Government & Post Election Discussion

[1andrew1]

#strongandstable

Nadine Dorries: 46 no-confidence-in-May-letters sent in
Asked how many letters of no confidence have been sent to Graham Brady, the chair of the Conservative Party's 1922 committee, Nadine Dorries said she thought the number was "around 46".
Speaking on Tuesday's Politics Live to presenter Jo Coburn, the The Tory rebel suggested the deal did not have "a cat in hell's chance of getting through Westminster".
Ms Dorries said: "I know key people who are holding their letters back and are waiting for the deal to fail before sending in their letter of no confidence."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-pol...etters-sent-in

It’s looking like a no-deal. I’m hoping for a no-deal. I don’t believe the EU, or France or Germany, are going to take this seriously until no-deal is properly on the table. As soon as we establish that we’re heading for no deal, the bluff over the Irish border will be called (we’re not going to install one, there won’t be one unless the Irish decide to do so), and the backstop will be neutralised. It’s fairly obvious that Spain and France are already making plans to use the backstop as a bargaining chip in future trade negotiations. I’d rather they didn’t have the chance.

We would still need an answer to how we deal with an open border with a country that might have different regulations. The obvious answer is a border in the Irish Sea but the DUP won't have it so...

Also the EU are probably expect the first vote to fail but think we'll either vote again or go the the Norway-for-now option.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Damien

We would still need an answer to how we deal with an open border with a country that might have different regulations. The obvious answer is a border in the Irish Sea but the DUP won't have it so...

Also the EU are probably expect the first vote to fail but think we'll either vote again or go the the Norway-for-now option.

If a hard border is put in place, it will be done by the EU, not us. This backstop stuff is a complete red herring. Solutions are readily available, the EU have just got to stop being so bloody minded. If they did, TM might just get this proposed agreement through the Commons.

If the Withdrawal Agreement is voted down, the best thing would be to have no further votes and just let Article 50 come in naturally. We can then start negotiating the trade deals with the EU and other countries (work on which must be at an advanced stage by now).
Unfortunately, without the Withdrawal Agreement, this will mean some initial costs and disruption, but this will be the price of rejecting Theresa May's proposed deal. I hope people realise that.

---------- Post added at 08:23 ---------- Previous post was at 08:20 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

We would still need an answer to how we deal with an open border with a country that might have different regulations. The obvious answer is a border in the Irish Sea but the DUP won't have it so...

Also the EU are probably expect the first vote to fail but think we'll either vote again or go the the Norway-for-now option.

The thing is, Damien, at the point of our withdrawal, all our regulations will be the same as with the EU. So no need for a border. The trade deal we are seeking with the EU should avoid problems down the line. The EU have already said they don't want tariffs applied.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

If a hard border is put in place, it will be done by the EU, not us. This backstop stuff is a complete red herring. Solutions are readily available, the EU have just got to stop being so bloody minded. If they did, TM might just get this proposed agreement through the Commons.
.

What solutions?

---------- Post added at 08:31 ---------- Previous post was at 08:30 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The thing is, Damien, at the point of our withdrawal, all our regulations will be the same as with the EU. So no need for a border. The trade deal we are seeking with the EU should avoid problems down the line. The EU have already said they don't want tariffs applied.

At the start I can see a fudge being fine, i.e we just ignore the problem and hope WTO rules don't cause a problem, but when regulatory standard diverge then you need customs checks. Unless the deal with the EU is a customs union or better.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Damien

What solutions?

---------- Post added at 08:31 ---------- Previous post was at 08:30 ----------



At the start I can see a fudge being fine, i.e we just ignore the problem and hope WTO rules don't cause a problem, but when regulatory standard diverge then you need customs checks. Unless the deal with the EU is a customs union or better.

But, Damien, TM is proposing a common rulebook and no tariffs with the EU. So what is this obsession with the border?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

But, Damien, TM is proposing a common rulebook and no tariffs with the EU. So what is this obsession with the border?

Regulatory alignment is the solution to the border and the common rulebook got her into trouble with her backbenches. If we're in 'a' customs union, preferably the EEA, then fine. This deal also prevents that.

But if we're not going for the deal and want a Free trade agreement only with the EU then the border will be an issue. People keep saying it won't be but never explain why. Two markets with different regulatory regimes have customs checks, custom checks require borders/infrastructure....

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Damien

Regulatory alignment is the solution to the border and the common rulebook got her into trouble with her backbenches. If we're in 'a' customs union, preferably the EEA, then fine. This deal also prevents that.

But if we're not going for the deal and want a Free trade agreement only with the EU then the border will be an issue. People keep saying it won't be but never explain why. Two markets with different regulatory regimes have customs checks, custom checks require borders/infrastructure....

I thought the whole idea was that we would have regulatory alignment with the EU!

Your proposal that we have a customs union, however, won't work, will it? That would prevent us from making trade deals of our own, which is the chief economic advantage of leaving the EU.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I thought the whole idea was that we would have regulatory alignment with the EU!

Your proposal that we have a customs union, however, won't work, will it? That would prevent us from making trade deals of our own, which is the chief economic advantage of leaving the EU.

I know what would and does work, but you won't like it...

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I thought the whole idea was that we would have regulatory alignment with the EU!

Your proposal that we have a customs union, however, won't work, will it? That would prevent us from making trade deals of our own, which is the chief economic advantage of leaving the EU.

How can you do trade deals if you have regulatory alignment for most, if not all, goods? A key aspect of trade deals is the aligning and changing of regulations for the various products/industries/whatever with the country you're doing the deal with.

The only reason not to have a customs union if you already have regulatory alignment is either because it isn't full regulatory alignment (which means check for some things) or you want to diverge from that later. Both would require a customs border.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Damien

How can you do trade deals if you have regulatory alignment for most, if not all, goods? A key aspect of trade deals is the aligning and changing of regulations for the various products/industries/whatever with the country you're doing the deal with.

The only reason not to have a customs union if you already have regulatory alignment is either because it isn't full regulatory alignment (which means check for some things) or you want to diverge from that later. Both would require a customs border.

Yes, but regulatory alignment in the main types of goods flowing to and from the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland (mainly agricultural) should not pose a big problem. For the small percentage of other goods involved, the arrangements already put forward by the UK would suffice.

---------- Post added at 09:14 ---------- Previous post was at 09:13 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr K

I know what would and does work, but you won't like it...

Nor would most people in this country, it seems...

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Nor would most people in this country, it seems...

Well only about a quarter actually, probably less than that now.

[nashville]

I think this Brexit will go on forever, Wish they would just get us out and let us get on with what comes next, These politicians are a back stabbers .

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by nashville

I think this Brexit will go on forever, Wish they would just get us out and let us get on with what comes next, These politicians are a back stabbers .

So do I, but we are deviating ourselves really, because this is not even the Brexit thread!

[denphone]

EU net migration to UK falls to lowest level in almost six years.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...most-six-years

Official statistics show an estimated 74,000 more EU nationals came to live in the country for at least 12 months than left in the year to June. The figure is the lowest since the year ending September 2012, when it was 65,000.

Non-EU net migration was at its highest since 2004, with 248,000 more non-EU citizens arriving than departing, the Office for National Statistics said.

While immigration data published since the EU referendum have sparked claims of a “Brexodus”, figures for the rest of the world are tracking in the opposite direction.

Non-EU net migration showed a “statistically significant” year-on-year rise, reaching almost a quarter of a million.