RugbyRebels

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?

Which Tyler wrote: 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.

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote: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?

Digby wrote: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.

Banquo wrote: 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

Digby wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: 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.

The emergency debate is pure class.

Rees-Mogg is the very definition of disingenuity.

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

Son of Mathonwy wrote: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.

Stones of granite wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: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.

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

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.

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

Digby wrote: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.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote: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?

Which Tyler wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote: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

Puzzled how a 2nd Ref would heal?

Banquo wrote:Puzzled how a 2nd Ref would heal?

A Supermajority either way.
So not exactly likely, but it's the only thing that has any chance at all.
IMO

So what the fuck is happening in the Lords? I’m lost...

Lizard wrote:So what the fuck is happening in the Lords? I’m lost...

Yeah, I was just listening to that - I've never heard of a fillibuster being possible in the UK system before (quite possibly because I've never paid much attention to the Lords).

It SOUNDS LIKE... a fillibuster can only really happen when there's a proroguement about to happen; as that's the only time debate is actually closed down, rather tan staying live to be picked up again later.
Which means that if the tory lords can just keep it being debated for a week, they can simply run down the clock.
Cummings has gotten 86 (and counting?) ammendments to be added when today's bill reaches the lords - with each (apparently) taking a minium of about 45 minutes.
The Lords can keep themselves open all night, and over the weekend if they wish - but they have to close down and vacate when proroguement kicks in.

Was this part of the equation when proroguement was floated?

But what are they filibustering? I thought the Commons hadn't yet passed the extension bill (or whatever that's called) but just had voted to tell BoJo to fuck off and let them do what they want.

Which Tyler wrote:

Lizard wrote:So what the fuck is happening in the Lords? I’m lost...

Yeah, I was just listening to that - I've never heard of a fillibuster being possible in the UK system before (quite possibly because I've never paid much attention to the Lords).

It SOUNDS LIKE... a fillibuster can only really happen when there's a proroguement about to happen; as that's the only time debate is actually closed down, rather tan staying live to be picked up again later.
Which means that if the tory lords can just keep it being debated for a week, they can simply run down the clock.
Cummings has gotten 86 (and counting?) ammendments to be added when today's bill reaches the lords - with each (apparently) taking a minium of about 45 minutes.
The Lords can keep themselves open all night, and over the weekend if they wish - but they have to close down and vacate when proroguement kicks in.

Was this part of the equation when proroguement was floated?

One can always filibuster, but it gets harder on government backed bills as they have more time set aside for them.

Yes it was part of the equation when the decision to close parliament was made, those seeking to ensure no deal is taken off the table think they have plans to prevent the bill being talked out, but they haven't gone public on what their thinking is as they felt it would give the government time counteract those plans, whether they have any plans, whether the Lords will try to so over rule the elected chamber, whether the government has already considered what options there might be and have to act against them I guess we'll see

Lizard wrote:But what are they filibustering? I thought the Commons hadn't yet passed the extension bill (or whatever that's called) but just had voted to tell BoJo to fuck off and let them do what they want.

if the Commons passes said bill then it's off the Lords. The Commons votes today, so it should be over to the Lords tomorrow/Thursday. How it works if the Lords wants to sit Friday and the weekend I don't know, we don't normally end up in quite this mess

Watching PMQ's (and the Ashes, I'm not a total loser) and Boris seems to be fighting an election already. He sure as hell isn't answering any of Corbyn's Q's.

I guess that's a "no" to Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi's question.
That's going to be all over the place, and terrible, terrible optics for BJ

ETA: well played Swinson for calling him on it as well
For those who haven't seen it: