because Turkey's customs arrangement only applies to industrial products.

This means Turkey has some limited freedom to strike its own trade deals, but only in the areas not covered by its customs union arrangement - such as agriculture.

Turkey can also strike deals around the world on services - as this is not a customs union issue.

It has a number of trade deals with nearby countries, such as Georgia and Lebanon as well countries as far afield as Chile.

However, Turkey is also obliged to apply common external tariffs on industrial products arriving from outside the EU customs union.

This is a very strict rule, according to Catherine Barnard an EU law professor at Cambridge University.

"Under no circumstances may Turkey be authorised to apply a customs tariff which is lower than the common external tariff for any product," she says.

Does the EU-Turkey relationship work?
"The arrangement has boosted trade between the two sides," says Alex Stojanovic from the Institute for Government.

However, Mr Stojanovic adds that neither the EU nor Turkey is entirely happy with the current arrangement:

"The EU Parliament has released reports criticising the governance of resolving disputes. From Turkey's point of view, it argues it has little input or say in EU trade policy."

Labour says it has ruled-out a Turkey-style arrangement on the grounds it is "asymmetrical" and only covers certain goods.

However, it remains to be seen whether the EU would accept the type of customs union arrangement the Labour is pursuing instead.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Have to say, reading that - Corbyns plan is neither preferable or possible, IMO.

 

[scaramanga]

Have to say, reading that - Corbyns plan is neither preferable or possible, IMO.

Jeremy Corbyn told the BBC that "the EU is well-known for its ability to be flexible".

What a fudging tofutard

 

[Rorschach]

Have to say, reading that - Corbyns plan is neither preferable or possible, IMO.

Indeed. Just a different version of brexit fantasy.

 

[the dza]

Indeed. Just a different version of brexit fantasy.

It is only a starting point though isn't it? An aspiration, they aren't negotiating (yet).

Labour can conceivably begin with their aspirations and move towards a Norway Plus agreement if/when certain things aren't possible to negotiate with the EU. Or they can move towards a 2nd referendum with Remain on the ballot. Which is why Labour rule out no-deal.

May had a starting position but no wiggle room because the right of her party will only let her move in one direction (towards WTO Brexit). And her starting position doesn't have much support either.

 

[Rorschach]

It is only a starting point though isn't it? An aspiration, they aren't negotiating (yet).

Labour can conceivably begin with their aspirations and move towards a Norway Plus agreement if/when certain things aren't possible to negotiate with the EU. Or they can move towards a 2nd referendum with Remain on the ballot. Which is why Labour rule out no-deal.

May had a starting position but no wiggle room because the right of her party will only let her move in one direction (towards WTO Brexit). And her starting position doesn't have much support either.

Labour's starting position is just as unattainable. It is a complete non-runner and at this stage of proceedings a little pointless considering the March deadline. If they want to opt for a flavour of Norway, do that. We are well past the point of aspirational plans as an opening gambit.

All IMO of course

 

[the dza]

Labour's starting position is just as unattainable. It is a complete non-runner and at this stage of proceedings a little pointless considering the March deadline. If they want to opt for a flavour of Norway, do that. We are well past the point of aspirational plans as an opening gambit.

All IMO of course

But you can't ignore that Labour want the Tories to own the pile of sh1t that they have created. And they don't want to bail them out of it and be blamed for "betrayal!" This government have to be the ones to pay a political price for this clusterphuck, as do the Tory Right. Starmer isn't a stupid man, he will have told Corbyn roughly what the EU will and will not accept. And Labour will know what they would like to end up with, and what they can publicly commit to at this moment.

So they will continue as is imo, and they are right to. The Tories could have called an election if they wanted to and let Labour shoulder it, but they didn't. May could have reached out to Parliament for consensus a long time ago, and she didn't -- the latest publicity stunt fooled nobody but that tw@t Vince Cable.

Article 50 is very likely to be extended imo, or the Tory Remainers who have threatened to bring the government down in the event of no-deal will go ahead and do it. Because there is nothing that stops another vote of no confidence being called. The March deadline is arbitrary, there's nothing in article 50 to prevent an extension -- it is the political will of the government, who are more concerned with the Tory Right foaming at the mouth about extending it.

I don't expect those who wouldn't vote for Corbyn in a million years to accept any of this. But Labour are currently following the policy set out at conference and the latest amendment tabled paves the way for another referendum if necessary, and hopefully an attempt at Norway + before that.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Labour can't be (fairly) criticised. They have not been in power through all this nonsense. All they need to say is, Tory division created the vote, and drive the PM. Interests of the country are secondary to May preserving her party.

May will use the tension of no deal through March. It won't have a profound effect on the EU, but she hopes it will on MPs, who could vote for her deal to avoid no deal. At the same time she hopes the ERG will vote for her deal because it avoids no Brexit. Can she pull off this final Brexit maneuver?

What May, and to an extent Leavers, don't seem to concern themselves with, is that the deal is suboptimal for the UK. We gain almost nothing and lose a lot. Such is the Brexit folly.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

I thnk MPs are fully aware of the dangers. Hence some trying to change laws now to avoid no deal and crashing out. Hence the Chancelor telling biz leaders that no deal was not going to happen. If you think about it, it is a real minority who want no deal. Europe doesn't want it, and a very few MPs want it. Even the ERG, not all of the members want no deal. Many want to threaten no deal, to negotiate with the EU, but almost all favour an exit agreement.

In the UK population those who favour no deal have been pushed into the position, because every other exit possibility has been defined and understood as being worse for the UK. No Deal sticks it to the establishment - we want our Brexit - and it holds the hope of being something. Becuase no deal hasn't been fully defined yet it still has promise.

But no deal would, in one stroke, relegate the UK. It would be like Spurs saying they want to leave the Premier League, give up regular Champions League and the money, and instead enter the Championship. Except football is a game. Having a lot less money would impact Spurs - the playing staff, the stadium loans etc. - but for the UK, it impacts schools, NHS spending, house prices, everyone's prosperity and prospects. Swathes of people would be out out of work, whole industries would close - without an exit deal. That is why even the more hardline Leavers don't really want a hard exit. If you understand what no deal means, by definition almost, you don't want it.

'no deal' hasn't been defined yet'.....

Then you go on to define it.

Thanks, now we know.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Labour's starting position is just as unattainable. It is a complete non-runner and at this stage of proceedings a little pointless considering the March deadline. If they want to opt for a flavour of Norway, do that. We are well past the point of aspirational plans as an opening gambit.

All IMO of course

Isn’t a flavour of Norway what Labour are pursuing? In practical terms something like we fax our input, concerns etc re. trade with X nation and the EU considers it during negotiations (that we are not party to).


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[SpurMeUp]

'no deal' hasn't been defined yet'.....

Then you go on to define it.

Thanks, now we know.

To those that think no deal hold promise - it is because it has not been fully defined. It’s the uncertainty that holds potential, ‘maybe it could be a fresh independent future!’ Otherwise no deal backers are simply Anarchists. Which I’d respect if they said they were. I’d be far more interested in their position then.

To those that don’t think no deal has any promise, it’s implications are clear, even if we don’t know exactly how the detail will shake down. In broad strokes we know the pain and disruption it would cause.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[Rorschach]

But you can't ignore that Labour want the Tories to own the pile of sh1t that they have created. And they don't want to bail them out of it and be blamed for "betrayal!" This government have to be the ones to pay a political price for this clusterphuck, as do the Tory Right. Starmer isn't a stupid man, he will have told Corbyn roughly what the EU will and will not accept. And Labour will know what they would like to end up with, and what they can publicly commit to at this moment.

So they will continue as is imo, and they are right to. The Tories could have called an election if they wanted to and let Labour shoulder it, but they didn't. May could have reached out to Parliament for consensus a long time ago, and she didn't -- the latest publicity stunt fooled nobody but that tw@t Vince Cable.

Article 50 is very likely to be extended imo, or the Tory Remainers who have threatened to bring the government down in the event of no-deal will go ahead and do it. Because there is nothing that stops another vote of no confidence being called. The March deadline is arbitrary, there's nothing in article 50 to prevent an extension -- it is the political will of the government, who are more concerned with the Tory Right foaming at the mouth about extending it.

I don't expect those who wouldn't vote for Corbyn in a million years to accept any of this. But Labour are currently following the policy set out at conference and the latest amendment tabled paves the way for another referendum if necessary, and hopefully an attempt at Norway + before that.

I'm not ignoring anything actually. The brick that the UK finds themselves in is of course very little to do with Labour but their opening position is something that already has been nixed so I don't see the point. It is self-serving politics that has got negotiations to the point they are now. More of the same is not the answer.

Yes it can be extended but it is not a switch to be flicked. The extension has to be accompanied by a viable plan. And what is that plan? Who can say. And if the deadline is looming close 1000 more businesses who made preparations to move will put those plans in motion. The March deadline is not arbitrary in any sense.