Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Canada and Norway were both put forward by prominent brexiters pre vote - it is brexit just not the one that was your desired flavour.

No they werent, not that I saw. Canada + and Norway + were seen as options. The + being cherry picking advantages that the base deals do not have, and so, of course, being far from a given anyway.

Its not about "my" desired flavour. Its about the general themes at the time, and since, which you seem to be re-writing today.

The poll's I have been looking on yougov have the remain vote about 8-10 points ahead more or less consistently for months now. The interesting thing that happend in a poll from Mar 11th is a drop of of 10 points in the leave support and 6 points in the remain support from a poll from a week previous. All of this went to not sure/don't know. So remain 40%, leave 32% and don't know 29% (extra 1% in there I know. That's a lot of don't knows.

It is. And things are far too fluid to even predict patterns right now IMHO.

Even in more stable times recent polls havent actually been indicative of voting patterns have they?

Here is how I see it going;

Tonight - vote down no deal
A50 extended.
GE called.
Labour take the commons, probably as minority.
People's vote.
Withdraw A50.
Then whip up internal support for EU change. The EU have shown there is movement and negotiation in some areas, so the targets are there. "If you can enter negotiation with someone leaving, you can do it within the family"

A50 being extended isnt assured. Neither is, if it does happen, for how long. And if it does the EU are going to expect us to ask for an extension with a plan in hand at the same time. Which, in reality, means ramping pressure on us to conform to something easily acceptable to them and just about acceptable to us in desperate times.

"A50 extended" is a whole can of worms on its own.

Id quite expect Labour to get a GE, and as a minority as you say - but there wont be a peoples vote, you can forget that.

Corbyn will do all he can to avoid it. Instead he will try and take his "I want a customs union deal with the ability to have a say in EU trading policy" to them. Of course get laughed out of town, and end up exactly where we are now - off the shelf deal or no deal. Difference is, in this scenario Id prefer no deal and (for better or worse) Id trust the Tories to be stubborn enough to see it through - I dont think the same of Labour

Changing the EU from inside? Regardless of my thinking of Corbyn and the chance of him negotiating his way out of a wet paper bag - that simply isnt going to happen. The EU is on a set course, ever closer union, theres nothing going to change that.

 

[r-u-s-x]

No they werent, not that I saw. Canada + and Norway + were seen as options. The + being cherry picking advantages that the base deals do not have, and so, of course, being far from a given anyway.

Its not about "my" desired flavour. Its about the general themes at the time, and since, which you seem to be re-writing today.

the + came in after the referendum.

the referendum gave no indication on the type of brexit.

cheap one due to the edit but gives the idea.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Cant view videos at work, firewall is stupid...

The referendum itself was hardly defined, was it? What we do know with some confidence though is that FoM and the EU oversight on things were major reasons for people voting leave. Surely this is undeniable?

 

[Rorschach]

It is. And things are far too fluid to even predict patterns right now IMHO.

Even in more stable times recent polls havent actually been indicative of voting patterns have they?

I can't say, but at a guess I say this jump in don't knows is directly related the complexity of the options on the table now. That bit is predictable I suppose.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Cant view videos at work, firewall is stupid...

The referendum itself was hardly defined, was it? What we do know with some confidence though is that FoM and the EU oversight on things were major reasons for people voting leave. Surely this is undeniable?

it is undeniable - I misread the point or argued a different point that it could easily be a minority view (as a whole not just those who voted leave).

Canada & Norway without the plus were a Brexit option pre vote, the additions were largely added after once leave won. So I stand by the fact that Norway and Canada fulfils the referendum in just the same way No deal or Mays deal, it was not defined.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

it is undeniable - I misread the point or argued a different point that it could easily be a minority view (as a whole not just those who voted leave).

Canada & Norway without the plus were a Brexit option pre vote, the additions were largely added after once leave won. So I stand by the fact that Norway and Canada fulfils the referendum in just the same way No deal or Mays deal, it was not defined.

As neither were specifically voted for, I dont think they do.

They were held as examples (though Im sure with the +) of possibilities, but equally - if not more prevailant - was talk of a free trade deal. I recall extensive argument here as to whether or why it could happen.

I dont think you can argue either fulfill the referendum. You know very well all sorts were promised, none actually specifically campaigned or on the ballot. Its not evidence of the referendum being satisfied.

I DO think, "leave" must surely mean something more than "in name only" though - wouldnt you agree?

 

[r-u-s-x]

As neither were specifically voted for, I dont think they do.

They were held as examples (though Im sure with the +) of possibilities, but equally - if not more prevailant - was talk of a free trade deal. I recall extensive argument here as to whether or why it could happen.

I dont think you can argue either fulfill the referendum. You know very well all sorts were promised, none actually specifically campaigned or on the ballot. Its not evidence of the referendum being satisfied.

I DO think, "leave" must surely mean something more than "in name only" though - wouldnt you agree?

Any leaving of the EU fulfils the referendum - it was a brick referendum. I think Norway fulfils the referendum, I think Mays fulfils, I think no deal, I think Switzerland fulfils it and everything in between.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Sounds to me as if, despite my constant assertions, somebody somewhere in the government has their head screwed on correctly:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47551266

If we can just get rid of the rest of them we'll be well on our way.

A quick question, how will you negotiate FTAs with countries when you're not charging any tariffs on their goods? Why would they bother lowering their own tarrifs on UK goods, if you just allow anything into the UK without control or cost? What would be the implications for various UK made goods? Would they go out of business if cheap imports were allowed?

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Any leaving of the EU fulfils the referendum - it was a brick referendum. I think Norway fulfils the referendum, I think Mays fulfils, I think no deal, I think Switzerland fulfils it and everything in between.

Have to say I disagree with that.

While I absolutely agree it was a brick referendum, and far to vague - I think it is fair to say Mays red lines are pretty well in line with the general theme from the leave campaign/vote.

Controlling our own borders etc...

To take a Norway deal is to not satisfy that. So really doesnt fulfil the referendum IMO.

Yes, if you want to be a total pedant "in/out" is so bloody weak virtually anything would technically/arguably satisfy it, but that really misses the point doesnt it?

 

[r-u-s-x]

Have to say I disagree with that.

While I absolutely agree it was a brick referendum, and far to vague - I think it is fair to say Mays red lines are pretty well in line with the general theme from the leave campaign/vote.

Controlling our own borders etc...

To take a Norway deal is to not satisfy that. So really doesnt fulfil the referendum IMO.

Yes, if you want to be a total pedant "in/out" is so bloody weak virtually anything would technically/arguably satisfy it, but that really misses the point doesnt it?

During the referendum every type of Brexit was pushed at one point or another - every reason was given it was everything to all people, this was by design. Norway would fulfil Brexit for some but not others.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

During the referendum every type of Brexit was pushed at one point or another - every reason was given it was everything to all people, this was by design. Norway would fulfil Brexit for some but not others.

Which is why I was careful to speak of the general themes. The over ridingly common ones being those noted.

Of course no single option was going to satisfy all leave voters, so we have to go with the majority.

The conversation around this whole thing was borne out of your post:

the off the shelf solutions were dismissed due to mays red lines- she had those red lines as she thought it was the one that would get her party to support a deal - she was wrong. Get rid of the red lines - get multi party support at the outset and negotiate openly.

These Red lines were a construct of May for the benefit of the Tory party not the country.

Which I disagree with. I think her red lines actually are supported by the general consensus of the leave vote.

Now - Im not saying thats WHY she has them, you could be absolutely right in her motivations, but thats really beside the point.

I think just ditching her red lines and going for anything off the shelf is a betrayal of the vote. And while that sounds alarmingly like Im supportive of her or her deal (Im not) I think thats the truth.

Norway doesnt do it. Canada doesnt. The + versions might if the EU are willing to compromise on the four pillars (they wont).

Which is of course beside the point that pretty well all the off the shelf options are compromised memberships and so utterly pointless compared to just staying in.

 

[scaramanga]

A quick question, how will you negotiate FTAs with countries when you're not charging any tariffs on their goods? Why would they bother lowering their own tarrifs on UK goods, if you just allow anything into the UK without control or cost? What would be the implications for various UK made goods? Would they go out of business if cheap imports were allowed?

Without import duties our exports would be more competitive.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Which is why I was careful to speak of the general themes. The over ridingly common ones being those noted.

Of course no single option was going to satisfy all leave voters, so we have to go with the majority.

The conversation around this whole thing was borne out of your post:



Which I disagree with. I think her red lines actually are supported by the general consensus of the leave vote.

Now - Im not saying thats WHY she has them, you could be absolutely right in her motivations, but thats really beside the point.

I think just ditching her red lines and going for anything off the shelf is a betrayal of the vote. And while that sounds alarmingly like Im supportive of her or her deal (Im not) I think thats the truth.

Norway doesnt do it. Canada doesnt. The + versions might if the EU are willing to compromise on the four pillars (they wont).

Which is of course beside the point that pretty well all the off the shelf options are compromised memberships and so utterly pointless compared to just staying in.

i really dont agree the leave campaign chucked enough brick around hoping some would stick, in this way they got votes from all camps in order to win the vote. If leave is one of these types you live by the sword you die by the sword. They campaigned soft and hard so if they end up with a soft its their own fault and the referendum is fulfilled.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Without import duties our exports would be more competitive.

without us imposing import duties their exports are more competitive. They will be applying import duties to our goods making ours less competitive.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

i really dont agree the leave campaign chucked enough brick around hoping some would stick, in this way they got votes from all camps in order to win the vote. If leave is one of these types you live by the sword you die by the sword. They campaigned soft and hard so if they end up with a soft its their own fault and the referendum is fulfilled.

Which is much more like an "on the technicality" argument than real world.

You agreed yourself the main reasons behind the vote. Seems a bit odd to then just ignore them and call anything a win for Brexit.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Which is much more like an "on the technicality" argument than real world.

You agreed yourself the main reasons behind the vote. Seems a bit odd to then just ignore them and call anything a win for Brexit.

i didn't agree I said most of the levers - I think most of the electorate would prefer Norway, seems a bit odd just to ignore them.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

i didn't agree I said most of the levers - I think most of the electorate would prefer Norway, seems a bit odd just to ignore them.

Thats a whole other conversation.

The rest of the electorate lost the vote, they didnt vote to leave at all. Seems odd to dishonour the leave vote just to keep them in mind.

Lets leave - but make it a pretend leave, to keep everyone else happy...

 

[r-u-s-x]

Thats a whole other conversation.

The rest of the electorate lost the vote, they didnt vote to leave at all. Seems odd to dishonour the leave vote just to keep them in mind.

Lets leave - but make it a pretend leave, to keep everyone else happy...

Well if the leave campaign cant offer this was as an option then worry when its delivered - Norway was considered Leave prior to the vote.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Well if the leave campaign cant offer this was as an option then worry when its delivered - Norway was considered Leave prior to the vote.

By some, apparently. I remember debating it - and its pointlessness. I find it odd you are persisting with holding it up as an option - as if it was promoted and campaigned for more than anything.

NOTHING was, was it? Everything was offered and not one thing was particularly prominent above the rest.

As I said - if I were to pick out the "main" option the one I most recall is a free trade deal above any of the off the shelf options.

But that would be as a slightly larger feature above many, not as an absolute and prominent option heavily campaigned for. And Id argue Norway was further back than a FTA.

I maintain - immigration, governence, these were the bigger (and admittedly less specific) factors in the vote.

Honouring them is honouring the vote more so than "someone mentioned Norway so that counts", IMO.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Dame Caroline Spelman, a former Conservative party chairwoman, decides she will not push her amendment to a vote.

Hers was one of two amendments - the other is the Malthouse Amendment - that were due to be voted on by MPs later today.

However, Dame Caroline, the main sponsor of the amendment, has decided not to push for it.

It is theoretically possible that someone else could - but that would be unusual.

Her decision is extremely helpful to the government who were going to tell MPs they could not vote in favour of that amendment.

The amendment put forward by Labour MP Jack Dromey and Dame Caroline changed the wording of the government motion to "this House rejects the UK leaving the EU without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework for the Future Relationship".



Common sense prevails.