Yes I think Tories go with something like "managed no deal"Yes , even the parties themselves are so divided and even the ERG is now divided.
I was wondering what both parties would propose for Brexit in their manifesto.
The Tories would surely go for a hard brexit.
Labour would probably faff about with Corbyn's idea which is a no goer and neither remainers or leavers would support it so a clear way for Tories even if they are divided.
No deal breaks the GFA. How do you reconcile that?I've always been a strong leaver, but I think it's time to settle this once and for all with another vote. We should be out of the EU this morning, but parliament hates democracy.
This time the vote should be Remain or Leave (with no deal), but this time the government must honor the result. Personally I think it's still 50/50 and could go either way.
What's the point pursuing a deal that leavers and remainers don't really want. It should be a "winner takes all vote", not a "peoples vote", we already had that.
There is no such thing as a managed no deal and the EU made clear last night that is not an option.Yes I think Tories go with something like "managed no deal"
Labour I'm not sure... Unicorn customs union with a confirmation referendum.
Gut feel Tories are the only leave option and the election turns into a defacto 2nd referendum with the remain and soft brexit votes split between labour SNP libs/change and the other smaller parties and with fptp that probably favours the conservatives
It's why I think they will ultimately roll the dice on a ge
What do you believe the outcome of the next round of votes will be?There is no such thing as a managed no deal and the EU made clear last night that is not an option.
So basically after the GE has wasted a bit more time, we're all back to where we are today.
That's why I say a GE solves nothing.
It might well be true that "managed no deal" isn't a viable option after the election... Still think it will be a viable (and successful ) manifestoThere is no such thing as a managed no deal and the EU made clear last night that is not an option.
So basically after the GE has wasted a bit more time, we're all back to where we are today.
That's why I say a GE solves nothing.
Have a feeling that a lot of the Tories didn't vote in the first round so they will probably vote this time and all will not get a majority again.What do you believe the outcome of the next round of votes will be?
Ultimately, do you foresee a resolution as we veer towards the no deal date?Have a feeling that a lot of the Tories didn't vote in the first round so they will probably vote this time and all will not get a majority again.
Having said that, I don't see how any of the options make a difference to the logjam.
Agreed on the deliverability, was just talking about what was necessary to keep the open border as now.Yes but Labour isn't proposing that although Corbyn's trying to pretend it sounds like that. In a customs union you cannot do your own deals and having the same rules, standards , single market etc you have to have the four freedoms.
And I'm pretty sure the Brexieters don't want any of this.
The tactic from the UK seems to be to try to find a way to delay it as long as possible..Ultimately, do you foresee a resolution as we veer towards the no deal date?
On further reading Turkey don't even have an all encompassing custom union with the EU, it excludes agriculture for instance. The examples rubbish.Incorrect.
On further reading Turkey don't even have an all encompassing custom union with the EU, it excludes agriculture for instance. The examples rubbish.
https://theconversation.com/would-s...brexit-avoid-a-hard-border-with-ireland-92485What about Corbyn’s plan to place the UK in a permanent customs union with the EU? This would certainly eliminate the need for customs controls to collect tariffs – as a customs union would eliminate tariffs on all goods crossing internal frontiers. But it would not eliminate customs controls entirely. This can be seen from the fact that between 1973 and 1992, the UK and Ireland were in a Corbyn-style customs union with each other (called the European Economic Community) and yet customs controls were maintained.
Member states of a customs union can maintain all sorts of regulations – such as health standards, agricultural controls and minimum product standards – and goods entering the market need to be checked for compliance with these. This is exactly what customs officers along the Northern Irish border were doing until the single market emerged in 1993.
Only in a single market are such standards harmonised or mutually recognised on a comprehensive basis – without the need for customs checks. This is why it was possible to abolish systematic customs checks along the border in 1993.
Corbyn’s proposal, if the EU agreed to it, would reduce customs checks along the frontier and be a hugely welcome boost to cross-border trade and to the prosperity of both the UK and Ireland. It is also infinitely preferable to the May-Johnson free trade area plan. What it will not do, however, is end the prospect of a hard border.
For this, both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland need to be in a single market with one another. One way of doing this is for the UK as a whole, in leaving the EU, to stay in a single market and customs union relationship with the EU 27 states – what could be called a “Norway plus” deal. Another is the fall-back option within the EU’s draft withdrawal agreement – that Northern Ireland remains part of the current EU customs territory after Brexit.
Starmer already said he wouldn't contemplate a Turkey style Custom's Union. It was formed as a prelude to eventually having Turkey as a member of the EU but we all know that is unlikely to happen in any of our lifetimes, even the youngest of us.On further reading Turkey don't even have an all encompassing custom union with the EU, it excludes agriculture for instance. The examples rubbish.
Not being held to ransom by dupWhat do you expect to happen if one of the parties had a majority?
If Tories won ....
If Labour won....
One of May's many errors of judgementNot being held to ransom by dup
Yes. Cant think of 1 good thing theyve brought to the govt.One of May's many errors of judgment
The bolded is not true, you can do your own trade deals while being in the Customs Union. Turkey is in the Customs Union and not the Single Market yet does its own trade agreements with other nations, notably the Turkey-Malaysia FTA which was signed in 2015 a full 20 years after its ascension to the Customs Union.All 3.
Customs Union solves nothing at all other than having the same external tariffs and the UK can't do their own trade deals but there would still need to be a border becuase of different standards and diffferent legislation/jurisdiction plus no freedom of movement.
GE or People Vote only solves it if the outcome is a remain government who cancels Brexit otherwise back to square one.
As stated above it's only a partial CU and firstly wouldn't be applicable to the UK and already rejected by Labour - how does it solve the impasse?The bolded is not true, you can do your own trade deals while being in the Customs Union. Turkey is in the Customs Union and not the Single Market yet does its own trade agreements with other nations, notably the Turkey-Malaysia FTA which was signed in 2015 a full 20 years after its ascension to the Customs Union.
Will it solve the border situation in Ireland? No.
Is it better than staying in the Single Market? Certainly not.
But ultimately if it solves the impasse and delivers something better than no-deal, it's an improvement. Indefinite uncertainty is even worse. The UK needs to get on with its life one way or another.
The tactic from the UK seems to be to try to find a way to delay it as long as possible..
If the UK really leave and not break the GFA they have to stay in the customs union and single market, which makes Brexit pointless, I don't see any other way. But at this moment it looks like no deal.
This is what I've been thinking but don't really want to believe and it's bothersome others think there's a very real possibility of the no deal actually coming to fruition.I think the chances of a no-deal exit on April 12 are very high. In other periods of history, I would hope for an immediate emergency general strike by the 6m+ Remainers who signed the petition to revoke A50, but it's pretty hard to imagine that kind of widespread action in the modern world.
At the end of the day to stop no-deal the UK have to agree to a deal which is feasible and not pie-in-the-sky or they cancel Brexit. The UK seem a long way away from either of those.This is what I've been thinking but don't really want to believe and it's bothersome others think there's a very real possibility of the no deal actually coming to fruition.
Yes, I don't see the impasse being positively progressed, especially with the parties voting in their own interests and not for the benefit of the people and that makes no deal a real possibility, which I didn't think was feasible a few weeks ago.At the end of the day to stop no-deal the UK have to agree to a deal which is feasible and not pie-in-the-sky or they cancel Brexit. The UK seem a long way away from either of those.
If you are Kim Jong-un .Why are MP’s allowed to abstain from votes? And is it possible to force them to vote?
Partial or not, it still invalidates your statement. Obviously it would only solve the impasse if it gets accepted. It doesn't need to get backed by Labour, it only needs to get backed by the parliamentary majority and it seemed awfully close at doing so, hence I said with a bit of cajoling it seems more likely to pass than May's WA. If the SNP back it, it probably goes through.As stated above it's only a partial CU and firstly wouldn't be applicable to the UK and already rejected by Labour - how does it solve the impasse?
If they are in the customs union they cannot do their own trade deals full stop. It does not invalidate what I said. Turkey can do it because they're in an introductory CU but there is still a border so nothing at all is solved.Partial or not, it still invalidates your statement. Obviously it would only solve the impasse if it gets accepted. It doesn't need to get backed by Labour, it only needs to get backed by the parliamentary majority and it seemed awfully close at doing so, hence I said with a bit of cajoling it seems more likely to pass than May's WA. If the SNP back it, it probably goes through.
And why wouldn't the UK get the option of membership to the Customs Union? I don't recall Brussels saying that option is not available. What isn't available is the Labour unicorn option, where we are in the Customs Union only but somehow get a veto on things.
Ultimately the UK's production is 80% services and 19% industry and <1% agriculture. Agreeing to full customs union of industrial and agricultural products, while maintaining the right to strike your own deals for services might be a workable situation for the UK. Sub-optimal but workable.
We all know the best deal is what we've got. The point is which compromise might go through
If I'm not mistaken they could do their own trade deals but not only a border and custom checks would be needed but the custom agreement would exclude services and capitals.If they are in the customs union they cannot do their own trade deals full stop. It does not invalidate what I said. Turkey can do it because they're in an introductory CU but there is still a border so nothing at all is solved.
Secondly of course they can be part of the Customs Union but it doesn't solve the problem. Doesn't solve any problem.
A customs union always means borders anyway. Only a single regulatory market removes the borders.If they are in the customs union they cannot do their own trade deals full stop. It does not invalidate what I said. Turkey can do it because they're in an introductory CU but there is still a border so nothing at all is solved.
Secondly of course they can be part of the Customs Union but it doesn't solve the problem. Doesn't solve any problem.
Correct but only tangible, material goods pass customs anyway. Services and capital are under different regulatory oversight. And yes the UK would independently be able to sign deals for those. Which I think is JRM's golden goose anyway, since he seems to want to turn the UK into an offshore financial centre Singapore-style.If I'm not mistaken they could do their own trade deals but not only a border and custom checks would be needed but the custom agreement would exclude services and capitals.
Yes you can sign the WA add that you wish to join a CU in the political declaration, but you could do that anyway, it could be part of the negotiation in the future so what problems does it solve. A border stops the UK functioning in Ireland for different reasons than Dover for example.A customs union always means borders anyway. Only a single regulatory market removes the borders.
You can be in a customs union or the customs union, that's up for discussion. But the point is whatever goods are traded in the customs union you are part of, are the ones you can't independently negotiate and sign FTAs for. And services are not exchanged through customs so you can always sign deals for the exchange of services independently.
And yes, it solves some problems. You just chose not to see it, clearly.
The proposal for CU that came closest in the indicative votes came out of the Tories and got the most votes from Tory MPs. The government (aka Theresa) doesn't want CU, but that doesn't mean a lot since she's not gonna be around for too much longer and a lot of Tory MPs are looking for compromise.Bearing in mind that the main problems are the Irish border, the Tories don't want a CU of any kind and Labour want a CU where they can do what they like. I'm talking real problems that need to be solved now. The problem of avoiding no deal .
Only 34 Tories voted for the CU and 234 against - and there are more than 268 Tory MPs .The proposal for CU that came closest in the indicative votes came out of the Tories and got the most votes from Tory MPs. The government (aka Theresa) doesn't want CU, but that doesn't mean a lot since she's not gonna be around for too much longer and a lot of Tory MPs are looking for compromise.
If the Parliament agrees to pursue a realistic customs union with the EU, they could take that to Brussels and ask for a long term extension (2 years) to iron out the details and put the border checks in place. I don't think Brussels would disagree on that, so long as it gets some concessions from the Parliament about the certainty of that outcome (i.e. a binding vote) instead of wasting another 2 years.
The advantages of that would be two-fold; not only avoiding the no-deal situation and the ensuing disruptions it will cause, but more importantly it'd be finally giving businesses a clear indication on what to look forward to. Whether goods made in the UK will have tariff free access to the EU market or not.
That scenario would ultimately lead to a border in Ireland and the UK breaking the GFA with whatever that implies. But there doesn't seem to be parliamentary support for revocation or access to the Single Market, so being realistic about it that's very likely to happen. People's vote gives a glimmer of hope, but if the result is still out then what?
As I understand it, if any option on Monday can be seen to command enough votes to pass muster, it would still be up to the PM to find a way to make it law. Also it would also have to be accepted by the EU, otherwise there is no point it trying to make it enforceable.Possibly asked already in here, sorry if it has been:
- If on Monday, parliament's most popular preference is for a referendum/confirmatory vote, is there anything that could cause it to become law or force it through? I know the indicative votes are non binding, so quite curious.
Edit: By most popular, I don't mean voted in favour of. I mean, most popular of all the noes. Like it was last time.
Parlaiment could in theory if they find a way to force a motion on the order paper make the winner binding. However since it's the PM who would have to go back to the EU even if it was binding it would need a willing PM, it would get very messy.As I understand it, if any option on Monday can be seen to command enough votes to pass muster, it would still be up to the PM to find a way to make it law. Also it would also have to be accepted by the EU, otherwise there is no point it trying to make it enforceable.
Except for the no deal option, we are now entirely in the hands of the EU, they shout "Jump" and we ask "How High"?
So they've finally accepted it - there will probably be zero to little in the way of consequences for the like of Gove and Johnson.
I just think Corbyn will be awful as PM.You must be happy with the tory dup set up then.
Putting it another way.Parlaiment could in theory if they find a way to force a motion on the order paper make the winner binding. However since it's the PM who would have to go back to the EU even if it was binding it would need a willing PM, it would get very messy.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
