ml1dch

Yes and no. You're right about what the issue is, but maybe not on the ultimate consequence of that issue. When every item in every package on every lorry needs to be checked for customs and quality, what's more likely than huge queues of lorries is far fewer lorries. It'll stop being as commercially viable. If you were a buyer in Germany or Denmark needing a shipment urgently at the start of April, would you risk buying from the UK? If were a UK exporter, would you risk sending the shipment without a guarantee that it would arrive on time? If you were the haulier, would you risk accepting the job? Haulage then works with the loads being emptied on one side, refilled and brought back to source to be unloaded so fewer lorries going means fewer to come back. The queues will be on the French / Dutch / Belgian side - if the Government wants to throw the border open and let every package through, that's in their gift to give. Hugely irresponsible (and a probable risk to public health), sure - but that's not stopped them with this whole policy up to now. So they send empty lorries on empty ferries, load them up and send them straight back, Berlin airlift-style. It makes sure those vegetables and medicines still arrive, if they can't rely on the commercial sector to make it happen. Utterly humiliating for everyone involved and an enormous cost to the taxpayer, but it should broadly serve the purpose that it's supposed to.

This is being done through the Chris Grayling-led Department of Transport, isn't it? I'm sure it'll all be just fine.

Savile. Mugabe. Goodwin. Redwood.

While we're war-gaming, I'll throw one out there. I think that if this is going to be stopped, Labour won't be the ones to initiate anything, and it would rely on some Conservative MPs sacrificing their careers in the national interest. So even before I start it's clearly a long-shot. A few (and it only needs to be a few) Tory MPs of the Greening / Boles variety go to Labour and say that they will support a no-confidence motion and allow Corbyn to form a minority Government, on the proviso that he cancels the article 50 notification. Once that happens, their support ends - meaning that the election that he wants will then happen. Those Tory MPs having resigned the whip basically give up their political careers, but know that they did so in saving their country from ruin (in the immediate term at least, obviously everything is f***** in the medium term whatever happens) If it needed 20 of them, it would be clearly a non-starter. But five or six... Thoroughly unlikely, I accept. And we'd have to be getting well into March before the desperation set in enough. But I'm yet to see any version of the next three months that I'd describe as likely. So it'll do until the mess gets here.

Absolutely. Which is why the Governments of all 28 countries, plus the Commission have all agreed a withdrawal treaty to mitigate those problems. Or at the very least, turn them into tomorrow's problems. The UK Parliament deciding it doesn't want to pass it is not a trigger for "ok, let's talk about it a bit more". It's a trigger for stepping back to avoid the worst effects of the nervous breakdown their neighbour is going through. The withdrawal agreement is what it is. It is accepted by Parliament. Or somehow we don't leave. Or we step off the cliff. There isn't an option four anymore. Any of those three choices can be done by March, apart from the hypothetical referendum needed for not leaving. So there is no reason to extend in any other circumstances.

That's quite the blanket statement you've got going on there. Which part of an extension is in their interest? What are they extending it for?

Immigration is a shared competence - things like access to social services and registration systems are under the control of member states, not the Commission. Could they do or say a bit more? Probably. Can they unilaterally say "nothing changes for British people across the EU?" Only if we're comfortable with the Commission deciding third-country immigration policy for 27 independent countries.

The long and the short of it is that they are generally prepared to be accommodating to things that have a benefit for them. So a referendum between the agreed deal and staying? Fine, they'll make time. Between the agreed deal and the crash-out favoured by idiots? No chance, what's in it for them? A general election with two sides arguing which of their fantasy renegotiations would be better? Nope. A general election with one manifesto clearly backing the withdrawal agreement and the other clearly backing remain? They'll do what they can to make it work. The current Labour position of "we want an election to be in power to go back and renegotiate the withdrawal agreement" - not a hope in hell they'll extend anything. (I think this is broadly in line with what you've been saying)

Cool, well there's probably plenty of time to play the long game. No rush to start on plan A. Maybe pencil it in for some time next summer.

Should they not be united behind the party policy agreed at conference, that they should attempt to force a general election, and if that fails then they should be attempting to force a new referendum?

Well that's a bit unfortunate, given that Parliamentary maths means that isn't going to change in the foreseeable future. So in the meantime, they just indulge in irrelevant House of Commons ephemera like today and hang around until 2022?

The DUP have said they will back a no-confidence motion if May's withdrawal agreement passes through the Commons. If it doesn't pass, they are happy to continue to support the Government. Unless Labour change position to back the deal, the confidence motion isn't passing. So they can either mess around with frivolous threats like today, or come up with a different plan. Or just wait until 2022.

It's all a bit gimmicky. It's not a no-confidence motion in the Government, just in her. Which if it passes means pretty much nothing. It's more of Labour trying to pretend they are doing something without actually doing it. If they had the courage of their convictions they would call the motion against the Government. She's since said that the vote will be in the week starting January 14th, so they don't have to do their little motion.

Well, she's never made any clear decision about anything on this topic up to now, so it would be a bit odd if in a conversation with Juncker is the single time that bucks the trend. It's a bit like saying that it's conjecture to say that Neil Taylor is a rubbish left-back, because none of us know for certain that he doesn't play like Paolo Maldini in training.

Probably one of the only things she could do to improve her standing amongst the Parliamentary Conservative party.

The David Moyes era Manchester United. The last couple of years have been our "losing 2-1 at home to West Brom" moment.

Anyone not familiar with Dmitry Grozoubinski, I'd highly recommend his writings on trade. His latest on the unutterably stupid "World Trade Deal" stuff is a good read. Extract from longer article. https://www.explaintrade.com/blogs/2018/12/11/world-trade-deal His four earlier articles are good as well.

Someone who turned the TV on and saw the pictures and the breaking news bar would have thought that politics had changed pretty dramatically overnight.

I'd bet a lot of money that he is whatever you'd call a person whose position is "please shut up and stop asking me about common commercial tariffs and rules of origin requirements, I want to talk about Palestine and the Rohingya and I genuinely don't give a toss".

Personally, I'm astonished that these people just blundered into something, thinking that they knew precisely how it all worked only to understand late in the day that they actually knew bugger all. Who could have foreseen that?

A possible egg-on-face, prediction, but I reckon this might be a lot closer that it currently seems. What the likes of dozens of MPs say on Twitter isn't necessarily the way they might vote in a completely anonymous ballot. She'll stay in though - just not on a comfortable margin.

Sweepstake? I reckon something like 120 go, 195 stay.

Probably. So just think how inconvenient it would be for all parties if a referendum result had just mandated the Government to not put any new trading relationship in place.

HIGNFY have put together a handy "what happens next" guide: