Sir Daniel of Dyershire tells the truth....
You must log in or register to see media
Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
According to the Sunday Times Theresa May has suddenly grown a spine and is going to face down the hard line Brexiters in her cabinet and party and go for a soft Norway style Brexit. She reckons she would win a leadership election. At ****ing last, I’ve got to the stage where I couldn’t care less what we do, as long as we do something.
Let's hope she wins out over Rees-Mogg and his ERG loons. Robert Peston seems to think she can.....
This is one of the more important notes I've written recently, because it contains what well-placed sources tell me are the main elements of the Prime Minister's Brexit plan - which will be put to her cabinet for approval on Friday.
I would characterise the kernel of what she wants as the softest possible Brexit, subject to driving only the odd coach over her self-imposed red lines, as opposed to the full coach and horses.
And I will start with my habitual apology: some of what follows is arcane, technical and - yes - a bit boring. But it matters.
Let's start with the PM's putative third way on a customs arrangement with the EU, which has been billed by her Downing Street officials as an almalgam of the best bits of the two precursor plans, the New Customs Partnership (NCP) and Maximum Facilitation (Max Fac).
Last night I described this supposed third way as largely the NCP rebranded - which prompted howls of outrage from one Downing Street official.
But I stand by what I said. Because the new proposal of the PM and her officials, led on this by Olly Robbins, retains the NCP's most controversial element, namely that the UK would at its borders collect duties on imports at the rate of the European Union's common customs tariff.
The UK would in that sense be the EU's tax collector. And although the UK would have the right to negotiate trade agreements with third countries where tariffs could be different from the EU's or zero, companies in the UK importing from those countries would have to claim back the difference from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC), much in the way they currently claim or pay different VAT rates when trading with the EU.
The reason why, from a bureaucratic if not economic viewpoint, the UK would in effect remain in the EU's customs union is that there is no other way of avoiding border checks between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Or at least that is what the PM and her officials now believe.
To be clear, this would be an asymmetric agreement with the EU: Theresa May may ask EU governments to collect customs duties on behalf of the UK from companies based in their respective countries, but she knows they will respond with a decisive no, nay, never.
Which may seem unfair. But actually this would only be a problem if there were an imminent prospect of a future British government wanting to impose higher tariffs than EU ones. And certainly the political climate now - outside of Trumpian America - is for lower tariffs.
Just to be clear, there will be some of Max Fac in this new synthesised customs plan: IT and camera technology employed to reduce the bureaucracy and frictions of cross-border trade.
But the True Brexiters won't be wholly relaxed (ahem) by what they are likely to see as NCP by another name.
And there's more, of course.
Because frictionless trade and an open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic cannot just be achieved by aligning customs collection rates.
It also requires alignment of product standards, for goods and agricultural products.
Or at least that is what the PM will insist on with her Cabinet colleagues.
And that alignment would in effect replicate membership of the single market for goods and agri-foods.
Which would see European standards and law continuing, ad infinitum, to hold sway over British manufacturing and food production - though the ultimate court of appeal in commercial disputes. would, in May's and Robbins's formulation, be an extra-territorial international court, like the European Free Trade Area's EFTA court.
Given that the ECJ would still have a locus below this final adjudicating tribunal, I assume the True Brexiters such as Jacob Rees-Mogg will be unamused.
But maybe they would take comfort that a British parliament could always withdraw from the trading arrangement, if there were concerns that the rest of the EU was discriminating against the UK.
At this juncture you are saying, I am sure, "oi! what about services?" - given that the UK is largely a service economy (80% of our economic output, our GDP, is generated by service businesses).
Well there is an aspiration to maximise access to the EU's giant market for services by aligning professional and quality standards, for example.
But equally there is a pragmatic recognition that maximising such access would require minimising restrictions on EU citizens moving to the UK to live and work; there is a calculation by Robbins and his officials that, among the EU's so-called four freedoms, free movement of services and free movement of people are pragmatically connected.
And since the PM has pledged to impose new controls on the free movement of people from the rest of the EU, she accepts that the EU will insist on some new restrictions on the sale of British services in its marketplace.
But May and her ministers are hopeful there is a deal to be done here, a trade-off: preferential rights offered to EU citizens to live and work in the UK, compared to the rights available to citizens from the rest of the world, for improved market access in Europe for British service companies.
We'll see.
In the round, you may conclude - as I have - that Theresa May wants a future commercial arrangement with the EU that is not as deep and intimate as Norway's, but is not a million miles from Switzerland's.
From which there follow two crucial if obvious questions.
Will the EU - its chief negotiator Michel Barnier and the 27 government heads - bite or balk?
If Barnier's word was gospel on this, the plan would be dead at birth, because it does put a wedge between the four freedoms: May wants complete freedom of movement for goods (and capital), but restrictions on people.
May's bet is that his employers, the 27 prime ministers and presidents, will be less dogmatic.
But what about her own cabinet and parliamentary party?
If they are in the True Brexit camp, like Davis, Johnson, Fox, and Gove, won't they cry "infamy, infamy, etc", threaten resignation and launch a coup to oust the PM?
Well, what the PM will say to them is that her deal, she believes, is the only one around that stands even the faintest chance of being agreed in Brussels (though, to repeat, you would be right to be sceptical of that).
Which carries a momentous implication - namely that if they reject her vision of Brexit, the default option of exiting the EU without a deal would become the sole option.
And although many True Brexiters would say "hip hip for that", if a no-deal Brexit were to become the only game in town, there would be a revolt of MPs and Lords against the executive, against the PM and her government.
Parliament would - almost certainly - reject exiting the EU without a deal and could, probably would, vote for the UK to join the European Economic Area and remain in the EU's single market.
That would, for most True Brexiters, turn the UK into what they call a "vassal state".
So come Friday, Johnson, Davis, Fox and Gove face an agonising choice: agree to a Brexit plan from May which will stick in their craws like a rotting mackerel head; or reject it and take the risk that what follows is almost their worst nightmare, not a clean no-deal Brexit, but the detested "Brino", or Brexit in name only.
Of course there is always a chance that if they shout and scream loudly enough, May will buckle - and will allow the cabinet to agree on obfuscation for the White Paper on her Brexit negotiating position, to be published 12 July, rather than a clear and unambiguous plan to be put to the EU, of the sort I've described.
If that were to happen, her authority would be undermined, perhaps fatally. And the possibility of there being no deal with the EU, on divorce and future relationship, would become a serious, potentially catastrophic probability.
Here's a likely scenario. May puts forward a soft Brexit - and the EU rejects it.
Brussels is determined to punish the UK for keeping its red lines on coming out of the single market, customs union and leaving the jurisdiction of th ECJ. May will propose a contrived alternative but Brussels won't buy it.
What about all that stuff about them needing us more than we need them?
I suppose the one good thing to come out of this whole farce would be the demise of the Tory party.
Because the EU has been pretty clear that there are 3 options:
- no deal
- Norway type deal (Switzerland not liked because of the ongoing argument about free movement)
- a Canadian type ‘simple’ trade deal
May apparently wants something different, between Norway and Canada, despite the fact that Barnier has the full backing of the 27 to stick to this line - they spent a grand total of 10 minutes discussing Brexit once May left the room last week. I don’t buy the ‘punish the UK’ line, I think they are more concerned about the integrity of the EU, which has a shedload of other problems to deal with.
I suppose you could add ‘stay in’ to that list, but I think that would not be the same as staying in on the terms Cameron negotiated, or even keeping the concessions like the rebate that Thatcher negotiated.
It’s time that the government made this very clear - the choice is about honouring the letter of the referendum but conceding that business/economics is the most critical thing and going for a Norway deal, because that’s what business wants, apparently, or honouring what I think the spirit of the referendum was and say we are 100% leaving and will perhaps have a simple trade agreement in the future, but the principle of sovereignty and controlling our own borders will be upheld.
The insane complexity and self contradictions inherent in this were shown today, with Gove’s fishing quota stuff. He’s saying that up to 95% of fish caught in UK waters could be landed by British boats, as opposed to the 45% now. But who is going to invest in getting into the fishing industry, as obviously our current fleet isn’t big enough to catch all these fishes, especially if tariffs are imposed on exporting fish -75% of our current catch is sold to EU countries.
I haven’t thought about this for a bit because nothing seems to have changed and all the discussions are circular, and I wish I hadn’t bothered now.
Last edited:
The punishment argument is persuasive because Brussels is looking at Italy with a new government that is not sympathetic to the EU. Brussels don't want a referendum in Italy because it would probably lose. So an example must be made of the UK by not allowing a tailored deal.
Big business or upholding democracy? Whatever happens, the Tories, indeed Parliament, has to uphold the latter. You cannot run a country where over 50% of the electrate are angry after being cheated by a Brino
[QUOTE="sb_73, post: 11901077, member: 1020406"
..............................The insane complexity and self contradictions inherent in this were shown today, with Gove’s fishing quota stuff. He’s saying that up to 95% of fish caught in UK waters could be landed by British boats, as opposed to the 45% now. But who is going to invest in getting into the fishing industry, as obviously our current fleet isn’t big enough to catch all these fishes, especially if tariffs are imposed on exporting fish -75% of our current catch is sold to EU countries..[/QUOTE]
Gove hasn't thought this through -or perhaps he has and we can add that to the list of lies told by him about paradise after we leave. How exactly do we enforce sovereignty over our territorial waters without asking the taxpayer to pay more so that we can build and arm hundreds of new warships and hundreds of new trawlers to land all that fish. It did sound impressive though so no doubt it will appeal to the believers, patriots and entrepreneurs who think they can make some quick money at our expense.
..............................The insane complexity and self contradictions inherent in this were shown today, with Gove’s fishing quota stuff. He’s saying that up to 95% of fish caught in UK waters could be landed by British boats, as opposed to the 45% now. But who is going to invest in getting into the fishing industry, as obviously our current fleet isn’t big enough to catch all these fishes, especially if tariffs are imposed on exporting fish -75% of our current catch is sold to EU countries..[/QUOTE]
Gove hasn't thought this through -or perhaps he has and we can add that to the list of lies told by him about paradise after we leave. How exactly do we enforce sovereignty over our territorial waters without asking the taxpayer to pay more so that we can build and arm hundreds of new warships and hundreds of new trawlers to land all that fish. It did sound impressive though so no doubt it will appeal to the believers, patriots and entrepreneurs who think they can make some quick money at our expense.
It's no longer over 50% Goldie, if indeed it ever was. Democracy is a process, not an event.
Only the loonies of the ERG and similar nutters could want a no-deal Brexit.
A no-deal situation is the worst possible outcome for this incredibly stupid position we're in.
Whenever people like Boris or Farage chime up with 'better no deal than a bad deal' I pretty much always have to fight my gag reflex. ANY deal, given how we've basically screwed ourselves, would be better than just walking away. Saying otherwise just panders to the Europhobes and the basest of those will always lap up such rhetoric. It's a too-common practice, seen globally. Trump does it in the US all the time. even Kim Jong Un does it - the messages just have to resonate, they don't have to be true.
We NEED a deal. If we're leaving (and I am even more convinced than ever that it's the WRONG thing to do) then get the best possible deal - but get a deal.
Whenever people like Boris or Farage chime up with 'better no deal than a bad deal' I pretty much always have to fight my gag reflex. ANY deal, given how we've basically screwed ourselves, would be better than just walking away. Saying otherwise just panders to the Europhobes and the basest of those will always lap up such rhetoric. It's a too-common practice, seen globally. Trump does it in the US all the time. even Kim Jong Un does it - the messages just have to resonate, they don't have to be true.
We NEED a deal. If we're leaving (and I am even more convinced than ever that it's the WRONG thing to do) then get the best possible deal - but get a deal.
A no deal situation needs to be avoided at all costs because Britain already has preferential trade access to about 50 countries outside of the EU. as a result of it's membership. All of these would be initially lost upon leaving - so it is not a case of Britain suddenly being free to trade freely with the rest of the World, because their first task would be playing catch up.
But at least no deal, probably followed by a Canada type treaty, is honest, transparent and definitive.
It might not turn out too bad, capital tends to find a way of reproducing itself and if there is money to be made in the UK (and there will be, our currency will be lovely and cheap as will labour), economic life will go on.
And if it does go disastrously badly (and there are lots and lots of little seemingly technical things that have an impact on everyday life, not least in technology and medicines), a load of big companies piss off, my pension becomes worthless etc etc, at least we will know what the value of membership is. Then a party can stand for election on a ‘beg them to let us back in’ platform and we will see how bloody minded the British (or let’s face it the English) are.
It all seems like a torturous and inefficient way to sort out an internal Tory Party debate though. Thank you very little David Cameron. I am more worried by the leadership of this country, in or out of the EU, than Brexit itself. The current bunch are proven incompetent, mendacious, fractious, disloyal ****wits. Almost all government time is spent on Brexit, where there is no agreed government policy, nothing else is being done and cash is doled out on a ‘he who shouts loudest’ basis. The Corbyn alternative doesn’t bear thinking about.
Best to ignore it and hope it all goes away.
And there was me thinking that 52% of the electorate voted to leave, Strolls!
I don't think anyone wants a a no-deal Brexit. The problem is, the EU is incredibly inflexible. It was this inflexibility that led to the In/Out Referendum in the first place.
They want the UK to pay £39 billion plus, and be put in a box like Norway. But with the greatest respect to the great country of Norway, we are a bigger economy. Indeed, one of the biggest economies in the world, and the EU is heavily reliant on access to the City of London for financial transactions on the Euro etc
The "Norway deal" will never be acceptable because it's Brino. I anticipate the EU will push us towards a no-deal, by "Non, non, non..." ( and thus give impetus to the ERG), but possibly make concessions at the 11th Hour. Brexit won't be solved until then, so imo we have to prepare for a no-deal
Well...
Well.... no. The referendum happened because Cameron expected another coalition in 2015 and knew this was a big, simple bargaining chip that can be traded for lib dem support again. It also hit the UKIP vote, but that was by the by. He never expected a majority and so was then forced to either break an election promise or hold a referendum he didn't want.
The EU want us to pay what we are obliged to pay under the current agreement, up to and including the ady we leave. Everyone agrees that's fair except those who are looking for another stick to beat the EU with.
The idea that we're so much more important that Norway is a myth. Our economy might be larger, but the thing with the EU is that it's 28 member states with one vote each. You might make that differentiation, but the EU doesn't. Whilst certain countries inside the EU might wield more financial power, it's still one country, one vote. We've said we don't want to be in that group any more, and so we're treated the same as everyone else. And there's a model for non-member trading and customs - Norway. That's where we are headed. and it'll be a far better result than many expect or deserve. Not as good as staying in, of course, but then I'm sure many think I'm a traitor for saying so.
After all - surely you voted for what you thought was the best deal - not the worst? I'm constantly being told that Leave voters knew exactly what they were voting for...
Sure the UKIP vote was relevant for Cameron. They got 4 million votes. He needed something, restrictions on freedom of movement of people to assuage the hostility to EU inflexibility. The EU sent Cameron back with "thin gruel" as it has been called, and the British people voted by a majority to leave. All this stuff by Strolls about rolling democracy is bunkum. We have to leave. The Tories and Labour are right on that. Then if ardent Remainers want to try to rejoin, that's up to them. I'm expecting Strolls to start his campaign next March.
The £39 billion - It's not as simple as that. The sum contains a lot of good will that we get a trade agreement. Otherwise, the EU must prove their case on each element of that sum. And there are any number of arguments by the UK that we contributed to projects in the EU which continue to give benefits to members and which we will now be precluded from. There are strong arguments for UK repayments and set-offs.
What's voting got to do with it? I'm talking about UK buying power from the EU member states, the amount of stuff we buy from them. Their industries that we help support. Any restrictions on free trade would be hugely damaging to them at a very difficult time for the EU. The recent EU talks over immigration solved absolutely nothing. If Brussels sabotages trade with the UK, it's another nail in the coffin of a failing institution.
All gets a tad frustrating for everyone, remainers and leavers alike. I've got one brother who voted to remain, 2 who voted to leave. Nobody knows, including the government what leaving exactly entails yet. Both who voted leave whole heartedly regret their vote. Tough **** hey
There were 4 million UKIP votes after the referendum was in the Tory manifesto in 2015. You can't say that was the reason for the referendum being in their manifesto before any votes were cast.
And the £39 billion is the amount we would have paid up to the leave date - under the legally binding agreement we have with the EU as a member state. There's really nothing to prove that hasn't already been accepted by ministers.
The truth is, we get far better treatment in the EU than most of the other member states. We have a rebate on fees, a legal agreement that we don't need to adopt the Euro, an agreed opt-out of Schengen, restrictions on benefits being paid until migrants have worked for an agreed period, no requirement to pay benefits to non-resident children, and the ability to remove people that come in and then cannot support themselves. We're throwing away a lot of positive, financially and economically beneficial treatment and arrangements, and for what? So that people can have some fancy notion of 'sovereignty', or so that people can point at foreigners with disdain? So that people can be happy that when their house gets repossessed because they lost their job with a company fully dependent on EU trade, at least they can sit in their box and know it was a BRITISH bank that foreclosed?
You must log in or register to see images
The notion that the EU can't go on quite happily without is is crazy. The notion that we can leave with no deal and go on quite happily is as crazy, if not more so.