RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Essentially then you're drawing a strong distinction between casual discussions on what a future trade deal will look like, and 'official' talks on what a future trade deal will look like, and I simply don't do that, partly because so many of the actual discussion on agreements are preceded by discussions on what parties would agree to, and that's what we have now. The only distinction I'd draw is we can't sign anything for now, and thus any broad outline or even detailed positions are subject to change.

I’m not. The EU rules are.

John Bolton and his moustache have been booked into meetings with all sorts of people who don't need to meet him to discuss foreign policy, but do look suspiciously like people who have a stake in any future trade deal. It's almost like they'll be discussing trade before we've left the EU

Yep. Raab has explicitly stated this will now happen which is a move of policy from the previous govt. I’ve said this from the start, ie two posts prior to this in our discussion.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: That wasn't really the point. I was answering the question as to whether I thought they had or hadn't been negotiating FTA's and I then gave one reason as to why I thought they hadn't.

I' m sure we could arrange deals based on all the possibilities but I'm also sure it would be thought to be a waste of time and manpower and I'm sure those on the other side would think the same.

I don't buy for one moment we aren't having discussions about what our future official discussions might entail, partly it's just doesn't seem likely to me with anyone in charge of the process, and then with Brexiteers flouting so many rules/laws anyway we'd be relying on the integrity of David Davies and disgraced former defence secretary Liam Fox, and I wouldn't be betting on those two to play with a straight bat (which does mean they might yet play in the Ashes)

Of course we were having discussions about what future trade deals may look like. The May govt. has said as much, as have the Aussies and the Kiwis, amongst others. However, that isn’t negotiating FTA’s. Which is what Boris’s govt. has now said they will do. The EU have had no issues with these talks, at least not that I’ve seen/read, and I think we can therefore safely assume that they don’t breach any EU rules on FTA discussions. Let’s not forget that a lot of these nations would also like an FTA with the EU and they aren’t going to upset the apple cart.

See bolded section.

Mellsblue wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
I don't buy for one moment we aren't having discussions about what our future official discussions might entail, partly it's just doesn't seem likely to me with anyone in charge of the process, and then with Brexiteers flouting so many rules/laws anyway we'd be relying on the integrity of David Davies and disgraced former defence secretary Liam Fox, and I wouldn't be betting on those two to play with a straight bat (which does mean they might yet play in the Ashes)

Of course we were having discussions about what future trade deals may look like. The May govt. has said as much, as have the Aussies and the Kiwis, amongst others. However, that isn’t negotiating FTA’s. Which is what Boris’s govt. has now said they will do. The EU have had no issues with these talks, at least not that I’ve seen/read, and I think we can therefore safely assume that they don’t breach any EU rules on FTA discussions. Let’s not forget that a lot of these nations would also like an FTA with the EU and they aren’t going to upset the apple cart.

See bolded section.

I don't think I've read that before, so you might not just want to quote yourself but repeat quote yourself to increase a slim chance others will read it?

What's the practical distinction between discussing future trade deals and negotiating them?

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Of course we were having discussions about what future trade deals may look like. The May govt. has said as much, as have the Aussies and the Kiwis, amongst others. However, that isn’t negotiating FTA’s. Which is what Boris’s govt. has now said they will do. The EU have had no issues with these talks, at least not that I’ve seen/read, and I think we can therefore safely assume that they don’t breach any EU rules on FTA discussions. Let’s not forget that a lot of these nations would also like an FTA with the EU and they aren’t going to upset the apple cart.

See bolded section.

I don't think I've read that before, so you might not just want to quote yourself but repeat quote yourself to increase a slim chance others will read it?

What's the practical distinction between discussing future trade deals and negotiating them?

I just assume that people will read a post in its entirety before arguing with it. Perhaps too much to ask in this social media and sound bite era.

I’ve absolutely no idea. I’d suppose it would similar to discussing heads of terms v negotiating formal contract.

To follow on from disgraced former defence secretary Liam Fox you've got to put in some real effort, but this in fairness is a decent start from Johnny



That's maybe something you'd get away with as a private joke, but not stated in a public forum to a journalist who doesn't like you. I suspect there is an intended touch of irony there, at least I bloody well hope so, but irony just isn't something that conveys well for ministers of the crown, which I'm sure irritates them often enough but it is what it is

Digby wrote:To follow on from disgraced former defence secretary Liam Fox you've got to put in some real effort, but this in fairness is a decent start from Johnny

That's maybe something you'd get away with as a private joke, but not stated in a public forum to a journalist who doesn't like you. I suspect there is an intended touch of irony there, at least I bloody well hope so, but irony just isn't something that conveys well for ministers of the crown, which I'm sure irritates them often enough but it is what it is

Yes, but we're in a new world - Boris sets the standard now.

How many Tory 'rebels' will back Corbyn as interim prime minister do we think??

Roughly the same number of Lab MPs who would vote for Grieve/Hammond as interim prime minister?
If the Lab leader were, say, Cooper the answer might be very different.

Chris Bryant is right - "If the PM loses a vote of no confidence, of course the Leader of the Opposition should be first in line to test the confidence of the House, followed by anyone else who seems to stand a chance of forming a Government. There's no reason not to have several attempts in short order"
So if Corbyn cannot get the support across the House (he wont), then the task is to find someone who would. Starmer, Benn, Clarke or how about Cable?

David Allen Green sets things out very well here - https://davidallengreen.com/2019/08/mr- ... -a-letter/

our MPs are sh@t

fivepointer wrote:Chris Bryant is right - "If the PM loses a vote of no confidence, of course the Leader of the Opposition should be first in line to test the confidence of the House, followed by anyone else who seems to stand a chance of forming a Government. There's no reason not to have several attempts in short order"
So if Corbyn cannot get the support across the House (he wont), then the task is to find someone who would. Starmer, Benn, Clarke or how about Cable?

David Allen Green sets things out very well here - https://davidallengreen.com/2019/08/mr- ... -a-letter/

If only we had a credible Leader of the Opposition.

If not Corbin, then one feels that it has to be a Labour MP given that the majority of the remain MPs are probably Labour and wouldn’t follow a Tory. Any National Government (for want of a better term) would need to have very tight time bounding, ie to ask for an extension, allow a second referendum and then go to a general election with no other non urgent policy.

The blogger is right, there is no other way to delay Brexit, unless Boris uturns. But an election without a referendum is unlikely to resolve the issue.

The Meatloaf position, "I would do anything to stop no deal brexit but not that" has to come to an end. MP's are going to have to hold their noses and back someone they may not much care for.
Corbyn is far too divisive and not trusted enough but there are others who might carry enough support in the house as long as the terms of their leadership is very clearly defined.
Harriet Harman is a name that has been put forward. Seems a good suggestion to me, though like everyone else there are bound to be objectors.

fivepointer wrote:The Meatloaf position, "I would do anything to stop no deal brexit but not that" has to come to an end. MP's are going to have to hold their noses and back someone they may not much care for.
Corbyn is far too divisive and not trusted enough but there are others who might carry enough support in the house as long as the terms of their leadership is very clearly defined.
Harriet Harman is a name that has been put forward. Seems a good suggestion to me, though like everyone else there are bound to be objectors.

What's wrong with Keir Starmer?

Or...PM doesn't technically need to be an MP, right?

What about a Lord? Or a Baroness. Baroness Amos, maybe?

Or what about someone else?

This would be laughable if we weren't buggered

Banquo wrote:This would be laughable if we weren't buggered

I want to book flights to the UK, I don't know whether my wife and kids will be able to travel on I'd cards or if we need passports...

And noone knows!!!

fivepointer wrote:The Meatloaf position, "I would do anything to stop no deal brexit but not that" has to come to an end. MP's are going to have to hold their noses and back someone they may not much care for.
Corbyn is far too divisive and not trusted enough but there are others who might carry enough support in the house as long as the terms of their leadership is very clearly defined.
Harriet Harman is a name that has been put forward. Seems a good suggestion to me, though like everyone else there are bound to be objectors.

If it comes to a (very) temporary government of national unity it really shouldn't be any of the current party leaders as it should be clearly not a party political process, so divisive or not Corbyn shouldn't be an option. I doubt we can get there though given how little willingness MPs have shown to put country before party

Was just taking a look and the only truly independent MP (so discounting the Change UK/The Independent Group of political careerists) is Sylvia Hermon.

She is the only NI MP to vote against Brexit in the Commons, she became Indpendent because she didn't want to be affiliated with the Conservative Party, and she said she wouldn't vote for Corbyn.

Seems perfect.

fivepointer wrote:Chris Bryant is right - "If the PM loses a vote of no confidence, of course the Leader of the Opposition should be first in line to test the confidence of the House, followed by anyone else who seems to stand a chance of forming a Government. There's no reason not to have several attempts in short order"
So if Corbyn cannot get the support across the House (he wont), then the task is to find someone who would. Starmer, Benn, Clarke or how about Cable?

David Allen Green sets things out very well here - https://davidallengreen.com/2019/08/mr- ... -a-letter/

Absolutely. Corbyn is first in line but it seems unlikely that he'll get a majority of the house behind him. Agreed, Cable would be a good choice (unless not enough Labour MPs could stomach a LibDem). Starmer, Benn or Cooper would be fine (no doubt there a number of moderate Labour MPs who would fit the bill). I can't see Clarke (or any Tory) getting enough support from Labour, although I'm sure he would do the job perfectly.

But for god's sake they have to pull together on this, the price of failure is too high.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Chris Bryant is right - "If the PM loses a vote of no confidence, of course the Leader of the Opposition should be first in line to test the confidence of the House, followed by anyone else who seems to stand a chance of forming a Government. There's no reason not to have several attempts in short order"
So if Corbyn cannot get the support across the House (he wont), then the task is to find someone who would. Starmer, Benn, Clarke or how about Cable?

David Allen Green sets things out very well here - https://davidallengreen.com/2019/08/mr- ... -a-letter/

Absolutely. Corbyn is first in line but it seems unlikely that he'll get a majority of the house behind him. Agreed, Cable would be a good choice (unless not enough Labour MPs could stomach a LibDem). Starmer, Benn or Cooper would be fine (no doubt there a number of moderate Labour MPs who would fit the bill). I can't see Clarke (or any Tory) getting enough support from Labour, although I'm sure he would do the job perfectly.

But for god's sake they have to pull together on this, the price of failure is too high.

Really, it's incredible that the person nominally in charge is even under discussion. It literally makes no difference, as the GNU will exist simply to seek an extension and call either a referendum and election or just an election, depending on the agreement made by the involved MPs. They will not be involved in anything else, so who does it matter who the figurehead is?

Puja

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Chris Bryant is right - "If the PM loses a vote of no confidence, of course the Leader of the Opposition should be first in line to test the confidence of the House, followed by anyone else who seems to stand a chance of forming a Government. There's no reason not to have several attempts in short order"
So if Corbyn cannot get the support across the House (he wont), then the task is to find someone who would. Starmer, Benn, Clarke or how about Cable?

David Allen Green sets things out very well here - https://davidallengreen.com/2019/08/mr- ... -a-letter/

Absolutely. Corbyn is first in line but it seems unlikely that he'll get a majority of the house behind him. Agreed, Cable would be a good choice (unless not enough Labour MPs could stomach a LibDem). Starmer, Benn or Cooper would be fine (no doubt there a number of moderate Labour MPs who would fit the bill). I can't see Clarke (or any Tory) getting enough support from Labour, although I'm sure he would do the job perfectly.

But for god's sake they have to pull together on this, the price of failure is too high.

Really, it's incredible that the person nominally in charge is even under discussion. It literally makes no difference, as the GNU will exist simply to seek an extension and call either a referendum and election or just an election, depending on the agreement made by the involved MPs. They will not be involved in anything else, so who does it matter who the figurehead is?

Puja

Well indeed. Except that some will try to use it to prove legitimacy, while others will try to use it to promote their own means...

Which, well, kind of seems like what's happening anyway.

It's a stupid mess.

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Chris Bryant is right - "If the PM loses a vote of no confidence, of course the Leader of the Opposition should be first in line to test the confidence of the House, followed by anyone else who seems to stand a chance of forming a Government. There's no reason not to have several attempts in short order"
So if Corbyn cannot get the support across the House (he wont), then the task is to find someone who would. Starmer, Benn, Clarke or how about Cable?

David Allen Green sets things out very well here - https://davidallengreen.com/2019/08/mr- ... -a-letter/

Absolutely. Corbyn is first in line but it seems unlikely that he'll get a majority of the house behind him. Agreed, Cable would be a good choice (unless not enough Labour MPs could stomach a LibDem). Starmer, Benn or Cooper would be fine (no doubt there a number of moderate Labour MPs who would fit the bill). I can't see Clarke (or any Tory) getting enough support from Labour, although I'm sure he would do the job perfectly.

But for god's sake they have to pull together on this, the price of failure is too high.

Really, it's incredible that the person nominally in charge is even under discussion. It literally makes no difference, as the GNU will exist simply to seek an extension and call either a referendum and election or just an election, depending on the agreement made by the involved MPs. They will not be involved in anything else, so who does it matter who the figurehead is?

Puja

That's the end of the GNU's, here's the weather....

The only problem with Corbyn, well actually one of many problems with Corbyn but perhaps the most relevant, is that no one trusts him. Corbyn is a brexiteer. I don’t believe that anyone thinks he has suddenly changed his position. Now admittedly he will have no support to do anything except manage a referendum and ask for an extension, but if he annoyed the EU in the process so they refused he extension then he gets to be the good guy to the public whilst getting what he wants, us out of the RU and a General Election.

Seems like an odd move from Bozza- think its an open goal for a vote of no-confidence and the govt falling. Surely he's done the maths?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49493632

Banquo wrote:Seems like an odd move from Bozza- think its an open goal for a vote of no-confidence and the govt falling. Surely he's done the maths?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49493632

I THINK his maths is that his opponents desided to go with legislation first, VONC second - he's nullified his opponents' preferred option.

Hopefully her maj will have him thrown in the tower when he turns up... (obviously, she has no choice, she has to smile and do what she's told - or abdicate)


Nothing says "take back control" "regain democracy" or "Parliamentary sovereignty" quite like closing parliament and refusing democratic process.

Boris, you can fuck right off with this, we're a democracy, not a dictatorship!

#StopBrexit #StopDictators #FuckBoris (with a rusty pitchfork)


Parliamentary petition to prevent
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/269157

Do not prorogue Parliament
Parliament must not be prorogued or dissolved unless and until the Article 50 period has been sufficiently extended or the UK's intention to withdraw from the EU has been cancelled.

Banquo wrote:Seems like an odd move from Bozza- think its an open goal for a vote of no-confidence and the govt falling. Surely he's done the maths?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49493632

It does seem like an obvious manouevre to unite his opposition. He could've kept stringing everyone along for much longer while Corbyn "waited for the right time", the Lib Dems waited to be more relevant, and the Meatloaf Remain Tories (I would do anything to stop No Deal...) wait for the minerals to actually back something rather than complaining.

Puja