Re: Saturday 17th & Sunday 18th February 2018
Posted: Sun 18 Feb, 2018 1:04 pm
Have you all PTOd?
I'm really on the ball today!
I'm really on the ball today!
But what about Article 50, goes the main accusation from those who feel this is all about competence. How could you start the two year clock ticking to either a hasty withdrawal agreement or bust without having figured out what you want? How could Labour whip its MPs to support that? Isn’t that reckless?
Well, once again you have to drop the idea that either side consists of single thinking units in control of all their own moving parts. If this is a game of chicken between starkly opposing factions, more time is not productive, since neither will back down anyway until the last possible moment.
I know I get boring but here it goes again:PaulfromYorkshire wrote:I noticed this in Thornberry's words this morning
Perhaps Hugo I'm not the only one who thinks there's room for some changes!I know that it's very difficult for us to remain in the single market as it currently is
(cJA edit)howsillyofme1 wrote:---
...it is reasonable to say that the UK housing market is a law unto itself in there most part
Low interest rates, the type of houses available and where, lack of meaningful property taxes, societal changes are just some of the many factors
The question is not just of 'supply' in a simplistic sense but also the availability of affordable well-managed rental accommodation.
(cJA edit)tinyclanger2 wrote:---
After all, how will our ineffective instinct defect on top of the category?
People use the phrase "single market" because it has a very precise, widely accepted economic meaning, which is that if you are in it, all the other countries in it become part of your internal market. The economic single market in Europe is very developed with longstanding free movement of goods, services, capital and people. If we don't accept the four freedoms we won't be participating fully in the single market as it now stands, it won't be part of our internal market and thus there will be barriers and therefore we will enjoy fewer economic benefits than now. I have no idea what kind of changes Emily Thornberry wants to see, but I find it very unlikely the countries of the single market will be willing to reverse the integration they have achieved and benefit from, just to accommodate one country that they know will have no choice but agree to everything they want, to secure the most minimal of Canada style trade deals, let alone the "frictionless" trade we say we want.howsillyofme1 wrote:I know I get boring but here it goes again:PaulfromYorkshire wrote:I noticed this in Thornberry's words this morning
Perhaps Hugo I'm not the only one who thinks there's room for some changes!I know that it's very difficult for us to remain in the single market as it currently is
The so-called 'Single Market' is defined by the treaties and pertains to your EU membership and link to the EU internal market - it includes the EU CU and the four freedoms of movement
It is used as shorthand by a lot of people to relate to the four freedoms but there is no legal definition of 'the single market' apart from the principles set out to describe the four freedoms
Norway is not a member of the single market. It is a signatory to the EEA agreement between the EU and EFTA....the EEA treaty has no mention of the phrase 'Single Market' which surely is a mystery seeing everybody focuses on these words
Switzerland is not a signatory to the EEA so it has bilaterals which closely mirror it but are not the same and has certain exclusions as well
Thornberry is right to say what she did unless we stay in the EU.
The fact that this phrase can have different interpretations suggests it is relatively meaningless
Why do interviewers never ask if the UK has an intention to become part of the EEA? That is the only way to avoid a bespoke deal - and even then it specifically excludes a CU so that would have to be negotiated separately
I know I am being pedantic by always mentioning this but it is not that difficult to grasp but the political commentators just ignore the subtleties and thus allow the politicians to obfuscate - in my view rightly so as I explained earlier
An excellent question, unfortunately I think the answer is that few journos understand it, those that do aren't regulars in mainstream media.howsillyofme1 wrote: Why do interviewers never ask if the UK has an intention to become part of the EEA?
Have you got a reference for Labour committing to be in the Customs Union post-transition as this is the first time I've heard this?howsillyofme1 wrote:oh, and I would just like to reiterate anyone saying that there is very little to differentiate Labour and the Tories is talking out of their arse
Labour has committed to status quo for the transition
Labour has said that all EU citizens would be granted rights to settle
Labour has said we will want to be in a CU with the EU post-Brexit
Labour has set out tests for any future deal
Labour has not insulted any of the EU negotiating team or leadership
What Labour has not done is to set out specific terms of how this will all be achieved - probably due to the fact they are not actually negotiating with the EU and seeing what the possibilities are or have seen anything remotely concrete coming from the UK Government on what their position is in these negotiations
Some people want Labour to commit to the mechanisms, some of us see that as foolhardy in the extreme. That is a matter of opinion though not fact.....and so both can be validly held and be subject to much debate. What Labour are not, though, is the same as the Tories - or even remotely so
Surely Theresa May's declared intention to leave the single market automatically rules out EEA membership anyway.gilsey wrote:An excellent question, unfortunately I think the answer is that few journos understand it, those that do aren't regulars in mainstream media.howsillyofme1 wrote: Why do interviewers never ask if the UK has an intention to become part of the EEA?
For example, Nick Anagram on Newsnight, he's pretty rubbish anyway but his political 'take' on brexit is risible. He just doesn't know enough about it. They get away with it because the general public don't either.
I never said the Customs Union did I?Willow904 wrote:Have you got a reference for Labour committing to be in the Customs Union post-transition as this is the first time I've heard this?howsillyofme1 wrote:oh, and I would just like to reiterate anyone saying that there is very little to differentiate Labour and the Tories is talking out of their arse
Labour has committed to status quo for the transition
Labour has said that all EU citizens would be granted rights to settle
Labour has said we will want to be in a CU with the EU post-Brexit
Labour has set out tests for any future deal
Labour has not insulted any of the EU negotiating team or leadership
What Labour has not done is to set out specific terms of how this will all be achieved - probably due to the fact they are not actually negotiating with the EU and seeing what the possibilities are or have seen anything remotely concrete coming from the UK Government on what their position is in these negotiations
Some people want Labour to commit to the mechanisms, some of us see that as foolhardy in the extreme. That is a matter of opinion though not fact.....and so both can be validly held and be subject to much debate. What Labour are not, though, is the same as the Tories - or even remotely so
Willow904 wrote:
Surely Theresa May's declared intention to leave the single market automatically rules out EEA membership anyway.
Yes, much more important to spend billions on free schools in areas with plenty of school places already, in inappropriate buildings and then close them down after a few years when only a fraction of places are filled, leaving pupils having to transfer to new schools part way through their GCSEs. Labour are so wasteful, investing in infrastructure and enriching childrens lives when they could be bunging that money to Tory donors. Pfft.HindleA wrote:https://labour.org.uk/press/labour-comm ... buildings/
Labour commits to sprinklers in all new school buildings
Typical Labour proglifacy and irresponsibility we have to wait for a strong enough economy before we give a shit about children burning to death a Govbot said.
How do you know this?Willow904 wrote:People use the phrase "single market" because it has a very precise, widely accepted economic meaning, which is that if you are in it, all the other countries in it become part of your internal market. The economic single market in Europe is very developed with longstanding free movement of goods, services, capital and people. If we don't accept the four freedoms we won't be participating fully in the single market as it now stands, it won't be part of our internal market and thus there will be barriers and therefore we will enjoy fewer economic benefits than now. I have no idea what kind of changes Emily Thornberry wants to see, but I find it very unlikely the countries of the single market will be willing to reverse the integration they have achieved and benefit from, just to accommodate one country that they know will have no choice but agree to everything they want, to secure the most minimal of Canada style trade deals, let alone the "frictionless" trade we say we want.howsillyofme1 wrote:I know I get boring but here it goes again:
The so-called 'Single Market' is defined by the treaties and pertains to your EU membership and link to the EU internal market - it includes the EU CU and the four freedoms of movement
It is used as shorthand by a lot of people to relate to the four freedoms but there is no legal definition of 'the single market' apart from the principles set out to describe the four freedoms
Norway is not a member of the single market. It is a signatory to the EEA agreement between the EU and EFTA....the EEA treaty has no mention of the phrase 'Single Market' which surely is a mystery seeing everybody focuses on these words
Switzerland is not a signatory to the EEA so it has bilaterals which closely mirror it but are not the same and has certain exclusions as well
Thornberry is right to say what she did unless we stay in the EU.
The fact that this phrase can have different interpretations suggests it is relatively meaningless
Why do interviewers never ask if the UK has an intention to become part of the EEA? That is the only way to avoid a bespoke deal - and even then it specifically excludes a CU so that would have to be negotiated separately
I know I am being pedantic by always mentioning this but it is not that difficult to grasp but the political commentators just ignore the subtleties and thus allow the politicians to obfuscate - in my view rightly so as I explained earlier
Regardless of political imperatives that some say made the early triggering of article 50 necessary, the fact remains the moment it was triggered we handed all the cards to the EU. We had power within the EU to change rules, we have no such power outside it. With the clock ticking we have to accept a deal or we only hurt ourselves far more than we hurt anyone else. The EU has been clear about what benefits will come with what arrangement, with only a Canada style trade deal possible with Theresa May's red lines and that to benefit from single market participation in any area we would have to accept all the current rules, including the four freedoms, for all areas, no cherry picking. They mean it, because anything less reduces the benefit of the single market for everyone.
As I say, I have no idea what Thornberry wants changed, but many leave voters want an end to freedom of movement. This won't be possible within the single market. As such I feel it important to make the argument that if we can't have both, protecting our economy should be prioritised, because this choice will have to be faced eventually. If she's talking about state aid rules, I would really like to know what it is she wants to do that single market rules prevent, because there was nothing in the last Labour manifesto that was prevented by single market membership.
People use the phrase "single market" because it has a very precise, widely accepted economic meaning, which is that if you are in it, all the other countries in it become part of your internal market. The economic single market in Europe is very developed with longstanding free movement of goods, services, capital and people. If we don't accept the four freedoms we won't be participating fully in the single market as it now stands, it won't be part of our internal market and thus there will be barriers and therefore we will enjoy fewer economic benefits than now. I have no idea what kind of changes Emily Thornberry wants to see, but I find it very unlikely the countries of the single market will be willing to reverse the integration they have achieved and benefit from, just to accommodate one country that they know will have no choice but agree to everything they want, to secure the most minimal of Canada style trade deals, let alone the "frictionless" trade we say we want.
Regardless of political imperatives that some say made the early triggering of article 50 necessary, the fact remains the moment it was triggered we handed all the cards to the EU. We had power within the EU to change rules, we have no such power outside it. With the clock ticking we have to accept a deal or we only hurt ourselves far more than we hurt anyone else. The EU has been clear about what benefits will come with what arrangement, with only a Canada style trade deal possible with Theresa May's red lines and that to benefit from single market participation in any area we would have to accept all the current rules, including the four freedoms, for all areas, no cherry picking. They mean it, because anything less reduces the benefit of the single market for everyone.
As I say, I have no idea what Thornberry wants changed, but many leave voters want an end to freedom of movement. This won't be possible within the single market. As such I feel it important to make the argument that if we can't have both, protecting our economy should be prioritised, because this choice will have to be faced eventually. If she's talking about state aid rules, I would really like to know what it is she wants to do that single market rules prevent, because there was nothing in the last Labour manifesto that was prevented by single market membership
"the" or "a" customs union - I'm not into nitpicking semantics. The reason I queried this is because I haven't seen a commitment to "a" or "the" or any kind of customs union after transition so wondered where this came from. Has Corbyn said this? I know Starmer has indicated being in favour personally, but not that it was Labour policy, just that it hadn't been ruled out. I'm not saying you're incorrect, just that I hadnt heard this and wondered where you got it from.howsillyofme1 wrote:I never said the Customs Union did I?Willow904 wrote:Have you got a reference for Labour committing to be in the Customs Union post-transition as this is the first time I've heard this?howsillyofme1 wrote:oh, and I would just like to reiterate anyone saying that there is very little to differentiate Labour and the Tories is talking out of their arse
Labour has committed to status quo for the transition
Labour has said that all EU citizens would be granted rights to settle
Labour has said we will want to be in a CU with the EU post-Brexit
Labour has set out tests for any future deal
Labour has not insulted any of the EU negotiating team or leadership
What Labour has not done is to set out specific terms of how this will all be achieved - probably due to the fact they are not actually negotiating with the EU and seeing what the possibilities are or have seen anything remotely concrete coming from the UK Government on what their position is in these negotiations
Some people want Labour to commit to the mechanisms, some of us see that as foolhardy in the extreme. That is a matter of opinion though not fact.....and so both can be validly held and be subject to much debate. What Labour are not, though, is the same as the Tories - or even remotely so
Do you have an example of what an agreement with a non-EU country in the EU CU looks like?
Willow904 wrote:
"the" or "a" customs union - I'm not into nitpicking semantics. The reason I queried this is because I haven't seen a commitment to "a" or "the" or any kind of customs union after transition so wondered where this came from. Has Corbyn said this? I know Starmer has indicated being in favour personally, but not that it was Labour policy, just that it hadn't been ruled out. I'm not saying you're incorrect, just that I hadnt heard this and wondered where you got it from.
I think it was an "a" not a "the" thing.Willow904 wrote:Have you got a reference for Labour committing to be in the Customs Union post-transition as this is the first time I've heard this?howsillyofme1 wrote:oh, and I would just like to reiterate anyone saying that there is very little to differentiate Labour and the Tories is talking out of their arse
Labour has committed to status quo for the transition
Labour has said that all EU citizens would be granted rights to settle
Labour has said we will want to be in a CU with the EU post-Brexit
Labour has set out tests for any future deal
Labour has not insulted any of the EU negotiating team or leadership
What Labour has not done is to set out specific terms of how this will all be achieved - probably due to the fact they are not actually negotiating with the EU and seeing what the possibilities are or have seen anything remotely concrete coming from the UK Government on what their position is in these negotiations
Some people want Labour to commit to the mechanisms, some of us see that as foolhardy in the extreme. That is a matter of opinion though not fact.....and so both can be validly held and be subject to much debate. What Labour are not, though, is the same as the Tories - or even remotely so
No, I think you are right. They have indicated that is the way they are travelling but there is nothing concrete yet. I still think there is a big gulf between their position and that of the Tories but you are right to pull me up on this
"the" or "a" customs union - I'm not into nitpicking semantics. The reason I queried this is because I haven't seen a commitment to "a" or "the" or any kind of customs union after transition so wondered where this came from. Has Corbyn said this? I know Starmer has indicated being in favour personally, but not that it was Labour policy, just that it hadn't been ruled out. I'm not saying you're incorrect, just that I hadnt heard this and wondered where you got it from.
SpinningHugo wrote:Willow904 wrote:
"the" or "a" customs union - I'm not into nitpicking semantics. The reason I queried this is because I haven't seen a commitment to "a" or "the" or any kind of customs union after transition so wondered where this came from. Has Corbyn said this? I know Starmer has indicated being in favour personally, but not that it was Labour policy, just that it hadn't been ruled out. I'm not saying you're incorrect, just that I hadnt heard this and wondered where you got it from.
You can point to quotes both for and against from Labour frontbenchers (see Thornberry and Gardiner). The whole 'a' and 'the' distinction makes no sense when you're talking about a customs union (see Turkey).
If you support Good Friday, then you have to support being in a customs union.
If you don't and instead favour a united Ireland, and a border between the island of Ireland and Britain, then you don't.
Do we know any politicians who take the latter position?
Perhaps Emily Thornberry was a sort of "canary in the coalmine"?howsillyofme1 wrote:No, I think you are right. They have indicated that is the way they are travelling but there is nothing concrete yet. I still think there is a big gulf between their position and that of the Tories but you are right to pull me up on this
"the" or "a" customs union - I'm not into nitpicking semantics. The reason I queried this is because I haven't seen a commitment to "a" or "the" or any kind of customs union after transition so wondered where this came from. Has Corbyn said this? I know Starmer has indicated being in favour personally, but not that it was Labour policy, just that it hadn't been ruled out. I'm not saying you're incorrect, just that I hadnt heard this and wondered where you got it from.
We've looked at it, and we cannot see a way forward when it comes to Northern Ireland or to tariff-free trade across Europe without us being in some form of customs union that probably looks very much like the customs union at the moment.
Yes, things could be different in the future, but we're leaving the EU now and it's not possible now because the European single market now, today, incorporates freedom of movement of people. It would take way beyond December 2020 when we are supposed to have transitioned to unravel freedom of movement across the single market, gaining every single countries agreement to end what many others see as a benefit. Of course we could agree very good trading arrangements for just goods and services from outside the single market and I assume this is what Theresa May will try to do, but there will be an economic cost from leaving the single market and very little gain I can see unless your aim is to reduce workers rights for EU and/or native workers or you care about stopping immigration completely above all else.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:How do you know this?Willow904 wrote:People use the phrase "single market" because it has a very precise, widely accepted economic meaning, which is that if you are in it, all the other countries in it become part of your internal market. The economic single market in Europe is very developed with longstanding free movement of goods, services, capital and people. If we don't accept the four freedoms we won't be participating fully in the single market as it now stands, it won't be part of our internal market and thus there will be barriers and therefore we will enjoy fewer economic benefits than now. I have no idea what kind of changes Emily Thornberry wants to see, but I find it very unlikely the countries of the single market will be willing to reverse the integration they have achieved and benefit from, just to accommodate one country that they know will have no choice but agree to everything they want, to secure the most minimal of Canada style trade deals, let alone the "frictionless" trade we say we want.howsillyofme1 wrote:I know I get boring but here it goes again:
The so-called 'Single Market' is defined by the treaties and pertains to your EU membership and link to the EU internal market - it includes the EU CU and the four freedoms of movement
It is used as shorthand by a lot of people to relate to the four freedoms but there is no legal definition of 'the single market' apart from the principles set out to describe the four freedoms
Norway is not a member of the single market. It is a signatory to the EEA agreement between the EU and EFTA....the EEA treaty has no mention of the phrase 'Single Market' which surely is a mystery seeing everybody focuses on these words
Switzerland is not a signatory to the EEA so it has bilaterals which closely mirror it but are not the same and has certain exclusions as well
Thornberry is right to say what she did unless we stay in the EU.
The fact that this phrase can have different interpretations suggests it is relatively meaningless
Why do interviewers never ask if the UK has an intention to become part of the EEA? That is the only way to avoid a bespoke deal - and even then it specifically excludes a CU so that would have to be negotiated separately
I know I am being pedantic by always mentioning this but it is not that difficult to grasp but the political commentators just ignore the subtleties and thus allow the politicians to obfuscate - in my view rightly so as I explained earlier
Regardless of political imperatives that some say made the early triggering of article 50 necessary, the fact remains the moment it was triggered we handed all the cards to the EU. We had power within the EU to change rules, we have no such power outside it. With the clock ticking we have to accept a deal or we only hurt ourselves far more than we hurt anyone else. The EU has been clear about what benefits will come with what arrangement, with only a Canada style trade deal possible with Theresa May's red lines and that to benefit from single market participation in any area we would have to accept all the current rules, including the four freedoms, for all areas, no cherry picking. They mean it, because anything less reduces the benefit of the single market for everyone.
As I say, I have no idea what Thornberry wants changed, but many leave voters want an end to freedom of movement. This won't be possible within the single market. As such I feel it important to make the argument that if we can't have both, protecting our economy should be prioritised, because this choice will have to be faced eventually. If she's talking about state aid rules, I would really like to know what it is she wants to do that single market rules prevent, because there was nothing in the last Labour manifesto that was prevented by single market membership.
It has not been possible that is clear. But things could be different in future.
Shame. I was hoping they'd moved to a more definite position on this.howsillyofme1 wrote:No, I think you are right. They have indicated that is the way they are travelling but there is nothing concrete yet. I still think there is a big gulf between their position and that of the Tories but you are right to pull me up on this
"the" or "a" customs union - I'm not into nitpicking semantics. The reason I queried this is because I haven't seen a commitment to "a" or "the" or any kind of customs union after transition so wondered where this came from. Has Corbyn said this? I know Starmer has indicated being in favour personally, but not that it was Labour policy, just that it hadn't been ruled out. I'm not saying you're incorrect, just that I hadnt heard this and wondered where you got it from.
Diane Abbott was clearly confused about what the position on CU after transition was supposed to be recently so I'm tending towards an assumption that there is no agreed position as yet, so possibly.PorFavor wrote:Perhaps Emily Thornberry was a sort of "canary in the coalmine"?howsillyofme1 wrote:No, I think you are right. They have indicated that is the way they are travelling but there is nothing concrete yet. I still think there is a big gulf between their position and that of the Tories but you are right to pull me up on this
"the" or "a" customs union - I'm not into nitpicking semantics. The reason I queried this is because I haven't seen a commitment to "a" or "the" or any kind of customs union after transition so wondered where this came from. Has Corbyn said this? I know Starmer has indicated being in favour personally, but not that it was Labour policy, just that it hadn't been ruled out. I'm not saying you're incorrect, just that I hadnt heard this and wondered where you got it from.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... a-shootingTrump: FBI 'spending too much time' on Russia inquiry and missed Florida shooter signals
The president’s attempt to use the shooting to make a political point about the Russia inquiries into the Trump campaign drew swift criticism
The US president’s attempt to use the shooting to make a political point about the FBI’s Russia inquiries into the Trump campaign drew swift criticism, including from John Kasich, the Republican governor of Ohio, who told CNN it was an “absurd statement”. (Guardian)
I'm not sure mass migration is particularly in big business interests, though. If it was why would they move factories to Poland etc? Eastern Europeans are mostly coming to the UK to do jobs that can't be moved to them, such as in bars and hotels, cleaning cars, building, retail and working in the NHS etc. A lot of these employers are small, independent concerns. It's not just about big business. I'm still very much with Ed Miliband on this. The focus needs to be on ensuring no worker in the UK is exploited, wherever they are from. I don't see why Serbians shouldn't be allowed the benefits of freedom of movement, just because some countries like the UK fail to protect workers and allow a black market economy to flourish. That's on us, not the EU.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:To follow on from my comment above, did anyone notice that the EU recently announced plans for the remaining non-EU Balkna states to join by 2025?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... s-brussels" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
serbia-and-montenegro-could-join-eu-in-2025-says-brussels
It's in nobody's interests, apart from big business, for there to be wholesale migration from Serbia to the rest of the EU when they join. It is time for a better version of freedom of movement iMHO.
Ah - wiv yer (belatedly).HindleA wrote:Definitely indefinitive.
Cup of sugar?tinyclanger2 wrote:something to look forward to (before it's harder to borrow stuff)
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesig ... ondon-2019" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Bleeding elite arty type immigrants coming over here and nicking all our 19th century trainee art dealer jobs.Van Gogh lodged in a room in Lambeth, south London, when he was in his early 20s and fell in love with the capital, walking everywhere.
https://news.sky.com/story/kier-starmer ... u-11165090" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"We would start with viable options, staying in a customs union and a single market variant which means full participation in the single market.
"You can't sweep the customs union and the single market off the table on the one hand and also say you don't want a hard border in Northern Ireland... You can't have no hard border if you don't have alignment."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-42853018" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;The only way to avoid a hard border is for the UK to remain in the customs union, the shadow Brexit Secretary has said.
Depends whether we're in a neighbourly customs union or the Neighbourly Customs Union.PorFavor wrote:Cup of sugar?tinyclanger2 wrote:something to look forward to (before it's harder to borrow stuff)
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesig ... ondon-2019" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;