What on earth did Theresa May think she was signing when securing her triumphant Phase 1 of negotiations? Didn’t she or anyone else read what they’d agreed to?
It was a bulk order for cake. All of the cake.
Both to have and to eat and in fact to batter the rest of the EU with, into giving only us preferential treatment, because we ARE very special.
I fear we are about to discover just how special we aren’t.
But we must be, because the Maybot, Boris the Incompetent, Jacob the Unready et al say that we are, and they wouldn’t lie to us.
Listening to Keir Starmer this morning it was apparent that they’ve also been having meetings with EU officials so will have some idea what arrangements will be workable for both parties in the negotiations.
Their position is only marginally less ludicrous than the Tory’s; A jobs-led Brexit? Feck off with that shite. Even the kindest analysis demonstrates it is a recession we can avoid if we so chose.
If that soundbite was indeed the full extent of what they were proposing you might have a point. Being prepared, for example, to be involved in some sort of customs union is a step in the right direction.
Alarmingly I’m with John Major
Yep, but they also want to have an influence on EU trade policy, but not to be a member of the EU. This is patent nonsense, although one would expect them to fold on that in the event that they negotiate on our behalf. The pre-briefed bits of May’s speech make sad reading. It appears that she will propose five tests for a successful Brexit:
- a commitment to taking back control of money, laws and borders,
- the need for an enduring solution,
- the protection of jobs,
- the creation of an “outward looking” Britain,
- a strengthening of the UK.
That looks like hope and aspiration rather than detail. Cherry picking and cake for want of a better description. If the Soubry et al amendment to the trade bill gets up, and it looks likely it will as the Tories have postponed the vote, then the Customs Union is imposed upon Govt by Parliament. Ditto the HoL amendment about the NI border. Absent of any real detail, we can all just wait until the Governments hands are tied by a cross-party movement within Parliament, which is the best we can hope for.
I’d have thought that the appeal of being in a CU lies with simpler arrangements and with a resolution of the Irish issue. Aren’t Turkey in a CU with the EU without being prevented from negotiating their own trade deals? Don’t get me wrong. Personally I’d rather Remain but I can see that it would be extremely damaging for UK politics if the outcome of the referendum is simply over ridden. So other minimally damaging outcomes have to be examined.
I think that in the end Parliament will force a CU and no border on the Government in short order. That deals with ‘Hard Brexit’ etc on the spot and thankfully even the Brexiteers can’t take issue with the sovereignty of Parliament (or taking back control). The issue then is whether Brexit in Name Only (Brino) is worth pursuing.
Irrespective of the outcomes, this mess isn’t going away. The Brexiteers will claim that the sunny uplands of their ambitions were snatched away, and the EU is responsible for everything bad under the sun. On the other hand the remainers will protest the damage etc. Nothing whatsoever is being done about the real issues underlying the vote for Brexit so this is all going to be with us for generations.
That’s the bigger issue.
“As Turkey is in a customs union with the EU, it has to adjust its tariffs and duties to match those of the EU. However, the free trade agreements (FTAs) signed by the EU do not extend to Turkey, so the EU’s FTA partners can export to Turkey tariff-free, while maintaining tariffs on Turkish goods, unless they also conclude a separate FTA agreement with Turkey.”
Looks like a shit deal to me, as it would take us years to negotiate trade deals, and other countries wouldn’t be in a rush as all it could do is lower their tariffs - we would have no control over ours!
I’m all for the will of the people, John Major (Jesus I can’t believe I’m typing this) suggests something approaching balance. People voted on an Ideal - Perhaps they should be given the opportunity to vote on the reality?
A) People should be able to vote on what is actually being proposed - A clarification of the ‘new deals’ ramifications.
B) The likely enactment of this cuntish adventure will be 5 years after the original referendum, some voters are dead and many new potential voters could have a say.
C) The referendum was advisory, the period we are now in is arguably exploratory the findings of this laughable expedition into a vastly complex suicide should be put before the people.
Given that the status quo would not appear to be an option, what’s your workable alternative?
LOL my position has been the same all along: stay in the EU or we will have a shit deal on many levels!