Jump to content

UK politics: The tale of an old (Ber)crow who flew down from the cuckoo's nest...


A Horse Named Stranger

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Nevarfeather said:

Well other EU nations can keep all their trade deals and regulatory alignment and frictionless movement so don't have as much to prepare as the UK who will lose all that I guess. 

Nope. The EU is advanced with its planing, but it's not 100% prepared. The impact and concrete planning differs a bit. Some countries are more affected by it than others. The most affected being obviously Ireland. Then follow the Netherlands (Rotterdam in particular), France (Calais), Belgium, the Scandinavian countries (not sure where the ferries depart there), Spain and Portugal; basically the countries at the Atlantic coast. The unilateral EU no-deal policy paper published in december seeks to minimize the disruption for EU members and is effectively giving them till the end of the year get up to speed, while keeping the UK on some sort of life support (and to effectively drive out investment from the UK and give business the opportunity to move to the continent or Ireland).

As @mormont said, the phrase managed no-deal, is just a euphemism designed to take the horror out of no-deal scenarios and to give the pretense the UK was somewhat in charge of (or managing if you will) things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vince Cable made a shrewd move today, by saying that the Lib Dems will not support any future no confidence votes unless Corbyn commits to a second referendum. The Lib Dems only have 12 MPs, but that's enough to sway the arithmetic even if a dozen Tory MPs later rebelled against the government (which still seems unlikely).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Werthead said:

Yes, the numbers are there if Labour are whipped to support a second referendum and they all complied (they'd probably lose 4-6 which could be a problem) and if more than a dozen (might be closer to 20, I really can't be arsed to look it up, but it's in that ballpark) Tories voted to support it.

The problem right now is that it isn't Labour policy, so even if a random MP did try to float it, it would likely fail on the number of tow-the-line and Brexit-constituency Labour MPs who'd vote with the leadership (presumably) against it.

It’s funny really given how Corbyn is so Euroskeptic and May isn’t.

The number of strongly pro remain Tories is only 20 ish?, ok I admit I’ve not read up on it a great deal but I always thought it was far higher?, or is it more a case of only 20 or so are willing to defy the party line?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Nevarfeather yes, we can agree on that managed no deal being nonsense. We are not in agreement about how prepared the EU27 states are, and how much work there actually is. There's still a lot of work to be done there.

8 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Vince Cable made a shrewd move today, by saying that the Lib Dems will not support any future no confidence votes unless Corbyn commits to a second referendum. The Lib Dems only have 12 MPs, but that's enough to sway the arithmetic even if a dozen Tory MPs later rebelled against the government (which still seems unlikely).

Vince is a Blairite. Isn't he? No, seriously, it is a shrewd move to those who don't believe in Corbyn. For his true believers, well, they will spin it as in he is pushing the UK towards no deal by refusing to oust the goverment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Bittersweet Distractor said:

It’s funny really given how Corbyn is so Euroskeptic and May isn’t.

The number of strongly pro remain Tories is only 20 ish?, ok I admit I’ve not read up on it a great deal but I always thought it was far higher?, or is it more a case of only 20 or so are willing to defy the party line?.

Depends what strongly pro-Remain Tory means.

If strongly pro-remain Tories = Tories who support a 2nd referendum at the moment I think it is about 7 or so declared; Soubry, Grieve, Johnson, Gyimah, Allen, Wollaston and Lee. 

Obviously there are lots of strongly remain Tories supporting May's deal, in the sense they are/were strongly pro-EU, i.e. Clarke or Soames. Hard to see these supporting a 2nd referendum at the moment. And then there are the Norway crew, Morgan, Boles who might be a bit more likely to support a 2nd referendum if Norway got sunk. 

In 2016 (so last Parliament) about 180 Tory MPs voted Remain and 135 voted Leave. So, unless the ratio has changed, more Tory MPs are pro-Remain than pro-Leave in the very broad sense of it having been their original preference. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In asking for 'No Deal to be taken off the table', what Corbyn - and the SNP, and others - are asking the government to do is commit to measures that would prevent No Deal kicking in automatically. This is perfectly reasonable and makes complete sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mormont said:

In asking for 'No Deal to be taken off the table', what Corbyn - and the SNP, and others - are asking the government to do is commit to measures that would prevent No Deal kicking in automatically. This is perfectly reasonable and makes complete sense to me.

That's wonderful for you.

Can you explain how you stop no-deal kicking in automatically when the clock runs out unless we revoke article.50?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mormont said:

In asking for 'No Deal to be taken off the table', what Corbyn - and the SNP, and others - are asking the government to do is commit to measures that would prevent No Deal kicking in automatically. This is perfectly reasonable and makes complete sense to me.

I am just curious, what those measure might be. The WA (particularly the backstop) won't be touched by the EU. A second referendum won't really rule it out either (it's worth reminding people from time to time that a remain win, is not a given).

Revoking article 50 is problematic (I think this really has to get back to the public for reason of democratic legitimacy).

A new deal with a customs union? That's not really what the WA agreement is about, that's the second bit the future relationship, which is worded vaguely to leave a lot of scenarios open, including the customs union, but that can only be negotiated after the WA gets passed, This feels a bit like watching a cat (or a dog) chasing its own tail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

That's wonderful for you.

Can you explain how you stop no-deal kicking in automatically when the clock runs out unless we revoke article.50?

You understand you're just going over the same ground I was already responding to? And that this has been discussed widely in the press and indeed in that Twitter thread, so I'm not confident that if you don't read it elsewhere, you'll read it here.

But sure. OK. What Corbyn is asking, specifically, is for the PM to actually commit to a real consultation (as she should have done in 2017) rather than a cosmetic one where she insists the end result must be a deal substantially similar to the one just rejected. To ask for more time from the EU if necessary, and to stop using the threat of No Deal as her one and only tool to get her own deal through. I don't doubt that the EU will grant more time if there is a realistic prospect of a deal that will carry majority support, or a second referendum, or even an election. But May is ruling all of those out. No Deal is the only thing she won't rule out.

The smarter play for Corbyn is to attend the talks and still insist that No Deal must be ruled out, rather than setting it as a precondition for talks. But still, it is not unreasonable to ask that the government rule out No Deal. Unless, of course, you're a Brexiter and fear that doing so would risk there being No Brexit at all. Hey, that sounds familiar. Oh yeah: it's Theresa May's entire strategy for resurrecting her deal by corralling the hard Brexiteers and ignoring everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, mormont said:

You understand you're just going over the same ground I was already responding to? And that this has been discussed widely in the press and indeed in that Twitter thread, so I'm not confident that if you don't read it elsewhere, you'll read it here.

But sure. OK. What Corbyn is asking, specifically, is for the PM to actually commit to a real consultation (as she should have done in 2017) rather than a cosmetic one where she insists the end result must be a deal substantially similar to the one just rejected. To ask for more time from the EU if necessary, and to stop using the threat of No Deal as her one and only tool to get her own deal through. I don't doubt that the EU will grant more time if there is a realistic prospect of a deal that will carry majority support, or a second referendum, or even an election. But May is ruling all of those out. No Deal is the only thing she won't rule out. 

The smarter play for Corbyn is to attend the talks and still insist that No Deal must be ruled out, rather than setting it as a precondition for talks. But still, it is not unreasonable to ask that the government rule out No Deal. Unless, of course, you're a Brexiter and fear that doing so would risk there being No Brexit at all. Hey, that sounds familiar. Oh yeah: it's Theresa May's entire strategy for resurrecting her deal by corralling the hard Brexiteers and ignoring everyone else.

He's asking for something not in the power of a British PM to grant. She can't rule out no-deal without revoking article 50. An extension to article 50 is not in her power to grant, it must be agreed by the EU27. And that only delays no-deal; it doesn't take it off the table. This is basic stuff. 

If the argument is May is not serious about coming to a new position Corbyn could support, and so he won't engage, that's a different matter but is not what he is saying. 

It is not really clear Corbyn will be asking for more than cosmetic changes either, as the backstop is a permanent customs union until the Irish border is settled. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

It is not really clear Corbyn will be asking for more than cosmetic changes either, as the backstop is a permanent customs union until the Irish border is settled. 

Not necessarily for the UK in its entirety. The next goverment might not need the DUP to be propped up, and decide to let NI stay in the singlemarket, while mainland Britain is off to a CETA like deal. Thus hardening the border in the Irish sea. And the CU in the backstop is not really the same one Norway enjoys, it's more like Turkey. So, I presume when people talk about a customs union, they have a closer one in mind, then what May negotiated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Not necessarily for the UK in its entirety. The next goverment might not need the DUP to be propped up, and decide to let NI stay in the singlemarket, while mainland Britain is off to a CETA like deal. Thus hardening the border in the Irish sea. And the CU in the backstop is not really the same one Norway enjoys, it's more like Turkey. So, I presume when people talk about a customs union, they have a closer one in mind, then what May negotiated.

Positing that Corbyn actually has something in mind other than dead flies is a stretch. If you listen to Barry Gardiner Labour's actual custom union plan, where the UK has co-decision making with the EU, it will never fly. In any case, the details of a permanent customs union that isn't the backstop can't actually be negotiated now, so whining about it is just Labour stringing everyone along. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

She can't rule out no-deal without revoking article 50. An extension to article 50 is not in her power to grant, it must be agreed by the EU27.

The EU is on the record as saying they will accept an extension to article 50.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, A wilding said:

The EU is on the record as saying they will accept an extension to article 50.

It is, but that's another two months tops for the UK to get its act together (assuming it's not another referendum or a GE with a Labour lead by Chuka Umunna campaigning heavily on remain).

It does not have to be Chuka, but it really has to be on a remain platform otherwise a GE is just pointless. I mean what'S the point in killing a red unicorn after a blue one?

Otherwise it's really till the end of May, EU parliament elections at most. And if the UK has not sorted its act out, then what?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

It is, but that's another two months tops for the UK to get its act together (assuming it's not another referendum or a GE with a Labour lead by Chuka Umunna campaigning heavily on remain).

It does not have to be Chuka, but it really has to be on a remain platform otherwise a GE is just pointless. I mean what'S the point in killing a red unicorn after a blue one?



Otherwise it's really till the end of May, EU parliament elections at most. And if the UK has not sorted its act out, then what?

 

Eh, the things I am hearing it is more up in the air than that. An extension to early 2020 could be agreed even if the UK fails to come up with a coherent plan (likely). It has not been decided yet, European Council might say Yay or Nay. A no-deal Brexit is not in the interests of the EU27, regardless of the fact it would cause more damage to the UK than them. 

Obviously, even this could not rule out no-deal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...