FlyTheNest

NonOxCol wrote:Morning.

Why did anyone ever take this wretched little mincebrain seriously?

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

David Davis is cold.
It’s winter and 4º C in downtown Warsaw, and the U.K. Brexit secretary has left his coat behind in London. He’s standing in just his suit in front of the city’s main war memorial.

His image in Westminster is of a bruiser — “thick as mince, lazy as a toad, & vain as Narcissus,” is how Dominic Cummings, the former campaign director of the Vote Leave campaign, put it in a typically acerbic tweet.
The reality is that he’s less the “knuckleduster” of Westminster lore and more of a boy scout — a bit of a nerd who can’t sit still.

If the EU had to pick a theme song for Phase 2 of the Brexit talks, Gotye’s “ Somebody That I Used to Know ” could be the leading contender...

...Put simply, the U.K. opted for a breakup and the EU is going to put loyal friends before its ex.
Or as Gotye, the Belgian-born musician, sings it: “You didn’t have to cut me off … Now you’re just somebody that I used to know.”

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:On which, Labour Brexit rebels who voted FOR the Grieve amendment

Ronnie Campbell
John Mann
Dennis Skinner

AGAINST
Frank Field
Kate Hoey

The other usual rebels didn't vote as far as I can see

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2 ... opeanUnion(Withdrawal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:On which, Labour Brexit rebels who voted FOR the Grieve amendment

Ronnie Campbell
John Mann
Dennis Skinner

AGAINST
Frank Field
Kate Hoey

The other usual rebels didn't vote as far as I can see

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2 ... opeanUnion(Withdrawal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Graham Stringer - perhaps the most likely Labour MP to vote with Field/Hoey - was "ill" apparently.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:On which, Labour Brexit rebels who voted FOR the Grieve amendment

Ronnie Campbell
John Mann
Dennis Skinner

AGAINST
Frank Field
Kate Hoey

The other usual rebels didn't vote as far as I can see

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2 ... opeanUnion(Withdrawal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Graham Stringer - perhaps the most likely Labour MP to vote with Field/Hoey - was "ill" apparently.

I noticed praise for a Plaid MP (I think) who did make it to vote for Amendment 7 despite being quite poorly.

In 2017, should there not be a mechanism for MPs who are properly, doctor's note ill to be able to vote remotely?

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:On which, Labour Brexit rebels who voted FOR the Grieve amendment

Ronnie Campbell
John Mann
Dennis Skinner

AGAINST
Frank Field
Kate Hoey

The other usual rebels didn't vote as far as I can see

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2 ... opeanUnion(Withdrawal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Graham Stringer - perhaps the most likely Labour MP to vote with Field/Hoey - was "ill" apparently.

Willow904 wrote: The informal practice of "pairing" is the usual mechanism to account for illness, but under May this practice has been temporarily dispensed with. I think pairing is used elsewhere, such as Australia. Would be interested if any other countries have tried anything else to deal with the problem.

SpinningHugo wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:On which, Labour Brexit rebels who voted FOR the Grieve amendment

Ronnie Campbell
John Mann
Dennis Skinner

AGAINST
Frank Field
Kate Hoey

The other usual rebels didn't vote as far as I can see

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2 ... opeanUnion(Withdrawal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Graham Stringer - perhaps the most likely Labour MP to vote with Field/Hoey - was "ill" apparently.

I think this highlights the problem.

Come 2019 Labour will only oppose if there is a chance of winning. As with the art 50 vote, the calculation will be that the price in popularity is too high to oppose Brexit. Indeed, voting down Brexit with a deal in favour of no deal Brexit makes much less sense than voting to trigger art 50 unconditionally.

So, as the Campaing Group \, Hoey and Field actually support Brexit, the bulk of the rest of Labour, as last time, will make the calculation that they may as well support the government. No doubt there'll be the few principled opponents who will join the handful of Tory rebels, but nowhere near enough.

Starmer, no doubt, will try to make lots of noise about the European Charter or siome such minor point, and then fall in behind Corbyn,

Which is why you shouldn't support the two Brexit parties.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote: Shirley the prospect of a final vote makes it much less likely that the final offer will be Hard Brexit. Demonstrably, this is likely to fail in the current House.

So, the eventual choice for MPs may be between Hard (no deal) and Soft (deal) Brexit.

If that happened there would be an opportunity for Brussels to move the whole EU, insofar of course as they want to do so, towards UK Soft Brexit. In that case, the final vote could be de facto to Remain.

We want to be as close to the single market as we possibly can to get tariff-free access and also to ensure that we protect jobs and the economy overall. With regards to the Customs Union, a Customs Union, again exactly the same. [...] We think we are the only party that can bring together our country again. The country was really divided over Brexit. We’ve got to reach what we think is a traditional British compromise which brings both sides together, those who voted to leave and those who voted to remain, in a compromise which is trying to get the best we possibly can in terms of protecting jobs and the economy and that means the benefits of the single market and the customs union but overcoming some of the perceived disbenefits that motivated people to vote for Brexit.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:John McDonnell said

We want to be as close to the single market as we possibly can to get tariff-free access and also to ensure that we protect jobs and the economy overall. With regards to the Customs Union, a Customs Union, again exactly the same. [...] We think we are the only party that can bring together our country again. The country was really divided over Brexit. We’ve got to reach what we think is a traditional British compromise which brings both sides together, those who voted to leave and those who voted to remain, in a compromise which is trying to get the best we possibly can in terms of protecting jobs and the economy and that means the benefits of the single market and the customs union but overcoming some of the perceived disbenefits that motivated people to vote for Brexit.

For me, McDonnell is indeed being quite clear and saying "Soft Brexit + Soft Remain" in so many words.

During the voting, some old fashioned whipping was applied by the Government. Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, was witnessed dragging new Tory MP Vicky Ford through the No lobby.
Gavin Williamson, the Defence Secretary who was Chief Whip until six weeks ago, was seen giving new Scottish Tory MP Paul Masterton a hard time on the green benches. Once a whip?
Earlier it was reported that whips had been accused of reducing a female MP to tears. A male whip was alleged to have used "bully boy tactics" that left the MP trembling and crying in the Commons.

Parliament now has one hand on the Brexit steering wheel. There's not much the Brexit establishment, the former rebels, can do about it, as not much was done to resist transition or a £40bn financial settlement.
Their votes are banked in order merely to get any sort of Brexit at all. It is the mutineers with leverage in this internal Tory negotiation over exactly what sort.

frog222 wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:John McDonnell said

We want to be as close to the single market as we possibly can to get tariff-free access and also to ensure that we protect jobs and the economy overall. With regards to the Customs Union, a Customs Union, again exactly the same. [...] We think we are the only party that can bring together our country again. The country was really divided over Brexit. We’ve got to reach what we think is a traditional British compromise which brings both sides together, those who voted to leave and those who voted to remain, in a compromise which is trying to get the best we possibly can in terms of protecting jobs and the economy and that means the benefits of the single market and the customs union but overcoming some of the perceived disbenefits that motivated people to vote for Brexit.

For me, McDonnell is indeed being quite clear and saying "Soft Brexit + Soft Remain" in so many words.

Complete tariff-freedom looks impossible, see TBG's second Politico link, above . And any deal is going to take much longer than a few years ? Must check on the Norway/Swiss agreements but there are problems there too ...

General point -- rather than 'protecting jobs' it's surely all about limiting the inevitable job-losses ?

More to say, but thunder getting close !

tinybgoat wrote:https://news.sky.com/story/after-govern ... t-11170049
"After Government defeat, the Commons will now steer May towards soft Brexit" (Faisal Islam)

Parliament now has one hand on the Brexit steering wheel. There's not much the Brexit establishment, the former rebels, can do about it, as not much was done to resist transition or a £40bn financial settlement.
Their votes are banked in order merely to get any sort of Brexit at all. It is the mutineers with leverage in this internal Tory negotiation over exactly what sort.

“Xavier Bettel, the prime minister of Luxembourg, said the UK would not be given the opportunity to renegotiate.
“No,” he told reporters when asked. “To think Theresa May will negotiate something, we will negotiate something, and then again [Ms May] will go back to Westminster is not good for the position of the negotiations.
Westminster should trust that Theresa May will do the best for the UK. Westminster shouldn’t, even before we start negotiations to have in their heads that they don’t trust the prime minister.”

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:John McDonnell said

We want to be as close to the single market as we possibly can to get tariff-free access and also to ensure that we protect jobs and the economy overall. With regards to the Customs Union, a Customs Union, again exactly the same. [...] We think we are the only party that can bring together our country again. The country was really divided over Brexit. We’ve got to reach what we think is a traditional British compromise which brings both sides together, those who voted to leave and those who voted to remain, in a compromise which is trying to get the best we possibly can in terms of protecting jobs and the economy and that means the benefits of the single market and the customs union but overcoming some of the perceived disbenefits that motivated people to vote for Brexit.

For me, McDonnell is indeed being quite clear and saying "Soft Brexit + Soft Remain" in so many words.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:John McDonnell said

We want to be as close to the single market as we possibly can to get tariff-free access and also to ensure that we protect jobs and the economy overall. With regards to the Customs Union, a Customs Union, again exactly the same. [...] We think we are the only party that can bring together our country again. The country was really divided over Brexit. We’ve got to reach what we think is a traditional British compromise which brings both sides together, those who voted to leave and those who voted to remain, in a compromise which is trying to get the best we possibly can in terms of protecting jobs and the economy and that means the benefits of the single market and the customs union but overcoming some of the perceived disbenefits that motivated people to vote for Brexit.

For me, McDonnell is indeed being quite clear and saying "Soft Brexit + Soft Remain" in so many words.

tinybgoat wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 10376.html
"Brexit: No renegotiation if MPs reject deal Theresa May gets, EU leader warns"

“Xavier Bettel, the prime minister of Luxembourg, said the UK would not be given the opportunity to renegotiate.
“No,” he told reporters when asked. “To think Theresa May will negotiate something, we will negotiate something, and then again [Ms May] will go back to Westminster is not good for the position of the negotiations.
Westminster should trust that Theresa May will do the best for the UK. Westminster shouldn’t, even before we start negotiations to have in their heads that they don’t trust the prime minister.”

Willow904 wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:John McDonnell said

We want to be as close to the single market as we possibly can to get tariff-free access and also to ensure that we protect jobs and the economy overall. With regards to the Customs Union, a Customs Union, again exactly the same. [...] We think we are the only party that can bring together our country again. The country was really divided over Brexit. We’ve got to reach what we think is a traditional British compromise which brings both sides together, those who voted to leave and those who voted to remain, in a compromise which is trying to get the best we possibly can in terms of protecting jobs and the economy and that means the benefits of the single market and the customs union but overcoming some of the perceived disbenefits that motivated people to vote for Brexit.

For me, McDonnell is indeed being quite clear and saying "Soft Brexit + Soft Remain" in so many words.

"Overcoming the perceived disbenefits". While maintaining the benefits of SM and CU. How, exactly? Either we regain control of immigration by leaving the SM and losing the economic benefits and reciprocal freedom of movement throughout the EU for UK citizens, thus disappointing remain voters, or we accept freedom of movement of some degree or other and all the other rules to maintain the economic benefits of the SM and disappoint leave voters. There is no compromise I can fathom. Anymore than I can see a way of resolving the Irish border problem without making one group or another extremely unhappy.

McDonnell can afford such vagueness, Labour aren't in power. But if they were and he was coming out with such unrealistic guff I wouldn't have a lot of confidence in them, I'm afraid. Ed Miliband said right at the start that if it came down to a choice between controlling immigration and the economic benefits of the SM, and it very likely will, we should put the SM first and I agree. I have no idea if McDonnell agrees, however, which leaves me feeling rather in the dark about Labour's Brexit stance. Presumably it will become clear eventually, but I have no particular expectation it will be to my liking, tbh.

Nigel Farage‏Verified account @Nigel_Farage
19h

My contempt for career politicians knows no bounds.

Ed Miliband
✔
@Ed_Miliband

And mine for people who travel thousands of miles to endorse a groper of young girls who also happens to be a racist homophobe. Time for a period of silence. " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
10:25 PM - Dec 13, 2017 (HuffPost)

Willow904 wrote:---
"Overcoming the perceived disbenefits". While maintaining the benefits of SM and CU. How, exactly? Either we regain control of immigration by leaving the SM and losing the economic benefits and reciprocal freedom of movement throughout the EU for UK citizens, thus disappointing remain voters, or we accept freedom of movement of some degree or other and all the other rules to maintain the economic benefits of the SM and disappoint leave voters. There is no compromise I can fathom. Anymore than I can see a way of resolving the Irish border problem without making one group or another extremely unhappy.

McDonnell can afford such vagueness, Labour aren't in power. But if they were and he was coming out with such unrealistic guff I wouldn't have a lot of confidence in them, I'm afraid. Ed Miliband said right at the start that if it came down to a choice between controlling immigration and the economic benefits of the SM, and it very likely will, we should put the SM first and I agree. I have no idea if McDonnell agrees, however, which leaves me feeling rather in the dark about Labour's Brexit stance. Presumably it will become clear eventually, but I have no particular expectation it will be to my liking, tbh.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

tinybgoat wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 10376.html
"Brexit: No renegotiation if MPs reject deal Theresa May gets, EU leader warns"

“Xavier Bettel, the prime minister of Luxembourg, said the UK would not be given the opportunity to renegotiate.
“No,” he told reporters when asked. “To think Theresa May will negotiate something, we will negotiate something, and then again [Ms May] will go back to Westminster is not good for the position of the negotiations.
Westminster should trust that Theresa May will do the best for the UK. Westminster shouldn’t, even before we start negotiations to have in their heads that they don’t trust the prime minister.”

Over the years I've always been so pleased that our media have turned to the Prime Minister of Luxembourg to help steer our national debates

citizenJA wrote:---
Think of Gordon Brown's five economic tests as a model preventing undesirable action while remaining open-minded.

citizenJA wrote:

Willow904 wrote:---
"Overcoming the perceived disbenefits". While maintaining the benefits of SM and CU. How, exactly? Either we regain control of immigration by leaving the SM and losing the economic benefits and reciprocal freedom of movement throughout the EU for UK citizens, thus disappointing remain voters, or we accept freedom of movement of some degree or other and all the other rules to maintain the economic benefits of the SM and disappoint leave voters. There is no compromise I can fathom. Anymore than I can see a way of resolving the Irish border problem without making one group or another extremely unhappy.

McDonnell can afford such vagueness, Labour aren't in power. But if they were and he was coming out with such unrealistic guff I wouldn't have a lot of confidence in them, I'm afraid. Ed Miliband said right at the start that if it came down to a choice between controlling immigration and the economic benefits of the SM, and it very likely will, we should put the SM first and I agree. I have no idea if McDonnell agrees, however, which leaves me feeling rather in the dark about Labour's Brexit stance. Presumably it will become clear eventually, but I have no particular expectation it will be to my liking, tbh.

(cJA edit)

Think of Gordon Brown's five economic tests as a model preventing undesirable action while remaining open-minded.

HindleA wrote:Apparently Tesco paying temporary staff via pre-paid cards with a charge to access thus below minimum wage,is this legal?

Willow904 wrote:@PaulfromYorkshire

I think it's a good thing that EU citizens can enjoy equal rights in all EU countries,as we have now, enforced by the ECJ. Any other kind of immigration agreement has the potential to be more exploitative, presumably what Tory Brexiters are after.
I'm just struggling to see what your "sweet spot" actually looks like that makes leave voters happy, without making remain voters unhappy, if only the EU did something differently. What precisely are the changes you're thinking of?

SpinningHugo wrote:PfY

What dramatic changes in the EUs structure are you envisaging over the next 2 to 3 years?

I expect none at all, so I am a bit puzzled by your claim.

As for the idea that Macron and Merkel are chatting regularly with John McDonnell, I would suggest that is similarly far-fetched.

Willow904 wrote:---
Would it be cynical to suggest that Gordon Brown might have devised his 5 tests to provide the answer he already knew he wanted to get?

HindleA wrote:Apparently Tesco paying temporary staff via pre-paid cards with a charge to access thus below minimum wage,is this legal?

There are no official estimates of minimum wage non-compliance and as such we use a range of data and information to inform our understanding of the scale and nature of minimum wage underpayment.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... t-2017.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA wrote:---
...I would ask how voting for a particular party or not voting for particular parties in non existing elections would "help".

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

Willow904 wrote:@PaulfromYorkshire

I think it's a good thing that EU citizens can enjoy equal rights in all EU countries,as we have now, enforced by the ECJ. Any other kind of immigration agreement has the potential to be more exploitative, presumably what Tory Brexiters are after.
I'm just struggling to see what your "sweet spot" actually looks like that makes leave voters happy, without making remain voters unhappy, if only the EU did something differently. What precisely are the changes you're thinking of?

Hi Willow

On the bit emphasised I agree wholeheartedly. However, I'm not sure Freedom of Movement is what it is often portrayed as. I found this piece from George Eaton a few months back interesting.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/u ... mmigration" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My worry is that the current regime can in fact be exploitative and can result in workers having to chase the free flow of capital around the continent. I salute and utterly welcome the right of Poles to live and work in the UK, but I'm not sure that all the Poles would have chosen to do so over a good job closer to home.

It's really not my area of expertise, but if we had as strong a regional policy as some other parts of the EU things could probably look very different without even changing the Single Market. I believe some changes to the Single Market could be envisioned that would be broadly welcomed outside London and Frankfurt and that would economically, rather than politically, manage immigration. But hands up I don't know how to do this.

I've said often that I would welcome a debate on what a more socialist internationalist EU would look like. Is the status quo really the best the EU can be?

Willow904 wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

Willow904 wrote:@PaulfromYorkshire

I think it's a good thing that EU citizens can enjoy equal rights in all EU countries,as we have now, enforced by the ECJ. Any other kind of immigration agreement has the potential to be more exploitative, presumably what Tory Brexiters are after.
I'm just struggling to see what your "sweet spot" actually looks like that makes leave voters happy, without making remain voters unhappy, if only the EU did something differently. What precisely are the changes you're thinking of?

Hi Willow

On the bit emphasised I agree wholeheartedly. However, I'm not sure Freedom of Movement is what it is often portrayed as. I found this piece from George Eaton a few months back interesting.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/u ... mmigration" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My worry is that the current regime can in fact be exploitative and can result in workers having to chase the free flow of capital around the continent. I salute and utterly welcome the right of Poles to live and work in the UK, but I'm not sure that all the Poles would have chosen to do so over a good job closer to home.

It's really not my area of expertise, but if we had as strong a regional policy as some other parts of the EU things could probably look very different without even changing the Single Market. I believe some changes to the Single Market could be envisioned that would be broadly welcomed outside London and Frankfurt and that would economically, rather than politically, manage immigration. But hands up I don't know how to do this.

I've said often that I would welcome a debate on what a more socialist internationalist EU would look like. Is the status quo really the best the EU can be?

Except we're leaving the EU. We can stay in the single market if we obey its rules or we can "take back control" which essentially means more barriers than we have now. And, yes, we can change our mind and not leave, but we can't expect to change the rules of a club we have decided to quit. And even if we could, I'm very doubtful the kind of changes the Tory shire pensioners and xenophobic working class who voted for leave would require to change their minds are likely to be the kind of changes I'd like to see - Cameron wanted to reduce benefits and rights for EU workers for instance. I'd rather try to persuade a majority to accept the single market as it is, than try to move the whole of the EU further towards the nationalist leave voters way of thinking.