Brexit delayed

[Puja]

Wait. So there was a faction wanting to stay in the tightest FTA in human history, and a faction saying that you could leave and then do the quickest, easiest FTA ever, and then you had a non-binding vote that everyone decided should be binding regardless of how fucked everything got, and now you can’t even agree that some sort of free trade with the enormous, rich market right next door might be a good thing?

Is that it?

I have to say, this is great entertainment for us well out of it, or at least it would be if there wasn’t a very good chance that someone is going to get seriously hurt.

Well, anything sounds ridiculous when you say it in that kind of tone, even the sensible and rational decisions that we're currently making.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

Liz, I think the simplest way of summing up the situation is the following:

For the Conservatives, Philip Hammond was once considered EU-sceptic, if only slightly, but is now considered a Europhile rebel and is faced with losing the whip and deselection at the next GE. Whilst, on the other side of the aisle, the Labour Party have approximately 72.5 different Brexit policies and that’s just for today. Tomorrow they will have a completely new set of policies. The total number is, as yet, unknown, even by themselves.

The only people ‘sane’ enough to have a policy are the aforementioned Lib Dems who, despite having democrat in their party name, refuse to honour a referendum parliament voted for, despite currently saying parliament is always correct*. The other ‘sane’ people are the Brexit Party who want to abide by the referendum result but absolutely not abide by anything that was said by the winning side.

There is also the Green Party who have the same policy of the Lib Dems but do have the excuse of not actually having democrat in their title. However, they are fairly insignificant and the last thing I read about them is that their only MP has been hoisted by her own petard and is now a racist. I’ll admit I may not have this last bit 100% correct.

The final bit of clarity is that the two nationalist parties, Plaid Cymru and the SNP, are working with the Remain parties and MPs despite being the very thing, ie nationalists, the Remainers profess to hate most.

Got it?

*Parliament was given a chance to put forward their preferred Brexit option but failed to do so.

[Which Tyler]

Does any party (including Brexit) have a firm policy regarding seeking a FTA with the EU following a No Deal Brexit?

Tory and BnP are doing their damnedest to make any potential FTA with just about anyone a complete non-starter, most especially with the EU.

They won't honour existing payment agreements, which is akin to declaring bankrupt and making sure that no-one could trust us for a FTA.
As far as the EU is concerned, they also want regulatory freedom, which rules out a FTA

Lib Dem policy is to not leave, and as far as I can tel, labours policy is to leave with a deal

[Digby]

I thought Lib Dem policy was to seek another referendum, one that is more informed, doesn't see Russian interference, isn't based on lies, and wouldn't had it been a a binding referendum have had the result thrown out by the courts for the myriad dishonesty on the leave side.

And if there is such a second referendum I understood the Lib Dems would accept that outcome, even if they don't get the result they want

[Digby]

Does any party (including Brexit) have a firm policy regarding seeking a FTA with the EU following a No Deal Brexit?

Tory and BnP are doing their damnedest to make any potential FTA with just about anyone a complete non-starter, most especially with the EU.

They won't honour existing payment agreements, which is akin to declaring bankrupt and making sure that no-one could trust us for a FTA.
As far as the EU is concerned, they also want regulatory freedom, which rules out a FTA

Lib Dem policy is to not leave, and as far as I can tel, labours policy is to leave with a deal

us having regulatory freedom doesn't rule out a FTA, we can still go Canada+

sadly that's a shit outcome vs the single market

[Banquo]

Does any party (including Brexit) have a firm policy regarding seeking a FTA with the EU following a No Deal Brexit?

Tory and BnP are doing their damnedest to make any potential FTA with just about anyone a complete non-starter, most especially with the EU.

They won't honour existing payment agreements, which is akin to declaring bankrupt and making sure that no-one could trust us for a FTA.
As far as the EU is concerned, they also want regulatory freedom, which rules out a FTA

Lib Dem policy is to not leave, and as far as I can tel, labours policy is to leave with a deal

Corbyn is now saying they will campaign on a referendum with Remain as an option.

[twitchy]

[Mellsblue]

They’re approx 20 years ahead of schedule. Kudos.

[Which Tyler]

I thought Lib Dem policy was to seek another referendum, one that is more informed, doesn't see Russian interference, isn't based on lies, and wouldn't had it been a a binding referendum have had the result thrown out by the courts for the myriad dishonesty on the leave side.

And if there is such a second referendum I understood the Lib Dems would accept that outcome, even if they don't get the result they want

I thought that was their fall-back in case they fail to form a government of their very own?

us having regulatory freedom doesn't rule out a FTA, we can still go Canada+

sadly that's a shit outcome vs the single market

My understanding is that any FTA locks us into regulatory alignment, at least for the products included in the FTA. Otherwise you've agreed to free trade on items that would be illegal.
I could well be wrong though and there may be work-arounds - let's face it, these are huge, complicated things that take 6-8 years for a reason.

Corbyn is now saying they will campaign on a referendum with Remain as an option.

Again, my understanding is that official policy is to have a labour-negotiated deal, but failing that, a referendum on a conservative-negotiated deal. He's come out in favour of a 3rd referendum, but kept his wriggle room in case he ever gets to negotiate a deal.
But then, labour's policy on this is deliberately as clear as mud.

[Which Tyler]

Elsewhere, this is a little on the long side, but a decent summary of the remain argument: https://www.quora.com/Why-are-Remainers ... /154093759?

[Digby]

My understanding is that any FTA locks us into regulatory alignment, at least for the products included in the FTA. Otherwise you've agreed to free trade on items that would be illegal.
I could well be wrong though and there may be work-arounds - let's face it, these are huge, complicated things that take 6-8 years for a reason.

At the risk of suggesting water is wet it depends on what you want from the deal, there needn't be any regulatory alignment at all, though it's quite common for it to form part of modern deals given so much of the costs stem not from tariffs but from non tariff barriers which tend to be around regulatory standards. However we then get into two different types of regulatory standard, well there are more than two but there are two main types, you can have non-regressive, which is to say whatever the standards are going into the agreement neither side will drop below that going forwards though either party might unilaterally increase standards on their side, and then there's dynamic alignment, and that as it suggests says the two sides will keep pace with the regulatory standards of the other. And on both of those we can easily find calls for exact matches, or standards that have certain tolerances but are accepted as being equal enough.

The big issue perhaps is trust, luckily we're not going into this being vague what we want and threatening not to pay money we owe, so people can be confident we're a principled bunch here in Britain.

[Banquo]

I thought Lib Dem policy was to seek another referendum, one that is more informed, doesn't see Russian interference, isn't based on lies, and wouldn't had it been a a binding referendum have had the result thrown out by the courts for the myriad dishonesty on the leave side.

And if there is such a second referendum I understood the Lib Dems would accept that outcome, even if they don't get the result they want

I thought that was their fall-back in case they fail to form a government of their very own?

us having regulatory freedom doesn't rule out a FTA, we can still go Canada+

sadly that's a shit outcome vs the single market

My understanding is that any FTA locks us into regulatory alignment, at least for the products included in the FTA. Otherwise you've agreed to free trade on items that would be illegal.
I could well be wrong though and there may be work-arounds - let's face it, these are huge, complicated things that take 6-8 years for a reason.

Corbyn is now saying they will campaign on a referendum with Remain as an option.

Again, my understanding is that official policy is to have a labour-negotiated deal, but failing that, a referendum on a conservative-negotiated deal. He's come out in favour of a 3rd referendum, but kept his wriggle room in case he ever gets to negotiate a deal.
But then, labour's policy on this is deliberately as clear as mud.

This was JC talking about an election pre-Brexit yesterday. They would campaign on a referendum ticket with Remain as an option. apparently

[Mellsblue]

My understanding is that any FTA locks us into regulatory alignment, at least for the products included in the FTA. Otherwise you've agreed to free trade on items that would be illegal.
I could well be wrong though and there may be work-arounds - let's face it, these are huge, complicated things that take 6-8 years for a reason.

At the risk of suggesting water is wet it depends on what you want from the deal, there needn't be any regulatory alignment at all, though it's quite common for it to form part of modern deals given so much of the costs stem not from tariffs but from non tariff barriers which tend to be around regulatory standards. However we then get into two different types of regulatory standard, well there are more than two but there are two main types, you can have non-regressive, which is to say whatever the standards are going into the agreement neither side will drop below that going forwards though either party might unilaterally increase standards on their side, and then there's dynamic alignment, and that as it suggests says the two sides will keep pace with the regulatory standards of the other. And on both of those we can easily find calls for exact matches, or standards that have certain tolerances but are accepted as being equal enough.

The big issue perhaps is trust, luckily we're not going into this being vague what we want and threatening not to pay money we owe, so people can be confident we're a principled bunch here in Britain.

Yep. There is a huge sliding scale with a legal requirement for full regulatory alignment at the very top end. However, I think full regulatory alignment is really just a single market rather than a FTA.
The CETA model, the basis of the future as proposed by Brexiteers before going mad, is based on equivalence - both parties accepting the regulatory norms of the other - and mutual recognition - both parties trusting the other to test for conformity before selling into the other’s market.
I’d hope the EU would take the UK’s behaviour over the past few decades as a foundation for talks rather than the last few years, but I wouldn’t overly blame them if they didn’t.

[Son of Mathonwy]

The emergency debate is pure class.

Rees-Mogg is the very definition of disingenuity.

[Which Tyler]

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/busin ... ity/03/09/



In what is undoubtedly a first, the currency was buoyed by the sitting government losing its majority as Tory Phillip Lee defected to the Liberal Democrats today, losing Boris Johnson his working majority of one with the DUP.

The pound, which had been plummeting at the twists and turns of Boris Johnson’s no-deal Brexit threat, had slumped to its lowest level against the US dollar since 1985, surpassing a previous 2017 low to be worth less than 1.20 dollars.

But following the news that Johnson had lost his majority, it recovered again in what will be a major embarrassment for the Conservative Prime Minister, and leapt back to $1.207, where it ended last night

[Stones of granite]

The emergency debate is pure class.

Rees-Mogg is the very definition of disingenuity.

I used to dislike Rees-Mogg, but as time goes on and I learn more about him, I am developing something close to hatred for the toad.

[Which Tyler]

The emergency debate is pure class.

Rees-Mogg is the very definition of disingenuity.

I used to dislike Rees-Mogg, but as time goes on and I learn more about him, I am developing something close to hatred for the toad.

[Digby]

Even if we don't leave on October 31st says Boris, not quite sure if he meant to say that

[Which Tyler]

Motion passes (27), back benches have control tomorrow.
BJ invokes FTPA to request a GE whilst blaming Corbyn for it.
Sound a like hes still refusing to request an extension if legally forced to do so.

[Digby]

We could have the interesting spectacle of Tories voting against their government in a motion of no confidence and Labour voting to support a Tory government

[twitchy]

[Which Tyler]

[Son of Mathonwy]

We could have the interesting spectacle of Tories voting against their government in a motion of no confidence and Labour voting to support a Tory government

I don't think it would be a confidence vote, it would be a vote for an early election. Which I'm glad to say Corbyn isn't stupid enough to go for.

Cameron's revenge from beyond the political grave.

[Which Tyler]

We could have the interesting spectacle of Tories voting against their government in a motion of no confidence and Labour voting to support a Tory government

I don't think it would be a confidence vote, it would be a vote for an early election. Which I'm glad to say Corbyn isn't stupid enough to go for.

Cameron's revenge from beyond the political grave.

Looks like the SNP have walked back on their desire to vote in favour of a GE as well - which probably screws that option, even as a simple bill (for which, surely the FTPA foresaw and accounted for - if not, then that act is as useful as a chocolate fire guard)

For now, we need to prioritise. A GE won't solve anything, and will probably lead to a 3-way coalition or confidence and supply. Which is why it's BJ's preferred backup.

IMO We need to get an extension, and get a 2nd referendum, before heading for a GE. The chances are that a second ref will come back with a small majority, but it's the only thing that is capable of healing divisions.
Potential flies in the ointment are if May's deal is ressurected - which I think means prorogation needs to happen first, or BJ wins a vote on his strategy.


It's going to be fascinating to see what the whipless Tories do.
Greeningnis quitting anyway. Clarke wasn't intending to stand down at the next GE anyway, but may be pissed off enough to change his mind. Hammond looks like he's going to fight potential deselection.
Which leaves 18 (and a few others who must be getting annoyed by Cummings' bully-boy tactics).
I can't see m/any of the grandees joining LibDem. Do they join CHUKb? Do they stand their ground and go quietly at the GE? Do they stand as independents? Do they start their own Moderate Conservative party (and try to win back some CHUKb ex-tories).


Question.
Given the (significantly) minority government, could we see a standing article 24 force a second referendum? Or would only a GNU be able to do that?

[Stones of granite]

We could have the interesting spectacle of Tories voting against their government in a motion of no confidence and Labour voting to support a Tory government

I don't think it would be a confidence vote, it would be a vote for an early election. Which I'm glad to say Corbyn isn't stupid enough to go for.

Cameron's revenge from beyond the political grave.

Looks like the SNP have walked back on their desire to vote in favour of a GE as well - which probably screws that option, even as a simple bill (for which, surely the FTPA foresaw and accounted for - if not, then that act is as useful as a chocolate fire guard)

For now, we need to prioritise. A GE won't solve anything, and will probably lead to a 3-way coalition or confidence and supply. Which is why it's BJ's preferred backup.

IMO We need to get an extension, and get a 2nd referendum, before heading for a GE. The chances are that a second ref will come back with a small majority, but it's the only thing that is capable of healing divisions.
Potential flies in the ointment are if May's deal is ressurected - which I think means prorogation needs to happen first, or BJ wins a vote on his strategy.


It's going to be fascinating to see what the whipless Tories do.
Greeningnis quitting anyway. Clarke wasn't intending to stand down at the next GE anyway, but may be pissed off enough to change his mind. Hammond looks like he's going to fight potential deselection.
Which leaves 18 (and a few others who must be getting annoyed by Cummings' bully-boy tactics).
I can't see m/any of the grandees joining LibDem. Do they join CHUKb? Do they stand their ground and go quietly at the GE? Do they stand as independents? Do they start their own Moderate Conservative party (and try to win back some CHUKb ex-tories).


Question.
Given the (significantly) minority government, could we see a standing article 24 force a second referendum? Or would only a GNU be able to do that?

I wonder if Dominic Cummings thinks that his grand strategy is working. #whatwouldBismarckdo