Alastair Campbell wants May to cancel Brexit...

[Damo]

Is this a joke? This seems like a joke.

If you thought it was you would of found a better retort

[Spiral]

You're still silent on the Treasury report.

I'll give you a leg up and point out that projections have been wrong in the past. Hell, I'm taking the numbers with a pinch of salt.

What can't be disputed, though, is the rules by which we're bound were we to trade on WTO terms and the impacts of these rules on a swathe of UK industries. This would categorically be disastrous for many UK businesses and in some cases, entire industries.

[CrosspoolClarets]

With all the will in the world, they don't have to budge an inch

Neither do we.

For reasons long discussed, there WILL be a deal. The one who blinks first gets the worst one. I understand the views of people on here, but by God, I don’t understand the behaviour of some of our politicians.

The EU is splitting. We are the smallest bit to be fair, but WE are the EU too, one of the biggest constituent nations. The analogy of a divorce that many use is appropriate. The settlement should be independently assessed and decided. So far, we have resisted that out of good faith, but the day may come.

As for that Treasury report, I noticed the figure the QC quoted - £5,200 per household lost per annum. That is the same figure that made the bus only the second biggest lie pre referendum. It was Osborne’s report, the one which assumed all migration ceasing, the one that I read all 100 pages of 18 months ago, the one that firmed up my view that the Project Fear was more like Project BS. We all knew then and now that not all migration would cease, the Treasury knew too. We won’t be as poor as they pretended.

[Damo]

This would categorically be disastrous for many UK businesses and in some cases, entire industries.

In hindsight, this comment would of been proved correct had you posted it 40 years ago re: joining the EU

[Spiral]

No. That particular request is fine by me

So when Lancaster linked a tweet with excerpts from the Treasury report on a no-deal scenario, you weren't trying to divert from the content by questing the motivations of the, well...messenger.

[Lancasterclaret]

The EU is splitting

Again, saying it does not make it true.

Whatever we offer individual EU nations in our attempts to break them up, will not be bigger or better than the deals they get from the EU.

And you say there will be a deal as if its guaranteed.

I reckon the chances of a deal now completely hinge on us being able to agree a long transitional period. Something that the govt cannot get the right wing of its party to agree to.

I admire your optimism, but its all a bit "Hitlers Bunker"

[Imploding Turtle]

Neither do we.

For reasons long discussed, there WILL be a deal. The one who blinks first gets the worst one. I understand the views of people on here, but by God, I don’t understand the behaviour of some of our politicians.

The EU is splitting. We are the smallest bit to be fair, but WE are the EU too, one of the biggest constituent nations. The analogy of a divorce that many use is appropriate. The settlement should be independently assessed and decided. So far, we have resisted that out of good faith, but the day may come.

As for that Treasury report, I noticed the figure the QC quoted - £5,200 per household lost per annum. That is the same figure that made the bus only the second biggest lie pre referendum. It was Osborne’s report, the one which assumed all migration ceasing, the one that I read all 100 pages of 18 months ago, the one that firmed up my view that the Project Fear was more like Project BS. We all knew then and now that not all migration would cease, the Treasury knew too. We won’t be as poor as they pretended.

Was it this?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ternatives" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Lancasterclaret]

Ok, so you've got alternative treasury reports that prove otherwise?

Hell man, why didn't you say so before........oh

[dsr]

The [Irish] border cannot be dismissed as "oh, we've had this since the 1920s, because it was effectively a military border before we joined the EU, and has only been demilitarised over recent times, due to both the peace process and customs union that we are now planning to leave.

We could sort all that by having the border at Heysham, Holyhead, Cairnryan etc, but that is completely unacceptable to the DUP and makes a mockery of our desire for er, "sovereignty".

So we have to come up with something that will work, won't harm the peace process and keeps trade moving along swiftly and is acceptable to both the EU and the UK. We haven't yet, because everything suggests that the only way it is going to work is staying in the single market and the customs union. I posted a study on the Norwegian-Swedish border on here, and even that isn't hassale free, and they have none of the others issues that the Eire/Uk border has.

This is one of the most stupid parts of the impasse. Yes, it's undoubtedly true that one of the things that must be settled is how the Irish border is going to work, especially as regards trade under whatever conditions the UK will trade with Ireland. Except the EU won't discuss the trade deal until significant progress has been made on the Irish border.

So first of all we work out how the border will work under the new trading conditions; and only then will we move on to deciding what those new trading conditions are. Isn't there a logical problem?

[Spiral]

As for that Treasury report, I noticed the figure the QC quoted - £5,200 per household lost per annum. That is the same figure that made the bus only the second biggest lie pre referendum. It was Osborne’s report, the one which assumed all migration ceasing, the one that I read all 100 pages of 18 months ago, the one that firmed up my view that the Project Fear was more like Project BS. We all knew then and now that not all migration would cease, the Treasury knew too. We won’t be as poor as they pretended.

I'd agree that the numbers could be bullshit. But what about the other excerpts from the report detailing the specific details and implications of trading under WTO rules? Those points don't seem to be up for dispute, am I right?

[Damo]

Ok, so you've got alternative treasury reports that prove otherwise?

Hell man, why didn't you say so before........oh

IMG_20171019_225930.jpg (462.57 KiB) Viewed 2207 times

[Spiral]

Okay, so Damobot is taking the fingers-in-ears/see what you want to see approach to all this.

[Steve1956]

Alastair Campbell is a knob!

[Lancasterclaret]

Dsr, its not as simple as that.

I'm really sorry that you don't understand the sensitivities here.

I worked for a firm in Warrenpoint and a firm in Newry for the best part of ten years, from the watchtowers and armed units on the border to what it is now.

You can say what the hell you want about the EU, but if the end result of all this is increased tensions and trouble along that border, then nothing, and I mean nothing is worth what that could lead to.

I think we get a bit blase about that over here, but trust me, if you've seen Newry,the flags and the painted pavements, or been stopped by an army patrol in the middle of the night, then you realise whats more important.

[Damo]

Okay, so Damobot is taking the fingers-in-ears/see what you want to see approach to all this.

Damobot is still waiting for your reply to me being happy with the request for an investigation to leave spending more money on junk mail.
Damobot would also like to know who wrote the treasury report re: the implications of no deal.
Damobot would also like to know how angry remain people are so certain the eu can afford no deal.
Damobot will disconnect if user does not reply within 18 months.
.........

[RocketLawnChair]

Alastair Campbell is a knob!

No he's not ! He's a prick !

[Lancasterclaret]

He certainly awful when he's playing his bagpipes.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I'd agree that the numbers could be bullshit. But what about the other excerpts from the report detailing the specific details and implications of trading under WTO rules? Those points don't seem to be up for dispute, am I right?

It’s 18 months since I read it, heaven knows why it has reared up again today. From memory though, it was a lot of pages with assertions without context, saying things like “leaving the EU will worsen trade with non-EU nations as well as with the EU”. There wasn’t a hint of optimism in it, no doubt because Osborne at that point wanted to sell his mate Dave’s big deal he made with Merkel.

[dsr]

Dsr, its not as simple as that.

I'm really sorry that you don't understand the sensitivities here.

I worked for a firm in Warrenpoint and a firm in Newry for the best part of ten years, from the watchtowers and armed units on the border to what it is now.

You can say what the hell you want about the EU, but if the end result of all this is increased tensions and trouble along that border, then nothing, and I mean nothing is worth what that could lead to.

I think we get a bit blase about that over here, but trust me, if you've seen Newry,the flags and the painted pavements, or been stopped by an army patrol in the middle of the night, then you realise whats more important.

Even so, the point remains. We can't decide how the border is policed under the new trade rules, without first deciding what the new trade rules are.

[Spiral]

It’s 18 months since I read it, heaven knows why it has reared up again today. From memory though, it was a lot of pages with assertions without context, saying things like “leaving the EU will worsen trade with non-EU nations as well as with the EU”. There wasn’t a hint of optimism in it, no doubt because Osborne at that point wanted to sell his mate Dave’s big deal he made with Merkel.

It's possible it has reared it's head again due to the prospect of no-deal seeming more and more likely. It seemed unthinkable at one point.

The WTO rules and implications of such are damning enough, for me. On agriculture alone it seems disastrous. Optimism won't allow us to trade under a different set of rules.

[Lancasterclaret]

its not just about trade that border though dsr, thats the whole point.

You can't just rock up with HM police and customs and not expect tension.

I don't know if its possible, but a separate deal exclusively for the border region in Eire seems to be the only solution, even the EU have hinted that because of this they might do things that they wouldn't do normally.

[Paul Waine]

Paul, whether we like it or not, those three items have to be settled so that the EU are happy.

I mean, you want a third party to decide on a fair divide of what we owe? Thats not in any EU treaty, so its just not possible. Its very like the posts by crosspool and DSR in the way it ignores that we are leaving them.

With all the will in the world, they don't have to budge an inch, and we have to come up with something better than we've managed so far.

The border cannot be dismissed as "oh, we've had this since the 1920s, because it was effectively a military border before we joined the EU, and has only been demilitarised over recent times, due to both the peace process and customs union that we are now planning to leave.

We could sort all that by having the border at Heysham, Holyhead, Cairnryan etc, but that is completely unacceptable to the DUP and makes a mockery of our desire for er, "sovereignty".

So we have to come up with something that will work, won't harm the peace process and keeps trade moving along swiftly and is acceptable to both the EU and the UK. We haven't yet, because everything suggests that the only way it is going to work is staying in the single market and the customs union. I posted a study on the Norwegian-Swedish border on here, and even that isn't hassale free, and they have none of the others issues that the Eire/Uk border has.

Regarding citizens, its going to be a tough one because if we stick to our guns regarding the European Court, then they will stick to theirs. Eventually we are going to have to agree to a whole new (and expensive) legal framework for this.

Add the economic impact, the impact of all the various regulatory bodies that we are going to have to either set up, or increase in staffing numbers etc etc etc and the price of leaving continues to make no sense at all.

But I appreciate (as DSR said) that to some, that doesn't matter. I respectfully disagree and would suggest that to most, it is going to matter and matter a lot more as the economic ramifications start becoming clearer and clearer.

Hi Lancs,

We are both football fans, we are both experienced with one team claiming it was a penalty and the other saying no it wasn't. Football has a referee to make that decision. It seems that the EU27 and the UK are on opposite sides re the "financial obligations" - and, from the best we can tell, there are no EU rules that define the financial obligations of any member state that leaves the EU - as you say, "that's not in any EU treaty." My point, it's a pity that it's not in the Maastricht treaty, alongside Article 50. However, as it isn't, the best way, the "friendly way" to resolve it is to agree on mediation - the mediator would be the "third party" - aided by whatever "financial obligation" experts the mediator decides are required.

Why do you say "they (EU27) don't have to budge an inch?" Of course, they don't, unless they want to reach an agreement. If the EU27 "don't budge" then we will end up with "no deal" I'd expect.

Eire: Northern Ireland border - I don't think it was any more "militarised" than any other border between two nations until the "troubles" from about 1969. And, of course, it remained "militarised" for many years after the UK and Eire both joined the EEC (and later the EU). But, from 1920s there have been many very strong links between the citizens of the Republic and those of Northern Ireland and the UK.

I've no idea what the EU customs union (and single market, I guess) has got to do with the Irish peace process. I saw no contribution from the EU to the peace process at any time. What did I miss?

What is the issue with the 3 million EU citizens who live in the UK? Why should they be any different from the UK citizens who live here? Why should they be different to the citizens of other (non-EU) nations who chose to live in the UK - all with the necessary permission to live in the UK?
Similarly, why should the UK citizens who have chosen to live in Spain, or France or any other EU member state have "legal protections" from outside the country that they have chosen to live in?

Re the economics, I don't know whether to be encouraged that the traditionally "non-business" political parties have discovered that "the economy matters" or to view it as their confusion, a desire to "cling" to the economics of the EU (single market, customs union, etc) but not to understand that all economics requires continuing striving and "hard work" - that no nation can "stand still" and that whatever the economic stats today, they can and will be different in future - and that this future can be as economically strong outside the EU as it may be economically strong with the UK within the EU.

[RocketLawnChair]

Foe list for you Paul Waine. Logical reasoned debate as no place on this forum. You ether throw yourself full length behind one campaign or tuther and if anybody disagrees with you defend that point as gospel until your head blows off whilst quoting agenda driven politicians, business owners or journalists. And always be prepared to back up anything you post with an article from the Guardian or the independent or you lack any credibility what so ever.

[CrosspoolClarets]

It's possible it has reared it's head again due to the prospect of no-deal seeming more and more likely. It seemed unthinkable at one point.

The WTO rules and implications of such are damning enough, for me. On agriculture alone it seems disastrous. Optimism won't allow us to trade under a different set of rules.

I would agree we do not want the WTO option, but I am certain it won’t be necessary. On agriculture for example, the EU has a quota from the WTO and we would have to negotiate a large chunk of that which means the chunk remaining for the EU goes down. A lower quota that can’t benefit as much from give and take among members on an annual basis, and EU farmers like the French would suffer badly. Thus they won’t want us outside the tent as much as we don’t. There will be a deal where we end up with sharing quotas as before, but it will be a complex hybrid arrangement that leaves us free to strike deals elsewhere too and maybe (thisnis where my knowledge gets flaky) reset our tariffs to suit our own industries.

[Lancasterclaret]

I do wish people who don't like the thread wouldn't comment on it. You don't have to read it!

Paul - I'll have to have a look at the most of your post later as charging around with kids stuff this morning.

Here is a quick bit on the NI peace process and the Brexit complications.

http://jtl.columbia.edu/the-impact-of-b ... e-process/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Bfcboyo]

If only he had of been as vocal about Tony cancelling Iraq.

[deanothedino]

What is the issue with the 3 million EU citizens who live in the UK? Why should they be any different from the UK citizens who live here? Why should they be different to the citizens of other (non-EU) nations who chose to live in the UK - all with the necessary permission to live in the UK?
Similarly, why should the UK citizens who have chosen to live in Spain, or France or any other EU member state have "legal protections" from outside the country that they have chosen to live in?

The EU is what gives them the necessary permission to live where they do. Once we leave they'd lose it unless we give it to them through a different mechanism, which we should.

[Paul Waine]

The EU is what gives them the necessary permission to live where they do. Once we leave they'd lose it unless we give it to them through a different mechanism, which we should.

Isn't this what the UK has offered for the EU citizens who are already here? Or, are you suggesting that the same permissions should be available to all the EU27 citizens who don't at the present time reside in the UK?

[deanothedino]

Isn't this what the UK has offered for the EU citizens who are already here? Or, are you suggesting that the same permissions should be available to all the EU27 citizens who don't at the present time reside in the UK?

It's what the UK have said they will do but what affect 'no deal' would have on that is yet to be seen. It's not something that can be done verbally, they'd have to be a process to give these EU citizens the right to remain here otherwise anyone in the EU could just claim they were here before we left.

Latter question, no it shouldn't.

[Paul Waine]

It's what the UK have said they will do but what affect 'no deal' would have on that is yet to be seen. It's not something that can be done verbally, they'd have to be a process to give these EU citizens the right to remain here otherwise anyone in the EU could just claim they were here before we left.

Do we think it is difficult to establish where someone is/was residing with a high degree of reliability?

Where were you working? where were you living? where were you claiming benefits? where were your children going to school? where was your car registered? what is your mobile phone number? where/how did you pay the phone bill?

[deanothedino]

Do we think it is difficult to establish where someone is/was residing with a high degree of reliability?

Where were you working? where were you living? where were you claiming benefits? where were your children going to school? where was your car registered? what is your mobile phone number? where/how did you pay the phone bill?

Considering we struggle to do it now, yes.

Are you saying it would be easier to ask people after the separation to prove they resided in the UK before the separation date and are therefore legal? Baring in mind they could then be asked to do this again and again over the rest of their lifetime by different officials or different public bodies?

Personally, I think it would be easier to have them fill in a form to apply now and issue them with proof of entitlement to live and work in the UK.

[Lancasterclaret]

Bit more on WTO and its potential effects. This is from an ex head of the WTO. He might know a bit about it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39295257" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Darthlaw]

Bit more on WTO and its potential effects. This is from an ex head of the WTO. He might know a bit about it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39295257" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The gent in the article says no deal would be bad for both us and the EU, also that it is unlikely for that very reason.

Lancaster, did you have chance to have a look at my question as to why the EU would seek to harm itself and more importantly its highest contributers, should they continue to not negotiate and push towards no deal?

I’m interested to hear from a remain opinion as Crosspool provided one from a leave perspective. Post #518 &531 fyi

[Lancasterclaret]

Just about to nip out Darth, but a quick answer would be what is highlighted above.

The EU is prioritising the three things mentioned, the UK wants to prioritise trade.

We agreed with the EU that we should prioritise the three things on the morning of the first meeting.

We haven't moved on since, and have made no suggestions acceptable to the EU, and probably can't due to the Brexit wing of the Tory party.

No deal is the only possible result of that

[CrosspoolClarets]

Moving away from WTO and whether the experts are being disingenuous or are truly unbiased.....I just don’t know who to believe to be frank.

Well worth watching is last night’s This Week, Andrew Neil, Portillo, Caroline Flint and Yanis Varoufakis. Incredibly, a consensus between a varied panel of Europhiles and Eurosceptics that the Euro is designed to fail and that integration will fail too. The only differences of opinion seem to be whether it can be fundamentally reformed from within, as Varoufakis, who claims to be a buddy of Macron, wants, or if it is so embedded with Brussels that it needs forcibly breaking first before piecing it together again as a set of sovereign nations with expanded currencies (such as breaking the euro into north, south and eastern Europe). The latter being my Brexit motivation of course, I do want eventually to be back in again, but as a joint leader, not a partially ignored Non-Euro member.

Line of the week - Varoufakis saying that his vision may seem a bit too Utopian, but it has to be pursued because the other options, including the status quo, are simply too Dystopian. Grim times lie ahead, whatever happens.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09bcrn6

[Lancasterclaret]

Again, you can't ignore WTO rules and experts because they are telling you what you don't want to hear.

And the Euro is too big to fail. I think if it was going to fail, it would have gone during its first big crisis. I also don't get people wanting the Euro to fail, as it would be economic catastrophe that would dwarf Brexit.

[Sidney1st]

The Euro failed in Greece though.

It's probably got fairly close to not working in Ireland, Spain and Portugal, because along with Greece weren't they the countries causing the most concern financially?

[Lancasterclaret]

"Failing" is it collapsing as a currency. That is the context that I'm using it in.

[Hipper]

Bullshit. If Remain had won 52-48 we'd still be having threads about how the EU are fat-shaming cucumbers, and listening to demands for a second referendum (which would be reasonable btw).

'fat-shaming cucumbers'. What does that mean?

[Lancasterclaret]

Some good news about the discussion today.

No one wants a "no deal" (except some conservative MPs and an unspecified % of the electorate) so its all good if we are all heading towards it.

[Sidney1st]

If remain had won I doubt there'd be half as many threads complaining about the result.

[RocketLawnChair]

If remain had won I doubt there'd be half as many threads complaining about the result.

Perhaps they'd be nothing to complain about. Although we had the referendum because people were erm complaining!

[UpTheBeehole]

If remain had won I doubt there'd be half as many threads complaining about the result.

The only reason there was a referendum was because of a load of old codgers complaining.

[Lancasterclaret]

I actually very glad C4 didn't get Barnsley and Burnley mixed up with this one.

Crikey

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status ... 7064273921" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ClaretEngineer]

I actually very glad C4 didn't get Barnsley and Burnley mixed up with this one.

Crikey

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status ... 7064273921" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Eeeeeeee tha should send them all back!

It could be a cleverly edited piece to show only one side of the argument. Or it could actually be the truth.

Its clear some were expecting the SS to appear and round everyone up before depositing them over the channel.

[Lancasterclaret]

Remember this one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqDGF4pSd_s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Put it one way, I don't think its edited

Found the longer one which is a bit fairer to the first bloke in particular!

[Hipper]

I do wish people who don't like the thread wouldn't comment on it. You don't have to read it!

Paul - I'll have to have a look at the most of your post later as charging around with kids stuff this morning.

Here is a quick bit on the NI peace process and the Brexit complications.

http://jtl.columbia.edu/the-impact-of-b ... e-process/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That link mostly talks about the European Court of Human Rights which, whilst May has said she wants us to leave, was not part of the Brexit vote, although I would guess some (many?) people thought it was.

The problem with Northern Ireland is the lack of trust between the two sides - they still can't form a power sharing agreement even though most of the electorate seem to want it. Now is the time they need some leadership.

It's a good job the Republic are not part of the Shengen agreement but of course they could choose to be one day and that would present further issues.

[Darthlaw]

I thought Simon Wolfson made an excellent point on question time last night. In summary he said something along the lines of the following:

In negotiation, there are days where you walk away from the table thinking 'we'll never agree'. Then you go home, you sleep on it and you try again each moving that little bit closer.

It's difficult when we're having such a public negotiation, particularly when there is pressure to explain each stage and negotiating point. What certainly doesn't help is the media stirring up some sort of panic and hysteria, each time we hit these tough points. The Lib Dems and Labour trying to score political points also only serves to fuel this panic, of course that is the nature of politics and as a result you would suspect no less.

Ultimately, both sides will only lose out if there is no deal so the realistic chance of that happening is minor. We can either retain a belief that both sides want a suitable deal or we can keep stirring up this thought that a no deal is going to happen each time we hit a hard pard of the talks.

Interestingly, Donald Tusk has even raised his head above the trenches this morning to explain that talk of deadlock is exaggerated, which goes against Barnier's comments already.

[Lancasterclaret]

As long as you are not thinking that means that Donald Tusk is undermining Barnier because of the stance we are taking then I completely agree with you that today is positive.

One thing is clear though, the EU are a lot more united about this than we are, and certainly more united on this than the conservative party is.

Bit less optimistic though the Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10 ... on-brexit/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Darthlaw]

Are they really though Lancaster? Because a minority of hard liners are wanting to rattle the sabre and walk away from talks?

Thankfully there are more in the government who have a more constructive approach IMO.