UK Politics : Groundhog May

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, Nothing Has Changed said:

I don't think so, as you would still need all the regulatory/single market checks to be carried out and they would need infrastructure too. 

Permanent customs union means regulatory alignment, so that would make the checks redundant - if you mean a very close one, that is.

[Chaircat Meow]

Just now, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Permanent customs union means regulatory alignment, so that would make the checks redundant - if you mean a very close one, that is.

Regulatory alignment solely for goods?

Customs union and SM are different things, you can be in one not the other. I would have thought you need both to remove border infrastructure, proof is that the current backstop involves NI being in customs union and SM, and UK staying aligned to the SM (but not in it) to minimise checks. If SM alignment not also necessary why is NI staying in the SM?

 

 

 

[Chaircat Meow]

Also according to the House of Commons Library;

''Trade experts tend to agree that the only known existing option that would guarantee avoiding a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland is for the UK to remain in the Single Market and be in the or a customs union with the EU. This option (‘Norway plus’) has been ruled out repeatedly by the Government as it says it would not respect the referendum result, and it is not clear if Parliament would support it.''

[A Horse Named Stranger]

You are of course right, but the terms have been used so interchangeably in public debate, I assume that was also what mormont meant.

[Chaircat Meow]

1 minute ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

You are of course right, but the terms have been used so interchangeable in public debate, I assume that was also what mormont meant.

The permanent customs union people are not the Norway Plus people. They are very different. Basically, frontbench Labour has no coherent objection to May's deal that is not based on secretly wishing to stop Brexit and/or the deal being a Tory deal. The demand for a permanent customs union is just the cover. Labour's customs union plan is a unicorn too, if you listen to Barry Gardiner. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, Nothing Has Changed said:

The permanent customs union people are not the Norway Plus people. They are very different. Basically, frontbench Labour has no coherent objection to May's deal that is not based on secretly wishing to stop Brexit and/or the deal being a Tory deal. The demand for a permanent customs union is just the cover. Labour's customs union plan is a unicorn too, if you listen to Barry Gardiner. 

How is that relevenat to what I said?

Check the older threads, I'Ve called Labour's A Custom's Union nonsensical numerous times there.

[Chaircat Meow]

Just now, A Horse Named Stranger said:

How is that relevenat to what I said?

Check the older threads, I'Ve called Labour's A Custom's Union nonsensical numerous times there.

I wasn't implying you didn't know that, I just wasn't sure why you assumed mormont took it that permanent customs union was another name for the Norway Plus plan and why you said these ideas were used interchangeably in public debate. As they are not. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just going by newspapers, where the difference between between SM and CU has not always  (if ever) been made. That's why I said in public debate, I just assumed that error has translated into his post (as it had in mine).

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Is a hard Brexit the most likely outcome at this point, given the lack of time? 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Is a hard Brexit the most likely outcome at this point, given the lack of time? 

Not running a bookie shop.

However, I think chances are probably split pretty evenly between no-deal and May getting her deal thru parliament later on (basically her calculus of running the clock down, and then let the clock put enough pressure on MPs at work). Chances for either scenario are around 40% (probably more) in my book. The other candidate is May returns empty handed before parliament (that much is a fairly safe bet), and then MPs will make her valentine's present to remember in the form of a revival of the Cooper and Grieve amendments, or call for a new referendum straight away. The more I think about it, the less likely that looks, a well, basically do the math yourself. 

(1 - (chances for no or delayed Brexit)) / 2 = chances for no deal.

That would be my formula at least. Maybe somebody with a better feel for British politics has a different view on things.

[Nevarfeather]

A delay, a May-deal-fudge or no-deal are all still in play right now. 
Some days one seems more likely than another
Labour making noises about moving towards a May deal yesterday and today again with Corbyn's letter. 

Personally i think it will be a fudged May deal, effectively a blind brexit where the UK has a transition and is then completely rudderless about what it wants for a few more years but at least remains aligned in a transition arrangement giving business and people time to flee. 

Taking Back Control eh. 
 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Meanwhile Ian Dunt has tried to figure out what Labour's Custom Union idea looks like...

And indeed it does involve alignment (and oversight by the same institutions).

Quote

[...]

But Starmer has been saying it with growing frequency. He talked about it throughout 2017 and 2018 and then much more this year.

On January 9th, he said:

"As for a single market deal, my own view is that there are advantages in what we call the Norway model but that there are also disadvantages in that, and therefore it must be possible - again, I have had discussions [with officials in Brussels] - to explore a close economic relationship that keeps alignment, with, of course, oversight and enforcement mechanisms to go with it, but which is not simply the EEA."

This provides some clarity. It suggests we'll keep the same laws as the EU, enforced by the same institutions. That suggests the same courts and agencies. There is no mention of areas we'll carve out - not even on Corbyn's hated state aid rules.

How that is gonna be squared with taking back control over our laws and ending the rule of the ECJ, that will be fun. But then again, those are May's red lines, not Labour's.

Anyway, with regards to Corbyn's having a say over EU trade policies.

Quote

[...]

One key difference from Norway is that it would involve membership of a customs union with the EU. So in this respect it would be closer. Labour accepts this would involve "alignment with the union customs code, a common external tariff and an agreement on commercial policy" but demands that Britain be given a "say" on future EU trade deals.

Quite what a "say" entails is another matter. It would certainly not involve a veto. But the EU has lots of formats in which countries are consulted on things. Norway is consulted on new regulations and then has its civil servants come in and sort out how they'll implement them. That is a "say", albeit not a terribly strong one. It is probable that the officials in Brussels will be envisaging something similar.

That would fly with the EU I think, but I can see the ERG squirming about the UK being a vassal state, without a real say on the rules. The whole Brexiter brigade and their voters will not enjoy this one bit. And cry about it being Brexit in name only. But then again, fuck Mogg, Johnson and those other clowns.

@Nothing Has Changed

So you think this is gonna fly at home (it's your Party's mess in the first place).

 

[Chaircat Meow]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Meanwhile Ian Dunt has tried to figure out what Labour's Custom Union idea looks like...

And indeed it does involve alignment (and oversight by the same institutions).

How that is gonna be squared with taking back control over our laws and ending the rule of the ECJ, that will be fun. But then again, those are May's red lines, not Labour's.

Anyway, with regards to Corbyn's having a say over EU trade policies.

That would fly with the EU I think, but I can see the ERG squirming about the UK being a vassal state, without a real say on the rules. The whole Brexiter brigade and their voters will not enjoy this one bit. And cry about it being Brexit in name only. But then again, fuck Mogg, Johnson and those other clowns.

@Nothing Has Changed

So you think this is gonna fly at home (it's your Party's mess in the first place).



 

I was going to do a post about how the Corbyn letter changed things, and how it does now appear that Labour are gunning for some kind of Norway Plus but you beat me to it (do you live in this thread?). It is still inaccurate to say that's what Corbyn's customs union plan looks like, it's the overall plan that makes it look like Norway Plus (i.e. the other four points), not the customs union bit. It is the SM aspects he's moved on. So, for instance, Brexity-Labour mps like snaggletooth (Flint) could back a customs union plan but probably not this as it is now clear there won't be much if any change to freedom of movement if this plan was adopted. 

The issue is this. There is probably a majority in the HoC for the plan but maybe 30-50% of Tory mps won't back it. Even a permanent customs union is predicted to swell the Tory rebellion. Taking it through would split the Tory party. Moreover, this would represent a total climbdown by May - she would lose all her redlines and would be letting Corbyn dictate Brexit policy. I don't see her being able to sell this as a compromise; it would be a capitulation. So I find it really hard to imagine her doing this. But then I don't know her personally so what I say about she will and won't do doesn't mean much. 

Dunt is one of those remainers who is keen to urge the combability of the Norway Plus plan with the 2nd referendum. Obviously there is a case for a 2nd referendum if Brexit looks like Norway, i.e. Brexit is totally pointless in this case, even from a hardcore Leaver perspective (although they weren't saying this before the referendum started of course). This sounds optimistic to me, the reason to be in favour of Norway is because you don't really want to leave but are too terrified to be seen to want to reverse the 'peoples' will.' Not sure what the point of a Norway plan is if you then want a referendum on top of it. I guess it provides a soft landing if the vote goes wrong, but I think a Norway vs remain referendum would be seen as a kangaroo vote (with some justice).

So I hope this Norway thing dies. 

[Chaircat Meow]

Interestingly the Guardian's Brussel's correspondent thinks the Corbyn plan would not fly with the EU anyway. That sounds a little pessimistic but then it depends what meaning you read into the five demands - there is a fair bit of ambiguity there. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

A few points from Rankin's twitter feed.

1. Say as per Ian Dunt is a word that leaves a lot of room for interpretation, if it's a Norway like say (We tell you our concern, include them in the trade talks, please.) that looks unproblematic. A veto or sitting at the negotiation table is not gonna happen (the EU's reading according to Rankin).

2. Shared institutions is also a question what ti means. Dunt's interpretation is basically observer status for most parts (at least that's how I understood it), which looks also unproblematic. If it's some rehashed chequers zombie, then it's a different story obviously.

3. State aid. THe stuff Corbyn wants to do are allowed under EU law anyway. Just that nobody ever bothered to tell Jeremy that bit. So that needs clarification on Corbyn's part (has anybody mentioned he is an idiot), but should be  less problematic in practice at least imho.

4. Participation in EU programmes, again, depends on what Labour wants. If it's just participation without actually wanting to have an influence, that can be arranged (check institutions bit)

5. Security cooperation, also looks relatively unproblematic on first sight.

[Chaircat Meow]

23 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

A few points from Rankin's twitter feed.

1. Say as per Ian Dunt is a word that leaves a lot of room for interpretation, if it's a Norway like say (We tell you our concern, include them in the trade talks, please.) that looks unproblematic. A veto or sitting at the negotiation table is not gonna happen (the EU's reading according to Rankin).

2. Shared institutions is also a question what ti means. Dunt's interpretation is basically observer status for most parts (at least that's how I understood it), which looks also unproblematic. If it's some rehashed chequers zombie, then it's a different story obviously.

3. State aid. THe stuff Corbyn wants to do are allowed under EU law anyway. Just that nobody ever bothered to tell Jeremy that bit. So that needs clarification on Corbyn's part (has anybody mentioned he is an idiot), but should be  less problematic in practice at least imho.

4. Participation in EU programmes, again, depends on what Labour wants. If it's just participation without actually wanting to have an influence, that can be arranged (check institutions bit)

5. Security cooperation, also looks relatively unproblematic on first sight.

It is of course possible than Dunt and I overreacted to the Corbyn letter and that it says little that is new, the permanent customs union remaining the only solid demand and the rest being vague and ambiguous. Dunt uses Starmer's utterances to fill in the detail but that's not a brilliant idea, Corbyn and Starmer may not be on the same page. 

If you come out of the detail, and just look at the positioning/mood music Nothing Has Changed, still the same jobs first, softer Brexit May likely can't support without breaking her party in half. 

[Chaircat Meow]

O, I almost forgot to post this:

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 41% (+2)

LAB: 34% (-)

LDEM: 10% (-1)

GRN: 4% (-)

UKIP: 4% (-2)

via @YouGov, 03 - 04 Feb CHgs. w/ 14 Jan

My sides.

This is a Tory government that would prioritize medicine over food.

Backs up that crazy Opinium poll I posted a few days ago. (granted an Ipsos Mori from the same time has them level pegging)

Everyone who is a genuine democrat and constitutionalist has at some point to admit the other party should be in power, even if only for a brief time. One party rule is not good, even if it is your party. I am at the stage now where if Blair was still Labour leader I would be voting Labour just this once. So although I am pleased the public seem to be seeing through Corbyn and his gang of worthless trash I take no real pleasure in the weakness of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

[Werthead]

On 2/6/2019 at 10:46 PM, Tywin et al. said:

Is a hard Brexit the most likely outcome at this point, given the lack of time? 

A hard Brexit - meaning a no-deal Brexit - is now much more likely than it was a few weeks ago, and I would say is now the most likely outcome. At the same time, an extension to Article 50 (at least a 3-month one until the summer) has also gained a lot of ground and support, with even JRM suggesting it may be a good idea, so that may also be on the table.

The support for a second referendum/People's Vote seems to have stalled, mainly due to Corbyn's intransigence on the issue making it unfeasible despite it being the preference of the overwhelming majority of the Labour Party membership. With Corbyn refusing to back a second referendum in the wake of the deal being shot down, it now appears impossible for it to happen barring a change in Labour leadership.

With the EU not budging on the backstop the other possibility, of May negotiating a new deal which commands a majority, now appears to be dead in the water as well.

It is now officially coming down to the wire.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

@Werthead

You think no-deal is more likely than MPs cracking under the pressure of the clock?

Anyway...

Kenneth Clarke: "We can't carry on being so insane" (Spiegel Interview) - I think he is wrong on that, yes you can, more likely you will.

 

 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

At the same time, an extension to Article 50 (at least a 3-month one until the summer) has also gained a lot of ground and support, with even JRM suggesting it may be a good idea, so that may also be on the table.

Sounds like the US Congress should pass the Article 50 extension and Parliament can pass a clean CR for us.  That way at least each legislator will be kicking the can down the road in new ways.