FlyTheNest

Morning.

Somehow missed it snowing.
Currently 0 C

--4° and a clear sky

Still dark!

Put the bloody light on then.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... toms-union" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

cabinet-united-brexit-trade-strategy-amber-rudd-theresa-may-customs-union

Union, partnership, arrangement?

Let's call the whole thing off!

"educated people",sheesh.

HindleA wrote:Put the bloody light on then.

In what way would that help me determine the clarity of the sky?

Good morning

What utter nonsense this attempt to distinguish between "a" customs union and "the" customs union is. It wouldn't impress a small child.

SpinningHugo wrote:What utter nonsense this attempt to distinguish between "a" customs union and "the" customs union is. It wouldn't impress a small child.

Well exactly.

And this is the team batting for Britain in Brussels

Right,time for bed.Enjoy your day(s)

HindleA wrote:Right,time for bed.Enjoy your day(s)

Hmm, maybe you are transitioning to being a rabbit.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... toms-union

cabinet-united-brexit-trade-strategy-amber-rudd-theresa-may-customs-union

Union, partnership, arrangement?

Let's call the whole thing off!

“It is not our policy to be in the customs union. It is not our policy to be in a customs union.”

That sounds pretty flexible to me, was there more?

SpinningHugo wrote:What utter nonsense this attempt to distinguish between "a" customs union and "the" customs union is. It wouldn't impress a small child.

Why is it nonsense?

You do know there is a difference between the definite and indefinite articles don't you?

Being a member of the EU Customs Union is different to being in a customs union with the EU (such as Turkey is)

It is all very semantic but it is important in these types of discussion where people are trying to avoid being too specific for a particular reason. You can criticise people for sitting on the fence and not being specific but that is different from criticising the use of 'a' and 'the'

The issue is people make losts of asssumptions on what customs union and single market means and so interchange a lot. The definite article should only be used where all parties in the discussion know what it is referring to - if someone says 'the customs union' to me, it means the one that we are currently in as part of the membership of the EU; if they say 'a customs union' that means something that has not been fully defined yet.

As I say very semantic but it suits the person saying it

howsillyofme1 wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:What utter nonsense this attempt to distinguish between "a" customs union and "the" customs union is. It wouldn't impress a small child.

Why is it nonsense?

You do know there is a difference between the definite and indefinite articles don't you?

Being a member of the EU Customs Union is different to being in a customs union with the EU (such as Turkey is)

It is all very semantic but it is important in these types of discussion where people are trying to avoid being too specific for a particular reason. You can criticise people for sitting on the fence and not being specific but that is different from criticising the use of 'a' and 'the'

The issue is people make losts of asssumptions on what customs union and single market means and so interchange a lot. The definite article should only be used where all parties in the discussion know what it is referring to - if someone says 'the customs union' to me, it means the one that we are currently in as part of the membership of the EU; if they say 'a customs union' that means something that has not been fully defined yet.

As I say very semantic but it suits the person saying it

But the government are using it nonsensically, as part of the 'we can have just the relationship we have now but without the obligations or the oversight' idea.

adam wrote:

howsillyofme1 wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:What utter nonsense this attempt to distinguish between "a" customs union and "the" customs union is. It wouldn't impress a small child.

Why is it nonsense?

You do know there is a difference between the definite and indefinite articles don't you?

Being a member of the EU Customs Union is different to being in a customs union with the EU (such as Turkey is)

It is all very semantic but it is important in these types of discussion where people are trying to avoid being too specific for a particular reason. You can criticise people for sitting on the fence and not being specific but that is different from criticising the use of 'a' and 'the'

The issue is people make losts of asssumptions on what customs union and single market means and so interchange a lot. The definite article should only be used where all parties in the discussion know what it is referring to - if someone says 'the customs union' to me, it means the one that we are currently in as part of the membership of the EU; if they say 'a customs union' that means something that has not been fully defined yet.

As I say very semantic but it suits the person saying it

But the government are using it nonsensically, as part of the 'we can have just the relationship we have now but without the obligations or the oversight' idea.

Adam

I was replying to the sense that using 'a' and 'the' was nonsense and it isn't

The Government are entitled to say they want to be in a customs union with the EU that is a 'cake and eat' it option. It would no longer be the EU customs union as now.

I know it is semantics but if I was May I would be doing the same thing - using 'a' a lot more than 'the'. Labour are doing it as well and the reasoning is pretty clear even if you think that politics of it is completely unrealistic and nonsensical

She though seems to have ruled out a customs union which seems to cover all bases - but is now talking of an arrangement, but that is far more ambiguous because I have no idea what one iof those looks like - a customs union is pretty well-defined

adam wrote: But the government are using it nonsensically, as part of the 'we can have just the relationship we have now but without the obligations or the oversight' idea.

It is nonsensical whoever uses it. The substantive matter is whether we can enter into independent trade deals with therd party countries (ie whether Fox
s department is meaningful).

Trying to distinguish between "a" and "the" is the same laughable linguistic pedantry, worthy of nothing but mockery, as those who insist we cannot be members of the single market.

As we've already agreed the Irish border issue, we'll be staying in the customs union (or if idiots prefer, within a customs union materially identical). Labour should just commit to it now, as it is already determined.

For clarity, John Pienaar on R5 has confirmed (if anything can be regarded as "confirmed" in this day and age) that number 10 has ruled out ANY kind of CU.

Brexit: May accused of 'ideologically-driven madness' after she rules out any customs union - Politics live

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/bl ... itics-live" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

It is so transparently obvious that this ridiculous row is being driven by internal Tory party politics, and not what is best for the UK.

We'll be in the customs union regardless.

SpinningHugo wrote:

adam wrote: But the government are using it nonsensically, as part of the 'we can have just the relationship we have now but without the obligations or the oversight' idea.

It is nonsensical whoever uses it. The substantive matter is whether we can enter into independent trade deals with therd party countries (ie whether Fox
s department is meaningful).

Trying to distinguish between "a" and "the" is the same laughable linguistic pedantry, worthy of nothing but mockery, as those who insist we cannot be members of the single market.

As we've already agreed the Irish border issue, we'll be staying in the customs union (or if idiots prefer, within a customs union materially identical). Labour should just commit to it now, as it is already determined.

It is sematic to argue between 'a' and 'the' I agree but there is a clear difference and in this case I understand why. Will they be identical - how do you know that? I don't agree that this is fore-ordained. The outcome will be to allow goods to pass between the UK and Ireland but whether that will be identical to the EU customs union or be a customs union that allows the same

Let us take this 'Single Market'

There are 3 examples of single markets the EU are currently engaged in

There is the EU internal market
There is the EEA agreement between EFTA and the EU that covers defined aspects of the internal market
There are the CH/EU bilaterals which again cover certain aspects of the internal market

These are all different, but to be acceptable to the EU in that they meet certain principles that fulfill the 4 pillars. It isperfectly arguable that there is no definined 'single market'that can be applied in all cases In the end the exact requirementas are set out in signed treaties (the EU treaties for the members of that organisation, the EEA for EFTA, and the bilaterals for CH) and that is all that matters. I will say again the phrase 'single market' does not appear to exist within the EEA agreement

Of course, this is all vvery pedantic but if I was a politician trying to tip-toe through this I would be playing on all this until the last minute possible

You can disagree with the approach and the fence-sitting but you are making assertions that I do not think are entirely correct

I though, as a supposed lawyer, you would be very sensitive to the subtle differences of language in this type of discussion

AngryAsWell wrote:For clarity, John Pienaar on R5 has confirmed (if anything can be regarded as "confirmed" in this day and age) that number 10 has ruled out ANY kind of CU.

and that is the important point - if they ruled out 'the customs union' that leaves some wriggle room - saying no customs union at all takes it to a new level

"We will not be staying in any CU in any way shape or form" is what the government has announced.
That looks faily black and white to me.

AngryAsWell wrote:"We will not be staying in any CU in any way shape or form" is what the government has announced.
That looks faily black and white to me.

and to me - the argument over 'a' and 'the' becomes completely irrelevent - although there is this new concept of an 'arrangement'

I would have thought staying with 'a customs union' would have been a better option as it probably keeps everything open - ruling it out seems a little bizarre and can only be explained by the rifts in the Tory Party

Today does nicely illustrate the difference between being in government and not.

The current government position makes no sense. But that cannot hold. These cake and eat it policies (a custms union arrangement that has no hard border in Ireland is materially identical to the customs union but is incompatible with the third party trade deals the Brexiteers think is the upside of Brexit).

The opposition can fudge this with bland nonsense about a "jobs first Brexit" but being in governmenr means making choices.

There is also a major problem with Parliamentary demcracy here. There is no majority that gives a Parliamentary majority within either the Tory or Labour parties for any particular approach to Brexit. There is a majority across them (basically for a soft SM and CU Brexit) but that (probably large) majority is not in charge of either of those parties. So the majority in Parliament (and probably in the country) cannot be represented in government regardless of what happens.

Rees-Mogg v Corbyn here we come. What madness.

FT as ever measured and right

https://www.ft.com/content/618dbbc4-074 ... 0ad2d7c5b5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

May has proven astonishingly ill-suited to the job. what a sorry disaster the UK is.

AngryAsWell wrote:"We will not be staying in any CU in any way shape or form" is what the government has announced.
That looks faily black and white to me.

But instead they want close, frictionless alignment or a 'customs partnership' which seems vaguely
similar, (although woolly, fuzzy & grey)

tinybgoat wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:"We will not be staying in any CU in any way shape or form" is what the government has announced.
That looks faily black and white to me.

But instead they want close, frictionless alignment or a 'customs partnership' which seems vaguely
similar, (although woolly, fuzzy & grey)

"exactly the same benefits"

Brexit requires choices. It would have been better to make those choices, have the political fight, and then try to work towards the agreed goals.

Both main parties found that too hard, and so instead made no choices.

Of course that the government did that is far more consequential.

SpinningHugo wrote:Today does nicely illustrate the difference between being in government and not.

The current government position makes no sense. But that cannot hold. These cake and eat it policies (a custms union arrangement that has no hard border in Ireland is materially identical to the customs union but is incompatible with the third party trade deals the Brexiteers think is the upside of Brexit).

The opposition can fudge this with bland nonsense about a "jobs first Brexit" but being in governmenr means making choices.

There is also a major problem with Parliamentary demcracy here. There is no majority that gives a Parliamentary majority within either the Tory or Labour parties for any particular approach to Brexit. There is a majority across them (basically for a soft SM and CU Brexit) but that (probably large) majority is not in charge of either of those parties. So the majority in Parliament (and probably in the country) cannot be represented in government regardless of what happens.

Rees-Mogg v Corbyn here we come. What madness.

Indeed being in Government is about making choices, and that is the downside of being in power

The downside of opposition is not being able to implement things but the plus side is that you can avoid making decisions

I am not so convinced of where the majority sits in the HoC - the Tories are a bit of an enigma

This soft SM/CU option may sound good on paper but I am not sure it is going to be all that popular when people find out the practical implications - politicians have a habit of mis-reading their electorate. I am not sure anyone can say witrh confidence that this option does have the majority or that it will be accepted

It is why I am not particularly enthused about Labour jumping too soon on this

Anna Soubry MP‏Verified account
@Anna_Soubry
Follow Follow @Anna_Soubry
More
May I gently remind @Conservatives colleagues we lost our majority in June when the British people rejected a no #CustomsUnion #Hard Brexit

The only thing that could save us now is Nissan & Toyota declaring that as their "just in time" manufacturing model will not work outside of the CU, that they will be pulling out of the UK.
Seems to me the whole country needs a hard slap!

AngryAsWell wrote:The only thing that could save us now is Nissan & Toyota declaring that as their "just in time" manufacturing model will not work outside of the CU, that they will be pulling out of the UK.
Seems to me the whole country needs a hard slap!

That should be an inevitability - we shall see.

AngryAsWell wrote:The only thing that could save us now is Nissan & Toyota declaring that as their "just in time" manufacturing model will not work outside of the CU, that they will be pulling out of the UK.
Seems to me the whole country needs a hard slap!

Something like that needs to happen, I agree. The electorate need something to shock them into action

AngryAsWell wrote:The only thing that could save us now is Nissan & Toyota declaring that as their "just in time" manufacturing model will not work outside of the CU, that they will be pulling out of the UK.
Seems to me the whole country needs a hard slap!

If you think that would save us you're more optimistic than I am, there appears to be no limit to the economic damage the tory hard/no-deal brexit supporters will accept.

gilsey wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:The only thing that could save us now is Nissan & Toyota declaring that as their "just in time" manufacturing model will not work outside of the CU, that they will be pulling out of the UK.
Seems to me the whole country needs a hard slap!

If you think that would save us you're more optimistic than I am, there appears to be no limit to the economic damage the tory hard/no-deal brexit supporters will accept.

We and our overseas investors are being stabbed in the back by the unreasonable attitude of the unreasonable EU who for some reason can't see the sense in allowing our perfectly effective current business practices to continue after we leave the the EU.

Anyway, it seems to me that May/Davis want us to leave the EU and thereafter voluntarily adopt EU laws and regulations, which they think will a) satisfy the voters that we've left the EU and b) avoid the need for border controls in NI or indeed anywhere else. Take back control!

Ultimately is it having to rely on the DUP that's preventing the Tories having a potentially workable solution? if it were acceptable to have a customs border between the rest of the UK and N.Ireland, does anyone think the Government's plans (i.e. eu rules for goods destined for eu, separate trade deals for uk only) would be achievable? Also how would a similar scenario work with Labour, would they be happy on a customs border with N.Ireland?

Will Hutton‏
@williamnhutton
Follow Follow @williamnhutton
More
Average wait at French ports for non-EU lorries is 7 minutes. That implies 50 mile queues on M 2/20. Parallel crisis at Irish border. House of Commons will not/cannot agree deal with no customs union. May has saved her job for a few more weeks but killed Brexit this morning.

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

Interesting viewpoint...

tinybgoat wrote:Ultimately is it having to rely on the DUP that's preventing the Tories having a potentially workable solution? if it were acceptable to have a customs border between the rest of the UK and N.Ireland, does anyone think the Government's plans (i.e. eu rules for goods destined for eu, separate trade deals for uk only) would be achievable? Also how would a similar scenario work with Labour, would they be happy on a customs border with N.Ireland?

Would Scotland, Wales, London... and so on, accept a situation where Northern Ireland had a better trading relationship with the rest of the EU than they did?

adam wrote:

tinybgoat wrote:Ultimately is it having to rely on the DUP that's preventing the Tories having a potentially workable solution? if it were acceptable to have a customs border between the rest of the UK and N.Ireland, does anyone think the Government's plans (i.e. eu rules for goods destined for eu, separate trade deals for uk only) would be achievable? Also how would a similar scenario work with Labour, would they be happy on a customs border with N.Ireland?

Would Scotland, Wales, London... and so on, accept a situation where Northern Ireland had a better trading relationship with the rest of the EU than they did?

To turn that on it's head, it isn't ok to have economic armageddon just because NI gets it too.

I'm struggling to word that right.

adam wrote:

tinybgoat wrote:Ultimately is it having to rely on the DUP that's preventing the Tories having a potentially workable solution? if it were acceptable to have a customs border between the rest of the UK and N.Ireland, does anyone think the Government's plans (i.e. eu rules for goods destined for eu, separate trade deals for uk only) would be achievable? Also how would a similar scenario work with Labour, would they be happy on a customs border with N.Ireland?

Would Scotland, Wales, London... and so on, accept a situation where Northern Ireland had a better trading relationship with the rest of the EU than they did?

I'm probably misunderstanding it, but theory would be that we'd have close to 'as is' trading with eu, but separate deals possible for other nations, the border with n.ireland would be to keep non-eu goods out of the island of Ireland (and, so the EU). So arguably it would be N.Ireland who'd lose out on the extra World trade, but would get to keep an open border with Ireland.
edit (admittedly, this seems unlikely)

AngryAsWell wrote:Will Hutton‏
@williamnhutton
Follow Follow @williamnhutton
More
Average wait at French ports for non-EU lorries is 7 minutes. That implies 50 mile queues on M 2/20. Parallel crisis at Irish border. House of Commons will not/cannot agree deal with no customs union. May has saved her job for a few more weeks but killed Brexit this morning.

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

Interesting viewpoint...

Patrick McVeigh
‏

@PMCV
2h2 hours ago
More
Replying to @williamnhutton
Apparently Honda UK requires 350 lorries a day to get through Dover - will Honda spell this impossibility out? Or is it simply too risky to be the first car assembler to admit this law of physics?

gilsey wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:Will Hutton‏
@williamnhutton
Follow Follow @williamnhutton
More
Average wait at French ports for non-EU lorries is 7 minutes. That implies 50 mile queues on M 2/20. Parallel crisis at Irish border. House of Commons will not/cannot agree deal with no customs union. May has saved her job for a few more weeks but killed Brexit this morning.

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

Interesting viewpoint...

Patrick McVeigh
‏

@PMCV
2h2 hours ago
More
Replying to @williamnhutton
Apparently Honda UK requires 350 lorries a day to get through Dover - will Honda spell this impossibility out? Or is it simply too risky to be the first car assembler to admit this law of physics?

Damn, We'll just have to postpone Brexit until a time when our knowledge of Physics is suitably advanced.

gilsey wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:The only thing that could save us now is Nissan & Toyota declaring that as their "just in time" manufacturing model will not work outside of the CU, that they will be pulling out of the UK.
Seems to me the whole country needs a hard slap!

If you think that would save us you're more optimistic than I am, there appears to be no limit to the economic damage the tory hard/no-deal brexit supporters will accept.

To a hard core, anything bad that happens with Brexit will be the fault of somebody else.

But as with Trump's diehard supporters in the US, these people are in fact a minority. There are quite a few who are persuadable.

Apparently the government are leaning towards a customs agreement, not a custom's union. Although it may involve technology that doesn't yet exist.

HindleA wrote:Morning.

Somehow missed it snowing.
Currently 0 C

[youtube]l9zcLAUp5E0[/youtube]

adam wrote:Apparently the government are leaning towards a customs agreement, not a custom's union. Although it may involve technology that doesn't yet exist.

Just the usual, then.....

Good morfternoon.

A further >400 jobs lost as a result of the Carillion failure (Sky TV news - no further details).

Morning all.

Early appointment at the hospital - and I;m fairly certain that getting into the car park - signs saying full when clearly not and thus barrier not working until someone exits - took longer than the actual appointment. Anyway, all well. Last chemo is on Thursday.

And, oh joy, an email asking me to investigate a complaint at school. My life is so great right now...

Notice that Labour still hasn't reacted to this Customs Union row.

Labour should commit now to permanent membership of the Customs Union (or for fools, permanently being in a Customs Union with materially identical terms).

Labour must now dismiss the views of the shadow secretary of state for international trade as wrong

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ain-europe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Get on the right side FFS.