Brexit delayed

[Mellsblue]

Love the fact that you state ‘Any half-way competent PM would have had us ot of the EU by now, on Norway+ terms’ before going on to completely contradict that by listing a number of the reasons why it isn’t even close to being that simple.

I don't see anything there that couldn't be overcome by a fairly basic level of competence (possibly barring the leader of the opposition)

Very true, but that doesn’t mean ‘Any half-way competent PM would have had us ot of the EU by now, on Norway+ terms’.

[Mellsblue]

I think you can still add in "Renegotiate May's deal without May's red lines"

Any half-way competent PM would have had us ot of the EU by now, on Norway+ terms (limited to 10 years*) and got on with negotiating the future relationship; whilst also negotiating with the rest of the world for deals to start on 29th March 2029. That working agreement could have been agreed inside a month, essentially giving us 12 years to get our shit sorted.
However, that would have required competence with the leaders of both main parties, a willingness to find consensus and compromise - something our parliamentary system seems specifically designed to discourage; and neither May nor Corbyn in positions of any power. Not to mention an acknowledgement that we live in the real world, not cloud cuckoo land.


*10 years should be plenty; the EU-Japan deal took 4 years, and EU-Canada took 7 from disparate starting points on quality etc. Though they were both negotiate in good faith - mind you, my above plan would have included negoitating in good faith - unlike May.

Love the fact that you state ‘Any half-way competent PM would have had us ot of the EU by now, on Norway+ terms’ before going on to completely contradict that by listing a number of the reasons why it isn’t even close to being that simple.

its a weird train of logic that persuades itself that instead of being honest and saying Norway plus is a much inferior relationship than we already have with the same 'downsides' and less upside, we will propose that as a valid leaving proposal so we look like we are supporting the people's will, and be in that inferior relationship for maybe 10 years. Plus that does sound a little like the WA with a 10 year backstop.

Those proposing these BRINO minuses just need to tell the truth and say we don't support leaving at all.

Yep. Sadly, any compromise leaves us with lots of downsides with little/less room to try and exploit any upsides. However, when compromise is demanded this is where it leaves us.
Since Leave won the referendum I’ve thought transitioning to Canada + the only viable option as it would respect the leave campaign platform - end to freedom of movement, ability to strike trade deals and no CJEU - however, as it seems compromise is a must, I think EFTA is the way to go. Brexiteers give up on ending freedom of movement, CJEU influence is removed and trade deals can be struck, albeit with less freedom. One win for Remain on freedom of movement, one win for Leave on removing the CJEU, and a score draw on the ability to strike trade deals whilst adhering closely to EU regs on goods and services.
It would take some work as it doesn’t completely remove border checks in Ireland, but checks on customs is less devise than ending free movement (and hopefully tech solutions are easy enough to achieve within the short term on customs requirements alone) and work would be required on (financial) services as part of EFTA but I’m hoping it’s where we now end up.

[Banquo]

Love the fact that you state ‘Any half-way competent PM would have had us ot of the EU by now, on Norway+ terms’ before going on to completely contradict that by listing a number of the reasons why it isn’t even close to being that simple.

its a weird train of logic that persuades itself that instead of being honest and saying Norway plus is a much inferior relationship than we already have with the same 'downsides' and less upside, we will propose that as a valid leaving proposal so we look like we are supporting the people's will, and be in that inferior relationship for maybe 10 years. Plus that does sound a little like the WA with a 10 year backstop.

Those proposing these BRINO minuses just need to tell the truth and say we don't support leaving at all.

Yep. Sadly, any compromise leaves us with lots of downsides with little/less room to try and exploit any upsides. However, when compromise is demanded this is where it leaves us.
Since Leave won the referendum I’ve thought transitioning to Canada + the only viable option as it would respect the leave campaign platform - end to freedom of movement, ability to strike trade deals and no CJEU - however, as it seems compromise is a must, I think EFTA is the way to go. Brexiteers give up on ending freedom of movement, CJEU influence is removed and trade deals can be struck, albeit with less freedom. One win for Remain on freedom of movement, one win for Leave on removing the CJEU, and a score draw on the ability to strike trade deals whilst adhering closely to EU regs on goods and services.
It would take some work as it doesn’t completely remove border checks in Ireland, but checks on customs is less devise than ending free movement (and hopefully tech solutions are easy enough to achieve within the short term on customs requirements alone) and work would be required on (financial) services as part of EFTA but I’m hoping it’s where we now end up.

Although freedom of movement is an utter red herring, its likely one red line the Extreme Right Gammons won't give up on.

[Mellsblue]

its a weird train of logic that persuades itself that instead of being honest and saying Norway plus is a much inferior relationship than we already have with the same 'downsides' and less upside, we will propose that as a valid leaving proposal so we look like we are supporting the people's will, and be in that inferior relationship for maybe 10 years. Plus that does sound a little like the WA with a 10 year backstop.

Those proposing these BRINO minuses just need to tell the truth and say we don't support leaving at all.

Yep. Sadly, any compromise leaves us with lots of downsides with little/less room to try and exploit any upsides. However, when compromise is demanded this is where it leaves us.
Since Leave won the referendum I’ve thought transitioning to Canada + the only viable option as it would respect the leave campaign platform - end to freedom of movement, ability to strike trade deals and no CJEU - however, as it seems compromise is a must, I think EFTA is the way to go. Brexiteers give up on ending freedom of movement, CJEU influence is removed and trade deals can be struck, albeit with less freedom. One win for Remain on freedom of movement, one win for Leave on removing the CJEU, and a score draw on the ability to strike trade deals whilst adhering closely to EU regs on goods and services.
It would take some work as it doesn’t completely remove border checks in Ireland, but checks on customs is less devise than ending free movement (and hopefully tech solutions are easy enough to achieve within the short term on customs requirements alone) and work would be required on (financial) services as part of EFTA but I’m hoping it’s where we now end up.

Although freedom of movement is an utter red herring, its likely one red line the Extreme Right Gammons won't give up on.

They will moan and wail but, as recent data has proved, freedom of movement isn’t the reason for ‘high’net immigration. As EU migrant numbers have fallen their place has been taken by those from the rest of the world.
Tbh, you can’t really achieve a deep FTA without huge liberalisation of immigration policy anyway. (That May be the red herring you mean!)

[Banquo]

Yep. Sadly, any compromise leaves us with lots of downsides with little/less room to try and exploit any upsides. However, when compromise is demanded this is where it leaves us.
Since Leave won the referendum I’ve thought transitioning to Canada + the only viable option as it would respect the leave campaign platform - end to freedom of movement, ability to strike trade deals and no CJEU - however, as it seems compromise is a must, I think EFTA is the way to go. Brexiteers give up on ending freedom of movement, CJEU influence is removed and trade deals can be struck, albeit with less freedom. One win for Remain on freedom of movement, one win for Leave on removing the CJEU, and a score draw on the ability to strike trade deals whilst adhering closely to EU regs on goods and services.
It would take some work as it doesn’t completely remove border checks in Ireland, but checks on customs is less devise than ending free movement (and hopefully tech solutions are easy enough to achieve within the short term on customs requirements alone) and work would be required on (financial) services as part of EFTA but I’m hoping it’s where we now end up.

Although freedom of movement is an utter red herring, its likely one red line the Extreme Right Gammons won't give up on.

They will moan and wail but, as recent data has proved, freedom of movement isn’t the reason for ‘high’net immigration. As EU migrant numbers have fallen their place has been taken by those from the rest of the world.
Tbh, you can’t really achieve a deep FTA without huge liberalisation of immigration policy anyway. (That May be the red herring you mean!)

That's why I said its a red herring. Its also a red herring in that previous govts could easily have managed immigration numbers but have chosen not too. But its a red herring that many many leave voters cleave to, irrespective of 'data' and 'experts'.

[Banquo]

Can't think of another way it could be done, but how come the nasty Bercow gets to choose the options, and how can/does he decide?

[Mellsblue]

Although freedom of movement is an utter red herring, its likely one red line the Extreme Right Gammons won't give up on.

They will moan and wail but, as recent data has proved, freedom of movement isn’t the reason for ‘high’net immigration. As EU migrant numbers have fallen their place has been taken by those from the rest of the world.
Tbh, you can’t really achieve a deep FTA without huge liberalisation of immigration policy anyway. (That May be the red herring you mean!)

That's why I said its a red herring. Its also a red herring in that previous govts could easily have managed immigration numbers but have chosen not too. But its a red herring that many many leave voters cleave to, irrespective of 'data' and 'experts'.

True, though free movement definitely impinges on that ability.
EFTA does allow for managing numbers but I believe it’s a pretty high bar to clear (no idea on the ins and outs). It’s also a compromise a lot of Brexiteer MP’s can use to climb down/accept as most are on record as saying they don’t see immigration as an issue/high priority. That said, there are quite a few who said leaving the EU didn’t mean leaving the single market. Sadly, for many reasons, May, unsurprisingly, has put ending free movement front and centre.

It really is the perfect storm of a shambles with blame spreading from ardent Remainers to ERG nutters.

All that said, I could’ve just typed FFS and saved myself five mins.

[Mellsblue]

Can't think of another way it could be done, but how come the nasty Bercow gets to choose the options, and how can/does he decide?

Another huge minus of this whole Brexit process. A biased, bullying, arrogant, rude and pompous misogynist remains as speaker, beyond the date he said he would leave, solely because he is a Remainer.

[Banquo]

Labour now whipping support of specific options. Couldn't make this up.

[Banquo]

...is this what conference decided, or is he just making this up?
'LABOUR BREXIT LATEST: Jeremy Corbyn's spokesman explains that the party only supports a referendum on a "damaging Tory Brexit". If Labour takes power, he says, it will negotiate a better Brexit, which won't need a referendum.'

[Digby]

Labour now whipping support of specific options. Couldn't make this up.

Shami Chakrabarti was yesterday explaining Labour MPs would be free to vote for the correctly observed options. Which left me wondering what the previous Shami Chakrabarti I remember from Amnesty International would have to say that, I think that Shami would be pouring scorn and derision on this new version of herself

[Digby]

Can't think of another way it could be done, but how come the nasty Bercow gets to choose the options, and how can/does he decide?

Another huge minus of this whole Brexit process. A biased, bullying, arrogant, rude and pompous misogynist remains as speaker, beyond the date he said he would leave, solely because he is a Remainer.

I like him. Oftentimes anyway

As to why he selects amendments to a motion that's lost in history for my knowledge, but in effect he chairs the discussion and through that process selects the amendments to be discussed. He's supposed to select from amendments submitted in timely fashion, that are not vague, that don't exist merely to ruin a motion, that are relevant to a motion and to do so without bias.

[Banquo]

Can't think of another way it could be done, but how come the nasty Bercow gets to choose the options, and how can/does he decide?

Another huge minus of this whole Brexit process. A biased, bullying, arrogant, rude and pompous misogynist remains as speaker, beyond the date he said he would leave, solely because he is a Remainer.

I like him. Oftentimes anyway

As to why he selects amendments to a motion that's lost in history for my knowledge, but in effect he chairs the discussion and through that process selects the amendments to be discussed. He's supposed to select from amendments submitted in timely fashion, that are not vague, that don't exist merely to ruin a motion, that are relevant to a motion and to do so without bias.

I don't know what to say to the former, except to say I shouldn't be that surprised, and as to the latter, I know it has to be him 'chairing', but in this case, selecting the 'options' will have pretty significant implications, and unless done impartially will be seen as rigging the voting.

[Stom]

Another huge minus of this whole Brexit process. A biased, bullying, arrogant, rude and pompous misogynist remains as speaker, beyond the date he said he would leave, solely because he is a Remainer.

I like him. Oftentimes anyway

As to why he selects amendments to a motion that's lost in history for my knowledge, but in effect he chairs the discussion and through that process selects the amendments to be discussed. He's supposed to select from amendments submitted in timely fashion, that are not vague, that don't exist merely to ruin a motion, that are relevant to a motion and to do so without bias.

I don't know what to say to the former, except to say I shouldn't be that surprised, and as to the latter, I know it has to be him 'chairing', but in this case, selecting the 'options' will have pretty significant implications, and unless done impartially will be seen as rigging the voting.

I thought the idea of "selecting" the amendments in this case simply meant filtering out the crap...

[Banquo]

I like him. Oftentimes anyway

As to why he selects amendments to a motion that's lost in history for my knowledge, but in effect he chairs the discussion and through that process selects the amendments to be discussed. He's supposed to select from amendments submitted in timely fashion, that are not vague, that don't exist merely to ruin a motion, that are relevant to a motion and to do so without bias.

I don't know what to say to the former, except to say I shouldn't be that surprised, and as to the latter, I know it has to be him 'chairing', but in this case, selecting the 'options' will have pretty significant implications, and unless done impartially will be seen as rigging the voting.

I thought the idea of "selecting" the amendments in this case simply meant filtering out the crap...

There are 16 of them, not sure they are amendments, but options. Selection isn't filtering, its.....selection, and the range of options will likely skew the voting.

[Stom]

I don't know what to say to the former, except to say I shouldn't be that surprised, and as to the latter, I know it has to be him 'chairing', but in this case, selecting the 'options' will have pretty significant implications, and unless done impartially will be seen as rigging the voting.

I thought the idea of "selecting" the amendments in this case simply meant filtering out the crap...

There are 16 of them, not sure they are amendments, but options. Selection isn't filtering, its.....selection, and the range of options will likely skew the voting.

OK, but some of them are a bit...batshit. Basically anything the EU has already said "NO" to should be taken off.

[Digby]

Another huge minus of this whole Brexit process. A biased, bullying, arrogant, rude and pompous misogynist remains as speaker, beyond the date he said he would leave, solely because he is a Remainer.

I like him. Oftentimes anyway

As to why he selects amendments to a motion that's lost in history for my knowledge, but in effect he chairs the discussion and through that process selects the amendments to be discussed. He's supposed to select from amendments submitted in timely fashion, that are not vague, that don't exist merely to ruin a motion, that are relevant to a motion and to do so without bias.

I don't know what to say to the former, except to say I shouldn't be that surprised, and as to the latter, I know it has to be him 'chairing', but in this case, selecting the 'options' will have pretty significant implications, and unless done impartially will be seen as rigging the voting.

Best he can do is pick some amendments from both sides known to have some wider support. It's always going to be the sort of role though that invites concern around bias whatever the bill. Given though the government can bring its own amendments I'm not too worried, or at least not more worried than I am the government didn't do this years ago

[Banquo]

I like him. Oftentimes anyway

As to why he selects amendments to a motion that's lost in history for my knowledge, but in effect he chairs the discussion and through that process selects the amendments to be discussed. He's supposed to select from amendments submitted in timely fashion, that are not vague, that don't exist merely to ruin a motion, that are relevant to a motion and to do so without bias.

I don't know what to say to the former, except to say I shouldn't be that surprised, and as to the latter, I know it has to be him 'chairing', but in this case, selecting the 'options' will have pretty significant implications, and unless done impartially will be seen as rigging the voting.

Best he can do is pick some amendments from both sides known to have some wider support. It's always going to be the sort of role though that invites concern around bias whatever the bill. Given though the government can bring its own amendments I'm not too worried, or at least not more worried than I am the government didn't do this years ago

point of order, order. Are they amendments, or options?

I think what he selects will materially affect the voting- this is relatively unprecedented, so have no other answer.....I'm just thinking he could effective give the govt an opportunity to cry foul through 'leading the witness'.

[Digby]

I don't know what to say to the former, except to say I shouldn't be that surprised, and as to the latter, I know it has to be him 'chairing', but in this case, selecting the 'options' will have pretty significant implications, and unless done impartially will be seen as rigging the voting.

Best he can do is pick some amendments from both sides known to have some wider support. It's always going to be the sort of role though that invites concern around bias whatever the bill. Given though the government can bring its own amendments I'm not too worried, or at least not more worried than I am the government didn't do this years ago

point of order, order. Are they amendments, or options?

I think what he selects will materially affect the voting- this is relatively unprecedented, so have no other answer.....I'm just thinking he could effective give the govt an opportunity to cry foul through 'leading the witness'.

I'm assuming house is discussing some form of motion and thus they're amendments being described as options. Interestingly as some of these amendments have already been dismissed by parliament in this session I'm assuming further there's already a motion passed to ignore that and clearly cannot have been too traumatic an experience, and one compares this with complaints about Bercow saying no to meaningless vote 3 absent of alteration

And again I don’t think the executive can cry foul as they're entitled to bring their own bills and amendments but have chosen not to. Also if the government is allowed to cry foul could they then do so for any amendments submitted on future government bills? The executive isn't exactly shy of power in all this

[Mellsblue]

I thought the idea of "selecting" the amendments in this case simply meant filtering out the crap...

There are 16 of them, not sure they are amendments, but options. Selection isn't filtering, its.....selection, and the range of options will likely skew the voting.

OK, but some of them are a bit...batshit. Basically anything the EU has already said "NO" to should be taken off.

Why?

[Banquo]

Best he can do is pick some amendments from both sides known to have some wider support. It's always going to be the sort of role though that invites concern around bias whatever the bill. Given though the government can bring its own amendments I'm not too worried, or at least not more worried than I am the government didn't do this years ago

point of order, order. Are they amendments, or options?

I think what he selects will materially affect the voting- this is relatively unprecedented, so have no other answer.....I'm just thinking he could effective give the govt an opportunity to cry foul through 'leading the witness'.

I'm assuming house is discussing some form of motion and thus they're amendments being described as options. Interestingly as some of these amendments have already been dismissed by parliament in this session I'm assuming further there's already a motion passed to ignore that and clearly cannot have been too traumatic an experience, and one compares this with complaints about Bercow saying no to meaningless vote 3 absent of alteration

And again I don’t think the executive can cry foul as they're entitled to bring their own bills and amendments but have chosen not to. Also if the government is allowed to cry foul could they then do so for any amendments submitted on future government bills? The executive isn't exactly shy of power in all this

My point is the composition of the list amendments/options will affect the voting bias.

[Puja]

There are 16 of them, not sure they are amendments, but options. Selection isn't filtering, its.....selection, and the range of options will likely skew the voting.

OK, but some of them are a bit...batshit. Basically anything the EU has already said "NO" to should be taken off.

Why?

Because there's no point in gaining a majority for a fantasy - we've spent enough time doing that. The one that's "May's deal without the backstop" can be binned straight away.

Puja

[Banquo]

OK, but some of them are a bit...batshit. Basically anything the EU has already said "NO" to should be taken off.

Why?

Because there's no point in gaining a majority for a fantasy - we've spent enough time doing that. The one that's "May's deal without the backstop" can be binned straight away.

Puja

They are voting on a few already rejected. You could also reject anything that says WA plus Customs/Single Market Access/Unicorns as being batshit crazy on logic grounds.

The point you are making is exactly the point the govt made when it wouldn't commit to implementing whatever commanded a majority (that would be Remain then ), because it couldn't guarantee having to deliver (yet another) fantasy

[Banquo]

absolute carnage today. Sack the lot of them.

[Digby]

point of order, order. Are they amendments, or options?

I think what he selects will materially affect the voting- this is relatively unprecedented, so have no other answer.....I'm just thinking he could effective give the govt an opportunity to cry foul through 'leading the witness'.

I'm assuming house is discussing some form of motion and thus they're amendments being described as options. Interestingly as some of these amendments have already been dismissed by parliament in this session I'm assuming further there's already a motion passed to ignore that and clearly cannot have been too traumatic an experience, and one compares this with complaints about Bercow saying no to meaningless vote 3 absent of alteration

And again I don’t think the executive can cry foul as they're entitled to bring their own bills and amendments but have chosen not to. Also if the government is allowed to cry foul could they then do so for any amendments submitted on future government bills? The executive isn't exactly shy of power in all this

My point is the composition of the list amendments/options will affect the voting bias.

That's an ongoing issue with the role the speaker has, but looking at the list there's something almost for everyone so it would seem it's not overly biased. Also if parliament has an issue with the role of the role of the speaker when it comes to amendments they possibly haven't looked into it for so long it's hard to claim they've been had now