Politics

[Guest]

I see Norway are looking to increase investment into the UK

[Tonge moor green jacket]

2 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

I see Norway are looking to increase investment into the UK

They're just codding really.

[Sweep]

46 minutes ago, Salford Trotter said:

 There is talk now that on 12th that there maybe a consensus around May's deal which in my view (and many others) is not what anyone wanted. It doesn't free us from the shackles of the ECJ, the common rulebook and we get no say in changing that. Now on to the hard bit

I know Mounts likes TMs deal (albeit with some, although as far as I can tell, undefined, changes to the backstop) - but like you, and it seems the majority of Parliament, it seems a bit shit, and if it's what we end up with then the whole thing will have been a waste of time, as we'll have left without actually leaving. I'm not sure her deal will pass this time either, which will then lead to an extension, which I think is much more likely than a second vote.

 

An extension would, in my opinion, mean that we're much more likely to stay than a second referendum would

[fatolive]

8 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

It's the fault of all of them. The mitigating factor for the erg is that their view still upholds the referendum result. Not convinced of their position personally, but there'll always be different views on the leave methods. Hence the need for a compromise.

Certain remainers have clearly attempted to subvert the process.

I've heard on a couple of occasions an MP openly admit, during debates that the wouldn't vote for any deal. Well at least they were honest I suppose, but they should not be taking that position within the ranks of a political party that stood on a leave manifesto.

Aye, you are correct ,it is, but view is “ it’ll be the fault of remainers scuppering democracy “ and the previous deals also uphold the result as we would leave with it.

as you say it’s the fault of all for not being able to agree, not just remainers trying to scupper it, though some may well be, but the fact they can’t even agree on what leave means shows what a fuck up it is and , as stated many times before, shouldn’t have been simplified as leave or stay , unless we knew what leave meant from the off 

[Sweep]

4 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

I see Norway are looking to increase investment into the UK

anything we should be getting excited about - or is it that fund management company they were talking about on the news yesterday that currently invests in UK Government debt, and it's thought they may see an opportunity to buy more of our debt "cheaply" as we could be forced to borrow more money if things go badly?  (I wasn't listening properly, to be honest, so I might be way off the mark)

[Moon boy]

2 minutes ago, Sweep said:

I know Mounts likes TMs deal (albeit with some, although as far as I can tell, undefined, changes to the backstop) - but like you, and it seems the majority of Parliament, it seems a bit shit, and if it's what we end up with then the whole thing will have been a waste of time, as we'll have left without actually leaving. I'm not sure her deal will pass this time either, which will then lead to an extension, which I think is much more likely than a second vote.

 

An extension would, in my opinion, mean that we're much more likely to stay than a second referendum would

If the problem can’t be solved by March 15, by law ( Article 50) we will leave the EU on the 29th March with no deal, end off

If we get to a point where TM and this Conservative Government lose control of the proceedings I’m pretty sure a General Election will result.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

3 minutes ago, Sweep said:

I know Mounts likes TMs deal (albeit with some, although as far as I can tell, undefined, changes to the backstop) - but like you, and it seems the majority of Parliament, it seems a bit shit, and if it's what we end up with then the whole thing will have been a waste of time, as we'll have left without actually leaving. I'm not sure her deal will pass this time either, which will then lead to an extension, which I think is much more likely than a second vote.

 

An extension would, in my opinion, mean that we're much more likely to stay than a second referendum would

It's too presumptuous to say this or that isn't what people voted for.

For the large part brexiteers have been accused of not knowing what they voted for.

So which is it?

Industry broadly gave acceptance to the deal, and whilst there may be a number of issues with it, it's not an unworkable starting point.

Nothing to say at some point in years to come, it couldn't be modified if necessary. After all it is an act of law and not an absolute for ever.

[Mounts Kipper]

15 minutes ago, Sweep said:

I know Mounts likes TMs deal (albeit with some, although as far as I can tell, undefined, changes to the backstop) - but like you, and it seems the majority of Parliament, it seems a bit shit, and if it's what we end up with then the whole thing will have been a waste of time, as we'll have left without actually leaving. I'm not sure her deal will pass this time either, which will then lead to an extension, which I think is much more likely than a second vote.

 

An extension would, in my opinion, mean that we're much more likely to stay than a second referendum would

From my understanding and I will admit I have not read the draft WA the proposals are as follows:

end to freedom of movement

end to future payments to the EU

Tariff free access to the single market without being in the customs union

Reciprocal citizens rights 

same access as currently  to security information

and most of all a blue passport.  

so I am not sure why you think it’s a waste of time leaving perhaps you can elaborate? 

 

 

 

Edited February 28, 2019 by Mounts Kipper

[Sweep]

5 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

It's too presumptuous to say this or that isn't what people voted for.

 

You're perfectly right, as different people voted for different things - whilst some aspects of Mays deal are good, some aren't so good

I guess it's up to each individual to decide for themselves if they think it's good or not - at present, those that we have voted into power have decided that it's not so good......and two of the "leave" side (Boris & Gove) each voted differently for this deal. which shows that even the leave side is split, with different people wanting different things

 

Good bits of the deal.............

Deliver on the result of the 2016 referendum by taking the UK out of the European Union;

End the right of free movement by EU citizens to live and work in the UK, allowing Britain to introduce a new skills-based immigration system;

End the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the UK;

Stop the annual payment of “vast” sums into EU budgets;

Take the UK out of the Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy;

Pave the way for the creation of a new UK/EU free trade area with no tariffs, fees, charges, quantitative restrictions or rules-of-origin checks;

Preserve close relations with the EU on security, crime and terrorism;

Protect the integrity of the UK by ensuring there is no customs barrier between Northern Ireland and Great Britain;

Honour the Good Friday Agreement by ensuring there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic;

End uncertainty about the future and reassure business that there will be no abrupt “cliff-edge” transition to new trading arrangements by providing a 21-month transition period for them to prepare;

Allow the extension of the period by up to two years to allow a trade deal to be completed, without the need to trigger “backstop” arrangements to keep the Irish border open;

Allow the UK to negotiate trade deals with countries elsewhere in the world, to come into effect at the end of the transition period

Protect the rights of UK citizens living in the EU and Europeans in Britain.

 

And not so good bits.......

Trap the UK in a customs union which Britain can only escape with the consent of the EU, and I thought this was supposed to be pretty much the main reason for us wanting to leave

Prevent new trade deals with countries like the US, China or Australia from coming into effect until at least 2021 – or 2023 if the transition period is extended, or even later if the backstop is then invoked........and nobody can say this is a good thing

Allow the European Court of Justice continued influence over the UK, as the final arbiter for the interpretation of EU law in disputes;

Require the UK to hand over £39 billion in “divorce” payments with no guarantee of a free trade deal in the future;

Force the UK to accept Brussels rules and regulations until the end of the transition period, without having any say in them;

Commit the UK to aligning with EU standards and rules in the long term;

Leave open the access to fish in UK waters for European vessels

Give Spain a role in deciding future arrangements for Gibraltar (although I'm not sure anybody normal gives a fuck, let them have it back)

 

 

 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

Yep, seems that ok that mounts.

I know BD feels strongly that we should go further, and with his expertise in finance etc I can accept wholly his reasoning. Indeed wto per se doesn't concern me as much as many others.

However, (the Preston effect) so much bad news about it and the total disaster predictions, mean that it would almost certainly be worse than it need be.

A compromise, get the fuck out and start again will do for me.

[Sweep]

7 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

From my understanding and I will admit I have not read the draft WA the proposals are as follows:

end to freedom of movement

end to future payments to the EU

Tariff free access to the single market without being in the customs union

Reciprocal citizens rights 

same access as currently  to security information

and most of all a blue passport.  

so I am not sure why you think it’s a waste of time leaving perhaps you can elaborate? 

 

 

 

My understanding is that we'll still be in the customs union......until the EU say we can leave (which could be next week, next month or never

[Tonge moor green jacket]

Reasonable comments sweep. The bad things you cover as part of the transition period, don't concern me particularly- that's why it's there, to provide continuity whilst organisations get ready.

 

We're not in 'the customs union", but I agree that there is obviously some commonality.

All gets a bit complicated and murky from there on in.

Edited February 28, 2019 by Tonge moor green jacket

[Mounts Kipper]

21 minutes ago, Sweep said:

My understanding is that we'll still be in the customs union......until the EU say we can leave (which could be next week, next month or never

We should have a legally binding decision on this and that’s what is being worked on. 

Some legalese agreement should be sought just in case If EU backtracked on their pledge confirming that it would only be a temporary measure. 

Edited February 28, 2019 by Mounts Kipper

[bwfcfan5]

The withdrawal agreement is till the end of 2020...but could be extended by a further 2 years. After that it ceases to be and we either have a deal with the EU or we don't.....if we don't then we go into the backstop.

The withdrawal agreement is essentially just "keep everything as it is until we agree a future deal". 

My major issue with it (apart from the risk of the backstop position leaving us incredibly weak in the negotiations) is that the future deal is so unspecified in the political declaration it could mean anything. And that for me is a problem because unless you spell out something in the PD that parliament can show clear consensus for you increase the risk of ending up in the backstop because as we've seen when it comes down to it - parliament cannot agree what the future relationship should be.

The BIG disagreements are not about what is in the WA - but what shape the PD and future arrangements take. That is where the clearest divisions are. And for me the reason May's deal is so bad is that the political declaration is just so vague (deliberately so on her part to avoid her party going into even further meltdown) that we will spend another 2 years approaching a cliff edge with no consensus. She needed to take a side (and her moderate MPs is the only side she could take) and spell out a close future relationship with major co-operation with the EU alignment on certain regulations and rights and some sort of plan for customs (a customs partnership fleshed out in detail). 

Had she done this I think most opposition MPs and the Tory moderates would have sailed in behind the deal eventually because they'd have some confidence that there was a sensible (not reckless) plan for the future. 

 

 

 

 

[Salford Trotter]

33 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

From my understanding and I will admit I have not read the draft WA the proposals are as follows:

end to freedom of movement

end to future payments to the EU

Tariff free access to the single market without being in the customs union

Reciprocal citizens rights 

same access as currently  to security information

and most of all a blue passport.  

so I am not sure why you think it’s a waste of time leaving perhaps you can elaborate? 

 

 

 

You are correct Mounts, you have not read the WA agreement as it doesn't say that. The Political Declaration has that as an ambition but it is down to trade deal negotiations to agree it. This is the frustrating bit about your input, for someone who is so passionate about this subject you have not read up on the fundamentals aspects of either the WA or the PD and then you get all uppity when I pull you up about your lack of knowledge on the matter. Here you go, some bedtime reading for you

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/withdrawal-agreement-and-political-declaration

 

Edited February 28, 2019 by Salford Trotter

[Mounts Kipper]

17 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

The withdrawal agreement is till the end of 2020...but could be extended by a further 2 years. After that it ceases to be and we either have a deal with the EU or we don't.....if we don't then we go into the backstop.

The withdrawal agreement is essentially just "keep everything as it is until we agree a future deal". 

My major issue with it (apart from the risk of the backstop position leaving us incredibly weak in the negotiations) is that the future deal is so unspecified in the political declaration it could mean anything. And that for me is a problem because unless you spell out something in the PD that parliament can show clear consensus for you increase the risk of ending up in the backstop because as we've seen when it comes down to it - parliament cannot agree what the future relationship should be.

The BIG disagreements are not about what is in the WA - but what shape the PD and future arrangements take. That is where the clearest divisions are. And for me the reason May's deal is so bad is that the political declaration is just so vague (deliberately so on her part to avoid her party going into even further meltdown) that we will spend another 2 years approaching a cliff edge with no consensus. She needed to take a side (and her moderate MPs is the only side she could take) and spell out a close future relationship with major co-operation with the EU alignment on certain regulations and rights and some sort of plan for customs (a customs partnership fleshed out in detail). 

Had she done this I think most opposition MPs and the Tory moderates would have sailed in behind the deal eventually because they'd have some confidence that there was a sensible (not reckless) plan for the future. 

 

 

 

 

As I see it the big issue in the future negotiations is whether we can diverge from the ECJ and strike out with our own trade deals, Theresa May has said the WA allows this but I’m yet to be convinced. I’d be holding back the £39 billion until we have agreed not just the WA but also the future trading relationship. It’s things like this that the remain politicians have weakened our position and I hope you he electorate remember this come the next election. 

[bwfcfan5]

25 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

As I see it the big issue in the future negotiations is whether we can diverge from the ECJ and strike out with our own trade deals, Theresa May has said the WA allows this but I’m yet to be convinced. I’d be holding back the £39 billion until we have agreed not just the WA but also the future trading relationship. It’s things like this that the remain politicians have weakened our position and I hope you he electorate remember this come the next election. 

The EU won't negotiate a future deal until withdrawal happens. But we could have more closely specified what the aim of the future deal will be. This is where it is very vague. The financial settlement was nothing to do with remain politicians and everything to do with May wanting to sign it off as quickly as possible. Ultimately that figure is what we'd want to continue paying into various commitments for anyway. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Sweep said:

anything we should be getting excited about - or is it that fund management company they were talking about on the news yesterday that currently invests in UK Government debt, and it's thought they may see an opportunity to buy more of our debt "cheaply" as we could be forced to borrow more money if things go badly?  (I wasn't listening properly, to be honest, so I might be way off the mark)

Not excited, but the Norway Sovereign fund is huge, probably one of the largest investors globally 

[Mounts Kipper]

50 minutes ago, Salford Trotter said:

You are correct Mounts, you have not read the WA agreement as it doesn't say that. The Political Declaration has that as an ambition but it is down to trade deal negotiations to agree it. This is the frustrating bit about your input, for someone who is so passionate about this subject you have not read up on the fundamentals aspects of either the WA or the PD and then you get all uppity when I pull you up about your lack of knowledge on the matter. Here you go, some bedtime reading for you

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/withdrawal-agreement-and-political-declaration

 

Whether it’s in the WA or the PD it does not matter, the facts remain its the ambition of both parties to agree to work toward the points I mentioned. 

Again we are going round in circles at the outset the main points I have mentioned in the WA or PD I said would be achievable, the ambition to agree just that is clearly set out by both parties to achieve just that. 

Are you now saying despite both parties setting out the aforementioned as an ambition that in reality that ambition is unfounded and will not translate into an agreement?

For the purposes of clarity you have said from day one we couldn’t achieve free trade deal without bowing to the four freedoms is that still your position? Because it ain’t the position or ambition set out in the political declaration by the EU. 

[Salford Trotter]

30 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Whether it’s in the WA or the PD it does not matter, the facts remain its the ambition of both parties to agree to work toward the points I mentioned. 

Again we are going round in circles at the outset the main points I have mentioned in the WA or PD I said would be achievable, the ambition to agree just that is clearly set out by both parties to achieve just that. 

Are you now saying despite both parties setting out the aforementioned as an ambition that in reality that ambition is unfounded and will not translate into an agreement?

For the purposes of clarity you have said from day one we couldn’t achieve free trade deal without bowing to the four freedoms is that still your position? Because it ain’t the position or ambition set out in the political declaration by the EU. 

Once again you are making stuff up.

The WA, if signed, is a declaration that is legally binding as opposed to the PD which is an aspiration and is not legally binding so it does matter to which you refer because they are completely different things. Read the link I sent and that might help you understand the difference

I have made clear my position clear a couple of pages back so I am not going to repeat it time and time again just because you don't bother reading it. You are mixing up a free trade deal with access to the single market which are two very different things. You said this morning that we have agreed access to the single market without being part of a customs union which is plain wrong for the reasons above. What is clear is that we will not have unfettered access to the SM without signing up to one or more of the 4 freedoms (see Norway's and Switzerland's deal) but we can have (and probably will agree to) a trade deal with the EU that removes tariffs

Switzerland and Norway allow free movement of people (Norway allows all 4 freedoms) for access into the EU single market along with large payments to the EU and they have to accept large parts of EU legislation too. Norway is part of the EEA and Switzerland is part of EFTA which has their own conditions attached so are you now proposing the UK joining the EEA or EFTA as the basis of our EU trade agreement? 

[Winchester White]

I would welcome an EFTA style agreement personally, freedom of movement doesn't bother me but I know many voted leave to end this.

[Sweep]

11 minutes ago, Winchester White said:

I would welcome an EFTA style agreement personally, freedom of movement doesn't bother me but I know many voted leave to end this.

Freedom of movement is pretty much the one thing that I really do want to keep.......like you though, I appreciate that this is why many voted to leave

[Youri McAnespie]

Tell 'em to fuck off, what's honestly the worst they can do? Take our tellies and washing machines? Whoop-di-do.

[Mounts Kipper]

21 minutes ago, Salford Trotter said:

Once again you are making stuff up.

The WA, if signed, is a declaration that is legally binding as opposed to the PD which is an aspiration and is not legally binding so it does matter to which you refer because they are completely different things. Read the link I sent and that might help you understand the difference

I have made clear my position clear a couple of pages back so I am not going to repeat it time and time again just because you don't bother reading it. You are mixing up a free trade deal with access to the single market which are two very different things. You said this morning that we have agreed access to the single market without being part of a customs union which is plain wrong for the reasons above. What is clear is that we will not have unfettered access to the SM without signing up to one or more of the 4 freedoms (see Norway's and Switzerland's deal) but we can have (and probably will agree to) a trade deal with the EU that removes tariffs

Switzerland and Norway allow free movement of people (Norway allows all 4 freedoms) for access into the EU single market along with large payments to the EU and they have to accept large parts of EU legislation too. Norway is part of the EEA and Switzerland is part of EFTA which has their own conditions attached so are you now proposing the UK joining the EEA or EFTA as the basis of our EU trade agreement? 

We go round in circles . I’ll leave it there. 

[Salford Trotter]

1 minute ago, Mounts Kipper said:

We go round in circles . I’ll leave it there. 

I thought you might, it is not as simple as you make out

Edited February 28, 2019 by Salford Trotter