blandy

Should I stay or should I go now - U.K. in/out of the EU (contd.)

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Is this in reference to a Labour MP having to delay having a cesarean because Tories can't be trusted to follow pairing rules? 

I think it was more to do with the post-May waffle points of order about the 'coup' stuff from yesterday's Sunday Times (?) but I imagine that some of the remarks related to that, too, as well as the other recent actions of the Government and its acolytes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we’ve all been waiting for the plot twist haven’t we, I mean, it’s looked destined for the shit bin for weeks but we knew it wasn’t going to fail so obviously... was it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bickster said:

Benn amendment pulled

That's a good thing apparently isn't it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ml1dch said:

That's a good thing apparently isn't it?

Timing wise I think so. The ERG were threatening to vote with May if the amendment wasn’t pulled.

In other news Corbyn aides attempt to further distance him from a PV (not his preferred option) and claim “you can't keep going back to the membership over every little issue”, his cult will continue to back him but it'll sure annoy the rest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ml1dch said:

That's a good thing apparently isn't it?

should be, sounds like some of the MPs who are in the "May's deal is better than no deal" camp will now vote no to May's deal too, should make the defeat even worse

Benn is going to campaign for a separate no no deal vote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They've stopped making sense. Michael Gove:

'I think the whole point about the backstop is that it’s deeply uncomfortable for the EU.

If it is a trap for anyone, it’s a trap for the EU. Why? Because the European Union said at the very beginning of this process that there would be no cherry-picking, the four freedoms of the single market were indivisible.

But we have picked a whole bowl of glistening cherries, we have free access to the European market with no tariffs and no quotas but at the same time we say that European citizens have no freedom of movement.

We don’t pay a penny for that access, if we are worried about money after we leave and when we are in the backstop, and at the same time we can say to European nations, ‘Do you know what? Access to our territorial waters for fishing, access to our exclusive economic zone, forget about it’.

We are in a stronger position in the backstop.'

So . . . why shouldn't we be in the backstop permanently then? How has nobody realised it's the perfect situation?

David Mundell:

'My feeling now is that there’s a significant number of MPs who feel that they need to - in this initial vote - vote against the deal.

I think that everybody has to reflect on the outcome of the vote.

I’ve said before, and I’m still very clear, that the obvious option following this vote - if it wasn’t to go through - is to revisit the vote.

I don’t want to see a situation where there are repeat votes.'

So . . . you don't want a situation where there are repeat votes, but you want a repeat vote?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

They've stopped making sense. Michael Gove:

'I think the whole point about the backstop is that it’s deeply uncomfortable for the EU.

If it is a trap for anyone, it’s a trap for the EU. Why? Because the European Union said at the very beginning of this process that there would be no cherry-picking, the four freedoms of the single market were indivisible.

But we have picked a whole bowl of glistening cherries, we have free access to the European market with no tariffs and no quotas but at the same time we say that European citizens have no freedom of movement.

We don’t pay a penny for that access, if we are worried about money after we leave and when we are in the backstop, and at the same time we can say to European nations, ‘Do you know what? Access to our territorial waters for fishing, access to our exclusive economic zone, forget about it’.

We are in a stronger position in the backstop.'

So . . . why shouldn't we be in the backstop permanently then? How has nobody realised it's the perfect situation?

To be fair, Gove isn't completely wrong. Mostly, but not completely. 

It was a pretty massive concession from the EU side, one that plenty of EU countries think gives us too much and one that could create a pretty uncomfortable legal precedent for the Commission.

The deal is still an abomination, and the conclusion you draw shows his individual hypocrisy very nicely - but he's broadly correct in that it concedes a lot of stuff that the Commission would have claimed was off the table two years ago.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

The deal is still an abomination

In which way? (I'm not trying to be clever btw, genuinely interested as to me it seems alright considering where we are).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Genie said:

In which way? (I'm not trying to be clever btw, genuinely interested as to me it seems alright considering where we are).

It keeps us tied in perpetuity to rules and regulations on tariffs and goods standards we'll have no say at all in making, made by those who might not have our best interests at heart anymore. If the backstop comes into force it'll essentially mean a part of the country has been economically annexed. We'll be paying £39 billion for no other reason than to enter "best endeavours" trade discussions. We'll potentially be unable to conduct an independant trade policy as we'll be tied to the aforementioned rules on standards and tariffs.

Democratically-speaking it's awful. All the arguments from the (in my opinion) sensible non-racist Brexiteers about the whole thing being about "sovereignty of our parliament" will be completely bogus as we'll be less sovereign under this agreement. 

Edit: In defence of the agreement it probably will stave off economic armageddon, but imo the price is too high and it's a million times worse than the current arrangement.

Edited by desensitized43
Addition
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

We'll be paying £39 billion for no other reason than to enter "best endeavours" trade discussions.

The financial settlement isn't a price for future talks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

They've stopped making sense.

 

They never did, its just they hid it well before but the cracks are beginning to look fault like

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

All the arguments from the (in my opinion) sensible non-racist Brexiteers

I was unaware VT acknowledged such people existed  :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

It keeps us tied in perpetuity to rules and regulations on tariffs and goods standards we'll have no say at all in making, made by those who might not have our best interests at heart anymore. If the backstop comes into force it'll essentially mean a part of the country has been economically annexed. We'll be paying £39 billion for no other reason than to enter "best endeavours" trade discussions. We'll potentially be unable to conduct an independant trade policy as we'll be tied to the aforementioned rules on standards and tariffs.

Democratically-speaking it's awful. All the arguments from the (in my opinion) sensible non-racist Brexiteers about the whole thing being about "sovereignty of our parliament" will be completely bogus as we'll be less sovereign under this agreement. 

Edit: In defence of the agreement it probably will stave off economic armageddon, but imo the price is too high and it's a million times worse than the current arrangement.

Thanks for that.

I think the last line is telling, whatever we do will be worse than the current arrangement. Are MP's holding off approving TM's deal because they are pushing for no Brexit at all, is that their end game?

If its because its not as good as today then they'll never be happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

They've stopped making sense

Slippery people - making flippy floppy statements. It just needs some psycho killer to start burning down the house, so we can avoid all this "life during wartime" was Heaven stuff.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Genie said:

Are MP's holding off approving TM's deal because they are pushing for no Brexit at all, is that their end game?

Some may be but the reactions to it and the reasons for people supporting it are extremely varied (as are the reasons for people not supporting it)

We do also have to remember that what they're voting about is the Withdrawal Agreement and the political declaration about the future relationship.

May's negotiated exit deal is not the future relationship between the UK and the EU. Notwithstanding the backstop, it is a time-limited, temporary state of affairs.

One of the problems with the WA (and any WA) is that very little of the stuff about the EU would go away even if it were agreed to. There would still be repeated discussions about the future relationship from 30th March onwards until the WA period ended and we'd still probably be looking at some sort of cliff edge in 2021.

Edit: I guess that should be the end of 2020 onwards (depending upon any extension to the WA period or any kicking in of the backstop).

Edited by snowychap
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

 

In the light of the Germans querying his reporting of the May/Merkel 'phone call then I'm not sure just how much weight we ought to attach to a Mr Dunn 'I hear' but it does sound pretty much in character.

Referring back to comments made the other week by Peston about May not giving out any info even to members of the cabinet about a plan B, if the above is true then it was not a case of keeping her cards close to her chest but just not having any other plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Genie said:

Thanks for that.

I think the last line is telling, whatever we do will be worse than the current arrangement. Are MP's holding off approving TM's deal because they are pushing for no Brexit at all, is that their end game?

If its because its not as good as today then they'll never be happy.

There's a multitude of different reasons why some of them don't like it. Some of them want to stay in, some of them want to have another vote, some of them want to force a no deal scenario, the DUP want to take out the bits about the backstop and the irish border, some of them want a deal but with a closer relationship, some of them want a deal but with a less close relationship, some of them want to force a general election, some of them don't like that NI is being treated differently to their part of the UK.

When you list all the different view/factions/agenda's it becomes quite easy to see why May was always onto a fools errand and Cameron decided to ride off into the sunset.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Genie said:

In which way? (I'm not trying to be clever btw, genuinely interested as to me it seems alright considering where we are).

Plenty of ways. 

It removes the rights of British people. Some people will dress this up as a positive. Those people are idiots.

It will see harmonisation on tariffs, but without the benefit that we currently get.

When people were mooting existing trade models from Norway to Canada, nobody suggested Turkey as a sensible model to follow. Because it's terrible. Yet it's where we are set to end up.

So let's say the EU signs a free trade deal with Indonesia. We have harmonised our tariffs with the EU, meaning Indonesian businesses now have access to the UK market. When Liam Fox toddles off to Jakarta to open trade talks, what is he now offering to persuade them to open their markets to us? They have what they need from us by virtue of our tariff harmonisation with the EU.

We will be outside the regulation and enforcement structures, so while we still not be able to liberalise on standards to gain access to other markets, our exports will still be subject to regulatory checks making exports even less competitive and harming the effectiveness of supply chains.

It puts Northern Ireland in a situation where they are legally obligated to accept laws and regulations in which they have had no say. There is no legal way for Northern Ireland to refuse, or overturn rules which will be implemented automatically. Great Britain will just accept them anyway, but at least Parliament could reject them if they wanted. Northern Ireland will have no mechanism to reject and no political representation at Parliamentary, Council or Commission level. 

Probably worst of all, it still doesn't actually provide any clarity. Pretty much any option is still on the table in the political declaration, as it probably will be forever as no consensus will be reached.

To return the question, what do you consider the good bits compared to where we are now?

Edited by ml1dch
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites