Thursday 18th October 2018
Posted: Thu 18 Oct, 2018 7:03 am
Morning all.
The government is right about one thing though:Amendments on Brexit deal should be restricted – government
Letter to MPs signals adoption of ‘take it or leave it’ approach on final deal
What May agrees with the EU can't be changed, only approved or rejected. Amendments will be about what happens next - Norway or Canada or a further referendum - and are unlikely to find enough support to defeat the government I suspect.“Amendments – even those which may not intend to affect approval – may actually result in the government being unable to ratify the withdrawal agreement.
We're also almost certainly looking at a situation where MPs are going to be given nothing but a Yes/No choice on something very vague. There is not going to be a settled treaty to vote on, and there almost certainly isn't going to be even an outline agreement to vote on. It's not even clear that there will be a settled and agreed UK government position.Willow904 wrote:So we're getting to the last phase now and the government are sticking to their take it or leave it stance:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... s-says-may" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The government is right about one thing though:Amendments on Brexit deal should be restricted – government
Letter to MPs signals adoption of ‘take it or leave it’ approach on final deal
What May agrees with the EU can't be changed, only approved or rejected. Amendments will be about what happens next - Norway or Canada or a further referendum - and are unlikely to find enough support to defeat the government I suspect.“Amendments – even those which may not intend to affect approval – may actually result in the government being unable to ratify the withdrawal agreement.
Keir Starmer's response - "we'll see about that".Willow904 wrote:So we're getting to the last phase now and the government are sticking to their take it or leave it stance:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... s-says-may" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Putting the inadequacy of the UK constitution in the spotlight.adam wrote: We're also almost certainly looking at a situation where MPs are going to be given nothing but a Yes/No choice on something very vague. There is not going to be a settled treaty to vote on, and there almost certainly isn't going to be even an outline agreement to vote on. It's not even clear that there will be a settled and agreed UK government position.
'expected'UK retail sales shrank by 0.8% in September, a bigger fall than expected.
An unexpected bigger fall than expected.gilsey wrote:'expected'UK retail sales shrank by 0.8% in September, a bigger fall than expected.
I wish it wasn't through the middle of London again?gilsey wrote:I wish the march on Saturday was simply for Remain and not another referendum.
I agree - somewhere in the Northern Powerhouse would have far more impact rather than involving metropolitan elite Remoaners as usual...AnatolyKasparov wrote:I wish it wasn't through the middle of London again?gilsey wrote:I wish the march on Saturday was simply for Remain and not another referendum.
(cJA emphasis)gilsey wrote:Putting the inadequacy of the UK constitution in the spotlight.adam wrote: We're also almost certainly looking at a situation where MPs are going to be given nothing but a Yes/No choice on something very vague. There is not going to be a settled treaty to vote on, and there almost certainly isn't going to be even an outline agreement to vote on. It's not even clear that there will be a settled and agreed UK government position.
You're either part of the single market or you're not. It's only by accepting the four freedoms of movement that you get to enjoy all the benefits of the single market because freedom of movement is the the benefit. There is no "new deal" that can change that basic fact. He thinks we're idiots. He's probably mostly right, but it doesn't make it any less misleading. Unless he argues openly and clearly for remaining in the single market and being honest about having to continue with some degree of free movement of people, he can't promise any more benefits than May can achieve. A customs union is inevitable in any withdrawal deal, so May will have to agree one (however much she may pretend it's temporary) or not make a deal at all. Corbyn can't trump this if leaving the SM remains Labour policy and he must surely know it. He's saying this so he can vote against a withdrawal deal even if it essentially achieves Labour's policy of a customs union but outside SM. It makes political sense, perhaps, voting with the government wouldn't be an easy option for Labour, but in economic terms it's so much bollocks really, as we've had all along from pretty much everyone.That’s why we have an alternative plan for a Brexit that guarantees jobs, rights and protections with a new deal with the single market, ensures no hard border in Ireland and supports UK manufacturing with a new customs union.
What he could be saying, and should be saying, is that we can stay as we are, or leave but maintain some kind of SM/CU membership, but we can put in place all of the perfectly proper and legitimate controls on internal EU migration that we have chosen not to put in place to date.Willow904 wrote:You're either part of the single market or you're not. It's only by accepting the four freedoms of movement that you get to enjoy all the benefits of the single market because freedom of movement is the the benefit. There is no "new deal" that can change that basic fact. He thinks we're idiots. He's probably mostly right, but it doesn't make it any less misleading. Unless he argues openly and clearly for remaining in the single market and being honest about having to continue with some degree of free movement of people, he can't promise any more benefits than May can achieve. A customs union is inevitable in any withdrawal deal, so May will have to agree one (however much she may pretend it's temporary) or not make a deal at all. Corbyn can't trump this if leaving the SM remains Labour policy and he must surely know it. He's saying this so he can vote against a withdrawal deal even if it essentially achieves Labour's policy of a customs union but outside SM. It makes political sense, perhaps, voting with the government wouldn't be an easy option for Labour, but in economic terms it's so much bollocks really, as we've had all along from pretty much everyone.That’s why we have an alternative plan for a Brexit that guarantees jobs, rights and protections with a new deal with the single market, ensures no hard border in Ireland and supports UK manufacturing with a new customs union.
I would have preferred he'd been honest from the start. It was always a choice between the economy - SM - or controlling immigration - FTA - never both.
From this in the guardian. The actual EU directive on this is here and there's a pretty good guide to its contents here.We could easily have taken back control of our borders already under European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC, which allows EU member states to repatriate EU nationals after three months if they have not found a job or do not have the means to support themselves
I suspect this would have been the approach under Ed Miliband. In the case of an either/or, most polls have suggested a majority for SM over controlling immigration anyway, even before you show how immigration can be controlled much more than it is currently under SM rules. Way too late now, though. It's just fire fighting from here on in, trying to stop the worst from happening.adam wrote:What he could be saying, and should be saying, is that we can stay as we are, or leave but maintain some kind of SM/CU membership, but we can put in place all of the perfectly proper and legitimate controls on internal EU migration that we have chosen not to put in place to date.Willow904 wrote:You're either part of the single market or you're not. It's only by accepting the four freedoms of movement that you get to enjoy all the benefits of the single market because freedom of movement is the the benefit. There is no "new deal" that can change that basic fact. He thinks we're idiots. He's probably mostly right, but it doesn't make it any less misleading. Unless he argues openly and clearly for remaining in the single market and being honest about having to continue with some degree of free movement of people, he can't promise any more benefits than May can achieve. A customs union is inevitable in any withdrawal deal, so May will have to agree one (however much she may pretend it's temporary) or not make a deal at all. Corbyn can't trump this if leaving the SM remains Labour policy and he must surely know it. He's saying this so he can vote against a withdrawal deal even if it essentially achieves Labour's policy of a customs union but outside SM. It makes political sense, perhaps, voting with the government wouldn't be an easy option for Labour, but in economic terms it's so much bollocks really, as we've had all along from pretty much everyone.That’s why we have an alternative plan for a Brexit that guarantees jobs, rights and protections with a new deal with the single market, ensures no hard border in Ireland and supports UK manufacturing with a new customs union.
I would have preferred he'd been honest from the start. It was always a choice between the economy - SM - or controlling immigration - FTA - never both.
From this in the guardian. The actual EU directive on this is here and there's a pretty good guide to its contents here.We could easily have taken back control of our borders already under European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC, which allows EU member states to repatriate EU nationals after three months if they have not found a job or do not have the means to support themselves
If you really want to placate the 'control our borders' vote then that's the honest and legitimate way to do it.
I would say there are 2 facts to start with.PorFavor wrote:I really don't know where to start with Jeremy Corbyn's statement (quoted over at Politics Live, Guardian).
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/10 ... -for-years" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;You can see the outline of a Brexit compromise already. The two sides want it. They're talking kind of the same kind of language. The trouble is that the compromise position is so utterly deranged that it will poison our politics for years.
I know, then he wrote the book on it.AnatolyKasparov wrote:Never forget that Ian Dunt took a rather different line on the EU just 5 years ago.
The 'gravity model' of trade is mentioned quite a lot by economists and it doesn't apply only to just-in-time manufacturing.PorFavor wrote:This "just in time" thing. I know that we have it on reliable authority that we are in a "post-geography" age, but isn't distance a factor? No-one ever seems to mention that.
Thanks. (But by "no-one", I really meant Boris Johnson and his ilk, and the mainstream media. Sorry for not being clear.)gilsey wrote:The 'gravity model' of trade is mentioned quite a lot by economists and it doesn't apply only to just-in-time manufacturing.PorFavor wrote:This "just in time" thing. I know that we have it on reliable authority that we are in a "post-geography" age, but isn't distance a factor? No-one ever seems to mention that.
It's why Johnson's free trade fairyland is just that, fairyland.
It's the sort of thing the BBC should have been telling us about since before the referendum.
Sorry, I shouldn’t have needed a sarcasm alert.PorFavor wrote:Thanks. (But by "no-one", I really meant Boris Johnson and his ilk, and the mainstream media. Sorry for not being clear.)gilsey wrote:The 'gravity model' of trade is mentioned quite a lot by economists and it doesn't apply only to just-in-time manufacturing.PorFavor wrote:This "just in time" thing. I know that we have it on reliable authority that we are in a "post-geography" age, but isn't distance a factor? No-one ever seems to mention that.
It's why Johnson's free trade fairyland is just that, fairyland.
It's the sort of thing the BBC should have been telling us about since before the referendum.
Edited to add - let me be clear . . .
For "implementation" read " transition" and for "option" read "probable necessity" and you're just about there, I think.Paul Brand
@PaulBrandITV
BREAKING: Try following this... PM says "I've always been v clear that we negotiated that the implementation period would end Dec 2020. An 'option' to extend implementation period has emerged. But we are NOT proposing an extension to implementation period." Erm
4:00 PM - Oct 18, 2018
Kevin Schofield
Verified account
@PolhomeEditor
1h1 hour ago
More
Now this is a story and a half, from top colleague @sebwhale.
Johnny Mercer tells @theHouse_mag he wouldn't vote Tory were it not for the fact he's a Tory MP and calls the current government a "shit show". There's much, much more.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/po ... te-tory-if" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
Much enjoyed ! As a former Gunner too .RogerOThornhill wrote:Kevin Schofielderified accountPolhomeEditor1h1 hour agoore
Now this is a story and a half, from top colleague @sebwhale.ohnny Mercer tells @theHouse_mag he wouldn't vote Tory were it not for the fact he's a Tory MP and calls the current government a "shit show". There's much, much more.https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/po ... te-tory-if" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
Having seen what Chuka is getting paid for his new think tank "job", this sort of thing isn't just confined to Tories it seemsfrog222 wrote: Cough .
“” In October 2018, he was criticised by his political rivals for taking on a second job on a salary of £85,000 a year for working 20 hours a month as a consultant to Brighton based Crucial Academy Ltd. His Labour rival accused him of neglecting his duties in his constituency to earn a “staggering” amount of money. However, Mercer responded that criticism “smacked of political jealousy” and the extra work only equated to four hours a week.[37] Additional employment for MPs as consultants has been criticised and his Labour Party opponents have called for the practice to be outlawed
AK -- leaving aside for the mom Mercer's weaknesses for the Academy ££££££'s ( if that is the case ?) , he appears to me to be the rare thing, a pretty honest Tory MP ?AnatolyKasparov wrote:Having seen what Chuka is getting paid for his new think tank "job", this sort of thing isn't just confined to Tories it seemsfrog222 wrote: Cough .
“” In October 2018, he was criticised by his political rivals for taking on a second job on a salary of £85,000 a year for working 20 hours a month as a consultant to Brighton based Crucial Academy Ltd. His Labour rival accused him of neglecting his duties in his constituency to earn a “staggering” amount of money. However, Mercer responded that criticism “smacked of political jealousy” and the extra work only equated to four hours a week.[37] Additional employment for MPs as consultants has been criticised and his Labour Party opponents have called for the practice to be outlawed