Politics, politics, politics

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Why the Chequers proposals are disastrous
As I set out in my resignation speech on July 18, these proposals would oblige the UK to continue to accept EU rules, regulations and taxes across a wide spectrum of government activity, but with absolutely no say on those laws.

Such enforced vassalage should be unacceptable to any democratic country, let alone a two trillion pound economy with a venerable parliamentary history. If we go ahead with Chequers, we will be exposing the entire UK economy to regulations that may be expressly designed – and at the behest of continental competitors – to make life difficult for UK entrepreneurs and innovators.

What are British politicians supposed to tell employees who lose their jobs in such firms, when it is this government that has deliberately abandoned the right to defend them?

Under the Chequers proposals free trade deals are made doubly difficult: first, because we abandon control of our regulatory framework for goods and agri-foods – especially important in trade negotiations; and next, because we fail miserably to take back control of our trade policy.

If we go ahead with Chequers and its Heath Robinson Facilitated Customs Arrangement, we will be agreeing to enforce EU tariffs and duties at our borders.

That means in a very practical sense that we will fail to take back control of our borders – and thus cheat the electorate of a major promise at the referendum. It is also unthinkable that the EU should allow such an arrangement to take place without EU supervision and ECJ jurisdiction. Why should they, after all?

We also face the manifest absurdity of requiring douaniers in Marseilles to collect the UK’s tariffs on goods that are destined – at least theoretically – for the UK.

It is already a ridiculous feature of the Chequers proposals that we would require all UK businesses importing goods that attract the UK-only tariffs to prove that such goods have been consumed in the UK. It is almost insane to imagine that the UK will be able to persuade the 27 to impose an extra and hitherto undreamt-of new bureaucratic burden on every customs officer in the EU.

If there is any magical thinking anywhere in this negotiation, it is surely here.

Indeed it is obvious to anyone with any understanding of trading arrangements that the customs aspects of Chequers could only work if Britain drops all pretence of an independent trade policy – and collapses back into the customs union.

Our legal servitude is exacerbated, under Chequers, by the commitment to non-regression clauses for the entire corpus of EU social, environmental and other related law, and to enforce the EU’s rulebook on state aids. No one would wish to see any reduction of standards or protections, or to waste public money in supporting unviable businesses, but it is deeply troubling that we would be signing away forever the right of Parliament to legislate in these areas in any way that the EU – not our own Parliament - deems to be regressive or unsatisfactory.

Overall, the Chequers proposals represent the intellectual error of believing that we can be half-in, half-out: that it is somehow safer and easier for large parts of our national life to remain governed by the EU even though we are no longer in the EU.

They are in that sense a democratic disaster. There is nothing safe or “pragmatic” in being bound by rules over which we have no say, interpreted by a federalist court .

The Chequers proposals are the worst of both worlds. They are a moral and intellectual humiliation for this country. It is almost incredible that after two years this should be the opening bid of the British government.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

The right solution – a 'SuperCanada' free trade deal
It is all the more incredible when you consider that there has been an alternative solution, waiting to be developed, and which the Prime Minister indeed adumbrated in her earlier speeches, most notably at Lancaster House on 17 January 2017.

Britain should seek the same freedoms and opportunities in its relations with the EU as any other independent and democratic country. That means the right to make our own laws, in the interests of our own economy; the right to control our own trade policy; and the right to represent ourselves again in those international forums where we have increasingly been vacating our place for the EU.

There is nothing extreme about such an ambition. It is the international norm.

Of course we should not forget the reality that we have been EU members for 45 years, and that we are a spiritually and historically European country. The PM is right to say that Britain’s relationship with the EU does not have to be distant, and that it will be sui generis. But it must be one of legal equals.

That is why the heart of the new relationship should not be Chequers, but a free trade agreement at least as deep as the one the EU has recently concluded with Canada.

The outlines of such a deal are clear, and it has the huge advantage – over Chequers – that it is a deal our partners would understand and respect:

• It would be only logical and to be expected that this would involve – as now – zero tariffs and zero quotas on all imports and exports between the UK and the 27.
• In a spirit of trust and common sense we should agree that both UK and EU regulatory bodies are recognised as capable of ensuring conformity of goods with each other’s standards. And it should be easy to draw up Mutual Recognition Agreements covering UK and EU regulations now and in the future – since we all want high standards, and we will all insist on proper protections for consumers.
• As we leave the customs union we should go with the grain of modern technology, bringing forward facilitations that will obviate paperwork and delay in the circulation of goods, above all allowing just-in-time supply chains to continue to operate with ever-growing smoothness and efficiency. There is plenty of evidence from around the world that complex supply chains can operate with high efficiency in spite of customs controls.
• The SuperCanada deal should cover procurement (over and above the provisions of the WTO’s Government Procurement Agreement which the UK is currently seeking to join in its own right) – and allowing the UK to operate a more flexible arrangement than that currently required by the EU’s own procurement rules. It should also include provisions for close collaboration on competition and state aid rules, though these should not go as far as the Chequers proposal that we should enforce the EU rulebook on state aids.
• The deal should include extensive provisions on services, based on the Canada-style negative list approach – in which the assumption is that all service sectors are opened up except those specifically listed. There should be the maximum possible mutual recognition of qualifications.
• A SuperCanada deal will need to include specific provisions on data, where the UK will need recognition as “equivalent” by the EU (as of course we are now), and on aviation, where it should be relatively straightforward – given the vast UK market - to negotiate membership of the EU’s aviation area and to accept appropriate obligations.
• As with any free trade deal between sovereign powers there should be a process for recognising each other’s rules as equivalent, where they are, and a dispute settlement mechanism for managing any regulatory divergence over time. That process of regulatory divergence – one of the key attractions of Brexit – should take place as between legal equals, so that neither side’s institutions have power over the other’s.
• It goes without saying that a SuperCanada deal would also comprise extensive and intimate intergovernmental cooperation between the UK and our EU friends on many other matters of mutual interest: security, counter-terrorism, foreign policy and defence cooperation. These are areas where the UK brings much to the table, and with care they need not involve the legal subjugation, notably to the European Court of Justice, that is so damaging in the economic relationship proposed by Chequers.

The Irish border question
If a Canada or SuperCanada style deal has so much to commend it, then it may be asked why the UK and the EU have not simply agreed it. The answer – so we are constantly told – is that such a deal is impractical because it would impose a new customs border between Northern Ireland and Ireland or somehow be contrary to the Belfast Agreement.

It should be noted first of all that there already is a border. Many rules are different on either side of that border, whether we are talking of currencies, excise duties, VAT, personal taxation, consumer protection, and many others.

In so far as these differences set up opportunities for arbitrage or criminality, those problems are already managed by both jurisdictions – but away from the border.

There is simply no need for a hard border, and that is not just my view, or the view of Shanker Singham, who showed in his excellent Plan A+ paper on Monday how the small amount of trade across this border can be managed in practice. Jon Thompson, the head of HMRC, has been absolutely emphatic that there is no need for any new physical controls of any kind or under any circumstances at the border; a point that has been echoed by the head of the Irish Revenue.

The UK of course accepts that the EU will insist on ensuring the integrity of the Single Market, and that some extra procedures will of course be needed – but to the extent that these are unavoidable, they can be carried out away from the border; as they are, very largely, today. These processes can be strengthened by using the existing trusted trader schemes and by a sensible and pragmatic attitude to very local trade. They would be fully compatible with the Belfast Agreement.

Opponents of Brexit frequently try to paint such arrangements as complicated or highly unusual by international standards. They are not. Indeed it is well known that for a year or so after the referendum the UK and Irish Governments were beginning to negotiate a facilitated border on these lines, until the EU and Ireland changed their approach during 2017.

What is true is that this border will look different to other borders around the world. That is inevitable, given the history and the sensitivities involved. But arrangements that make it work are perfectly possible and practical, and the experience for businesses using the border can be smooth and hassle-free.

Is the EU really so dogmatic about the need for checks to take place at the Irish border – when those checks are simply not necessary - that they would throw away the chance of a giant free trade deal with Britain, in a lost opportunity that would damage Ireland more than any other EU country?

How do we get there now?
After two years of dither and delay the UK finds itself coming up hard against the deadline of March 29 next year, by which we must leave the EU. If we had started off with conviction and confidence we could certainly have negotiated a SuperCanada deal in the time available, but the abortive election and the endless disputations about the Irish backstop mean that we have blown that chance.

It will therefore be necessary to buy some time – at no cost to our ambitions for Brexit, and with no effective delay to independence – by making better use of the otherwise redundant and humiliating “Implementation Period” to the end of 2020. That means that we will need the Withdrawal Agreement, which contains it – but it cannot be the draft Agreement as we currently have it.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Here is what we should do.

• First, chuck Chequers, and stop wasting time on a solution that can never be in the long term interests of this country.
• Then, go back to our EU friends and tell them that the December 8 Irish “backstop” arrangement – which effectively gives Brussels the perpetual right to the economic annexation of Northern Ireland if it deems there is ever any regulatory divergence between NI and the rest of the EU – is no longer operative and no longer acceptable to this country. That means we will need a different Withdrawal Agreement, stating that the Irish border question will be settled as part of the deal on the future economic arrangements, and that both sides are committed to avoiding a hard border. I recognise that this would be a difficult step, given the diplomatic energy squandered on the backstop, but it cannot be acceptable that the constitution of the UK should be held to ransom in this way, or the Belfast Agreement subverted in the manner proposed by the EU.
• We should agree a political declaration by early 2019, in parallel with the Withdrawal Agreement, which sets out the intention of both sides to use the implementation period to negotiate and bring into force a SuperCanada-type free trade agreement. This is a vital part of the package. It makes no sense whatever to embark on a so-called Blind Brexit, whereby we sign a withdrawal agreement, but without specifying (yet again) what kind of future economic relationship we want. There is no way MPs could or should vote to hand over £40bn to the EU without any agreement about the future of the relationship. We would be abandoning our principal leverage in the talks.
• We should follow the logic of our own negotiating position and launch what we should have begun two years ago – practical preparations to operate our own trade and immigration policy and to leave the customs union. That will mean investing in the requisite technology, people and infrastructure, and we should get on with it and stop pussy-footing around. Of course such preparations should also be taking place among the rest of the EU, but we cannot expect them to have any sense of urgency when they see no activity on this side of the Channel.
• We should face the possibility – remote though I believe it to be – that we will not be able to conclude a Withdrawal Agreement and political declaration on this basis in the next few months, or to agree the new SuperCanada FTA by 2020. We need therefore to accelerate the work now belatedly being done across government to prepare for a breakdown in the talks. Rather than peddling endless propaganda about the chaos of “no deal”, the government should learn from the failure of Project Fear. People do not on the whole like to be panicked by their governments. What they want are practical ways sorting out what are – after all – basically banal questions of bureaucratic procedure about which most people have been in ignorance until they were turned into seemingly insuperable and existential challenges to the safety of the nation. Britain seems to trade very smoothly and effectively with countries not in the EU; we used to trade smoothly with France and Germany before we joined the EU. We can easily do so now.
• We should demonstrate that we are not just psychologically reconciled but indeed energised by the prospect of leaving. There could be no more vivid symbol of the ambition of Global Britain than to begin negotiations on Free Trade Agreements as soon as possible after March next year. It is critical that those negotiations are ready to start with a bang in April, and that the UK’s representative at the WTO moves immediately to assert an independent policy for Britain.

It will be objected that this ambitious and self-confident version of Brexit would not carry Parliamentary support. I do not agree. On that argument, there is currently no model of Brexit that could pass the Commons.

It is clear that Labour will be whipped to vote against any agreement that the government produces – whether it is Norway, Canada, Chequers or anything else.

But it is also clear that there is, rightly, far greater Conservative hostility to Chequers than there is to this model – and above all it is this model that commends itself to the voters of this country.

This is not only what they voted for at the referendum. Never forget that BOTH main parties have committed at various times to leave both the customs union and the single market. Chequers makes a mockery of those promises.

That is the consideration that should motivate MPs on either side of the House.

This is what people voted for. It is only by pursuing this plan – or something very like it - that we can really say we are delivering on the mandate of the people.

This Brexit takes back control of our democracy; Chequers – absurdly – abandons control.

This is the time to get it right
It is idle to pretend, finally, that we can go for Chequers now – or indeed any other so-called interim model – and hope to fix it later. It is hard to see why the EU should wish to embark so soon on a fresh negotiation.

And after so long in which the UK public and business have been subjected to such a ghastly roostertail of uncertainty, fear and, let’s face it, grinding tedium, it is hard to see any British PM who would really want to devote yet more government time to this issue.

This is the time to get it right. This is the approach that allows this country really to exploit the opportunities of Brexit, to diverge and legislate effectively for the new technologies and businesses in which the UK has such a lead.

Yes, this is an opportunity for the UK to become more dynamic and more successful, and we should not be shy of saying that – and we should recognise that it is exactly this potential our EU partners seek to constrain.

It is only by following this approach that we will be able once again to be independent economic actors, able to campaign for global free trade that has lifted so many billions out of poverty, and to do free trade deals ourselves.

The world is watching the UK, and it would be fair to say that our audience has been mystified and dismayed. Our partners around the world want us to take advantage of Brexit. They want a UK that is rich and strong and free. They cannot understand why we would want – after Brexit - to stay locked in the orbit of the EU.

This is the moment to change the course of the negotiations and do justice to the ambitions and potential of Brexit.

We have the chance to get it right, and I am afraid that future generations will not lightly forgive us if we fail.

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

Here is what we should do.

• First, chuck Chequers, and stop wasting time on a solution that can never be in the long term interests of this country.
• Then, go back to our EU friends and tell them that the December 8 Irish “backstop” arrangement – which effectively gives Brussels the perpetual right to the economic annexation of Northern Ireland if it deems there is ever any regulatory divergence between NI and the rest of the EU – is no longer operative and no longer acceptable to this country. That means we will need a different Withdrawal Agreement, stating that the Irish border question will be settled as part of the deal on the future economic arrangements, and that both sides are committed to avoiding a hard border. I recognise that this would be a difficult step, given the diplomatic energy squandered on the backstop, but it cannot be acceptable that the constitution of the UK should be held to ransom in this way, or the Belfast Agreement subverted in the manner proposed by the EU.
• We should agree a political declaration by early 2019, in parallel with the Withdrawal Agreement, which sets out the intention of both sides to use the implementation period to negotiate and bring into force a SuperCanada-type free trade agreement. This is a vital part of the package. It makes no sense whatever to embark on a so-called Blind Brexit, whereby we sign a withdrawal agreement, but without specifying (yet again) what kind of future economic relationship we want. There is no way MPs could or should vote to hand over £40bn to the EU without any agreement about the future of the relationship. We would be abandoning our principal leverage in the talks.
• We should follow the logic of our own negotiating position and launch what we should have begun two years ago – practical preparations to operate our own trade and immigration policy and to leave the customs union. That will mean investing in the requisite technology, people and infrastructure, and we should get on with it and stop pussy-footing around. Of course such preparations should also be taking place among the rest of the EU, but we cannot expect them to have any sense of urgency when they see no activity on this side of the Channel.
• We should face the possibility – remote though I believe it to be – that we will not be able to conclude a Withdrawal Agreement and political declaration on this basis in the next few months, or to agree the new SuperCanada FTA by 2020. We need therefore to accelerate the work now belatedly being done across government to prepare for a breakdown in the talks. Rather than peddling endless propaganda about the chaos of “no deal”, the government should learn from the failure of Project Fear. People do not on the whole like to be panicked by their governments. What they want are practical ways sorting out what are – after all – basically banal questions of bureaucratic procedure about which most people have been in ignorance until they were turned into seemingly insuperable and existential challenges to the safety of the nation. Britain seems to trade very smoothly and effectively with countries not in the EU; we used to trade smoothly with France and Germany before we joined the EU. We can easily do so now.
• We should demonstrate that we are not just psychologically reconciled but indeed energised by the prospect of leaving. There could be no more vivid symbol of the ambition of Global Britain than to begin negotiations on Free Trade Agreements as soon as possible after March next year. It is critical that those negotiations are ready to start with a bang in April, and that the UK’s representative at the WTO moves immediately to assert an independent policy for Britain.

It will be objected that this ambitious and self-confident version of Brexit would not carry Parliamentary support. I do not agree. On that argument, there is currently no model of Brexit that could pass the Commons.

It is clear that Labour will be whipped to vote against any agreement that the government produces – whether it is Norway, Canada, Chequers or anything else.

But it is also clear that there is, rightly, far greater Conservative hostility to Chequers than there is to this model – and above all it is this model that commends itself to the voters of this country.

This is not only what they voted for at the referendum. Never forget that BOTH main parties have committed at various times to leave both the customs union and the single market. Chequers makes a mockery of those promises.

That is the consideration that should motivate MPs on either side of the House.

This is what people voted for. It is only by pursuing this plan – or something very like it - that we can really say we are delivering on the mandate of the people.

This Brexit takes back control of our democracy; Chequers – absurdly – abandons control.

This is the time to get it right
It is idle to pretend, finally, that we can go for Chequers now – or indeed any other so-called interim model – and hope to fix it later. It is hard to see why the EU should wish to embark so soon on a fresh negotiation.

And after so long in which the UK public and business have been subjected to such a ghastly roostertail of uncertainty, fear and, let’s face it, grinding tedium, it is hard to see any British PM who would really want to devote yet more government time to this issue.

This is the time to get it right. This is the approach that allows this country really to exploit the opportunities of Brexit, to diverge and legislate effectively for the new technologies and businesses in which the UK has such a lead.

Yes, this is an opportunity for the UK to become more dynamic and more successful, and we should not be shy of saying that – and we should recognise that it is exactly this potential our EU partners seek to constrain.

It is only by following this approach that we will be able once again to be independent economic actors, able to campaign for global free trade that has lifted so many billions out of poverty, and to do free trade deals ourselves.

The world is watching the UK, and it would be fair to say that our audience has been mystified and dismayed. Our partners around the world want us to take advantage of Brexit. They want a UK that is rich and strong and free. They cannot understand why we would want – after Brexit - to stay locked in the orbit of the EU.

This is the moment to change the course of the negotiations and do justice to the ambitions and potential of Brexit.

We have the chance to get it right, and I am afraid that future generations will not lightly forgive us if we fail.

I thought for a confusing minute that you were channelling Johnson. Or perhaps that you are Johnson. And that the prose was remarkably polished for a post on here.

But presumably this is an unacknowledged lift from Johnson, or one of his acolytes. Is it his paywalled bit in the Telegraph? In which case, thanks for sharing it. It's all mendacious gonad*s, obviously, but useful to have it exposed to the daylight.

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

And I should have looked at the preceding page. Doh!

An acknowledged lift, then.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Yes, lifted from the Telegraph - though I hasten to add I certainly didnt pay for it!

If you sign up you get one free article a week, its been useful just to pull Boris' manifesto articles.

I have to admit, he has played it very well on this one. I find a lot of it quite agreeable, clearly it was intended as such...

 

[Grays_1890]

Watching some of the speeches from labour conference and I like Dennis Skinner, funny guy. But his speech about sending Drs home if we leave EU is rubbish, thats not the case at all, the whole point was better control, not the "send them home" which is being spouted by the left.

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

I like Dennis Skinner, funny guy. .

He certainly made me chortle here.

 

[Grays_1890]

I haven't heard a single person from the leave side ever say they want to stop immigration. Just that they want controlled immigration and not an open door policy. Labour feel that they are point scoring by painting anybody associated with brexit as far right fascists. Which just shows how out of touch they are with the concerns of the every day working class person that they claim to represent.

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

I haven't heard a single person from the leave side ever say they want to stop immigration. Just that they want controlled immigration and not an open door policy. Labour feel that they are point scoring by painting anybody associated with brexit as far right fascists. Which just shows how out of touch they are with the concerns of the every day working class person that they claim to represent.

If you don't see anything iffy about that poster, we probably don't have enough common ground to discuss this constructively.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

That poster was extreme, and not - imo - indicative of everyones views on immigration. Rather it was meant to be emotive.

If you want to begin a conversation by putting people in the same box as Farage - maybe you are right on common ground being lacking.

For me it was certainly bad taste.

For me, also, unrestricted immigration is a problem for this country.

And, for me, "control" of immigration does not mean "STOP LETTING PEOPLE IN". It means being more selective on the numbers and type of immigrant we feel works best for us.

And as an aside, it also means treating everyone the same - rather than the preferential treatment of EU citizens/discrimination against the rest of the world.

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

If you want to begin a conversation by putting people in the same box as Farage - maybe you are right on common ground being lacking.
.

No, wouldn't want to do that, but I think Leavers have to acknowledge that there was clear and overt anti-immigrant hostility from prominent campaigners on their side.

I read @Grays_1890 as denying that claim, and dismissing it as point scoring and out of touch.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Campaigners on either side like to go to extremes to illicit response.

I think Grays point was more (and I completely stand to be corrected) that people who supported leave never explicitly wanted immigration to stop, and only ever be able to control it.

Which I agree with entirely.

Of course, there are different flavours of what that looks like, and different motivations but thats the case with everything.

 

[Grays_1890]

If you don't see anything iffy about that poster, we probably don't have enough common ground to discuss this constructively.

Although its an extreme poster to make an extreme point Farage has never said he wants to stop immigration he wanted more control and regardless of what side of the fence you sit on why would you not want that? It does not make you right wing to say you would like more of a handle on how many illegal immigrant we have in the UK which is between 400-800k which in itself by not knowing the figure backs up the point.

As per my orginal point, saying you want control on who and how many come into the UK is not the same as saying to a skilled Dr who is more than likely on a working visa anyway (like 90% of the worlds countries have) Go Home. You can argue like labour have that it is, but thats ignoring what people are actually saying.

I have worked in many countries, many of which have stricter working and immigration rulings than us, just because they have these rules in place did not make me feel any less welcome.

I worked in Canada for a while and they are widely considered one of the most outward thinking and inclusive countries in the world, wanna go there to work you better have a stack of papers to back up your claim and their asylum numbers are totally controlled, they take people in waves which is no different to us, yet the lines being spouted out by Labour is, if you want that you are racist or right wing.

 

[Grays_1890]

I think Grays point was more (and I completely stand to be corrected) that people who supported leave never explicitly wanted immigration to stop, and only ever be able to control it.

Which I agree with entirely.

Exactly that point.

Are you telling me (not you BTW) that remain did not push out extreme and over the top images and propaganda for the good of their campaign? Of course they did.

But even that poster is not saying what people are alluding to, it does not say "stop immigration" the key word is "control" and I don't like Farage.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Exactly that point.

Are you telling me (not you BTW) that remain did not push out extreme and over the top images and propaganda for the good of their campaign? Of course they did.

But even that poster is not saying what people are alluding to, it does not say "stop immigration" the key word is "control" and I don't like Farage.

The image is in bad taste, a queue of refugees (no doubt in serious pain themselves), a line of brown people who were actually nowhere near the UK being depicted as if they were lined up at our gate - the poster has a lot of subtext, and I cant say I like/approve of it.

That said, control is the key term - and while the image is provocative I think the message is fair. There is nothing unreasonable about wanting to control who does/who doesnt come into your country.

Images aside, the messages in the campaign were all in that vein, and I dont recall ever seeing a "Lets stop people coming to the UK", "Lets ban all immigrants".

 

[Grays_1890]

The image is in bad taste, a queue of refugees (no doubt in serious pain themselves), a line of brown people who were actually nowhere near the UK being depicted as if they were lined up at our gate - the poster has a lot of subtext, and I cant say I like/approve of it.

Ohh look I don't approve of the image but as I say people are all to hapy to ignore what comes out of peoples mouths and judge on a photo too often. Farage forever banged the drum on TV saying he wanted control not a ban, people just ignored that and said "look at the NHS buss though" because unfortunately like Labour and their supporters are these days, its easier to ignore what people say and create a label for them.

 

[SpurMeUp]

I like Boris, and he makes a far better case for Brexit than most. But his article is a commentary, not a realistic vision as such. Easy to say things, impossible to deliver them imo. He fails to back up what he says with real measures and real opportunities which makes most of it rhetoric rather than a feasible vision.

Here is what we should do.

• Then, go back to our EU friends and tell them that the December 8 Irish “backstop” arrangement – which effectively gives Brussels the perpetual right to the economic annexation of Northern Ireland if it deems there is ever any regulatory divergence between NI and the rest of the EU – is no longer operative and no longer acceptable to this country. That means we will need a different Withdrawal Agreement, stating that the Irish border question will be settled as part of the deal on the future economic arrangements, and that both sides are committed to avoiding a hard border. I recognise that this would be a difficult step, given the diplomatic energy squandered on the backstop, but it cannot be acceptable that the constitution of the UK should be held to ransom in this way, or the Belfast Agreement subverted in the manner proposed by the EU.

He's stating what he doesn't like. But not putting forward an alternative! Easy to criticise harder to create. And what does he suggest if the EU says, "No, we've already covered Ireland, and the backstop was the solution to the impasse"? Then what?

• We should face the possibility – remote though I believe it to be – that we will not be able to conclude a Withdrawal Agreement and political declaration on this basis in the next few months, or to agree the new SuperCanada FTA by 2020. We need therefore to accelerate the work now belatedly being done across government to prepare for a breakdown in the talks. Rather than peddling endless propaganda about the chaos of “no deal”, the government should learn from the failure of Project Fear. People do not on the whole like to be panicked by their governments. What they want are practical ways sorting out what are – after all – basically banal questions of bureaucratic procedure about which most people have been in ignorance until they were turned into seemingly insuperable and existential challenges to the safety of the nation. Britain seems to trade very smoothly and effectively with countries not in the EU; we used to trade smoothly with France and Germany before we joined the EU. We can easily do so now.

Peoples jobs are not banal or bureaucratic. Losing just car manufacturing from the UK could account for 500,000 to a million jobs. 12% of the UKs export goods are cars, and £3.6 billion a year was invested in R&D into this sector! View the data here: https://www.smmt.co.uk/industry-topics/uk-automotive/

A 10% tariff on cars sent into the EU under WTO (without a free trade agreement) would therefore be catastrophic to this sector. Boris is clever enough to know this. Yet says its "basically banal questions of bureaucratic procedure" showing his bias and willingness to say anything to stake a claim for leadership of the Tories and nation.

If we "trade very smoothly and effectively with countries not in the EU" why are we bothering to leave? He is right, Germany and Italy do it better than us, from within the EU. Why lose all the open EU trade, new satellite programme, pollution controls, phone roaming, free car insurance when moving about, political coordination against state like Russia etc etc etc if we can currently trade fine with rest of the world?

• We should demonstrate that we are not just psychologically reconciled but indeed energised by the prospect of leaving. There could be no more vivid symbol of the ambition of Global Britain than to begin negotiations on Free Trade Agreements as soon as possible after March next year. It is critical that those negotiations are ready to start with a bang in April, and that the UK’s representative at the WTO moves immediately to assert an independent policy for Britain.

It will be objected that this ambitious and self-confident version of Brexit would not carry Parliamentary support. I do not agree. On that argument, there is currently no model of Brexit that could pass the Commons.

This bit tickles me the most. It sounds fabulous! Lets get energised! But what is the "self-confident version of Brexit"??? What does it look like? Is it all guff? Yes it is. How can you talk about "confidence" and belief for years and use emotive Britannia (yes! love it!) but outline zero about what it would look like? All he says is we should get free trade agreements and set British policy (something we do already now most of the time). Re. FTAs they are difficult and take time to get in place, and we have 50m vs 550m consumers to bargain with. Though we would have less diverse concerns than the EU when negotiating, we lose the size of market. But is that it? Is negotiating our own FTAs all we get? We seem to lose a lot more than we gain.

Yes, this is an opportunity for the UK to become more dynamic and more successful, and we should not be shy of saying that – and we should recognise that it is exactly this potential our EU partners seek to constrain.

If you say something enough you end up believing it, even if you are unable to outline how the UK will be "more dynamic and more successful". His pros sound good, are emotive and appeal, but scratch the surface and it falls apart to reveal rhetoric without real substance. Boris is a weapon, but he needs to work with someone like Cameron who was pragmatic to ballance it all out. It is clear he fancies his shot at the top job, regardless of whats best for the nation.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Ohh look I don't approve of the image but as I say people are all to hapy to ignore what comes out of peoples mouths and judge on a photo too often. Farage forever banged the drum on TV saying he wanted control not a ban, people just ignored that and said "look at the NHS buss though" because unfortunately like Labour and their supporters are these days, its easier to ignore what people say and create a label for them.

Why did he use that image? Why did they use the bus - they know that people (like Tories and their supporters) its easier to ignore what people say and create an image for them to vote on.

 

[Grays_1890]

Why did he use that image? Why did they use the bus - they know that people (like Tories and their supporters) its easier to ignore what people say and create an image for them to vote on.

yeh true, but like i say no one wanted an end to immigration just control and even the photo and text, despite how it looks does not say otherwise. Neither does it say like Skinner said that we want to send people home....