overthewater
Established Member
- Joined
- 16 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 9,087
Thank you for agreeing with my point.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Brexit matters
- Thread starter Xenophon PCDGS
- Start date
Thank you for agreeing with my point.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
That's detail. The Prime Minister does not do detail!
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Starmer seems to have given the impression that the Labour Party will vote in favour of the deal. He added a rider that seemed to suggest that the Labour Party would have had a better deal if they had been in charge of these negotiations, but that presupposes that the EC negotiating team would have offered them more that those that Johnson ended with. Anyone on this thread who could hazard a guess as to how the Labour Party would have obtained a better deal?
We have a deal, based on the red lines set by the Conservatives going into the negotiations. Change those red lines, and you can get a different deal. "Better" is a value judgement. Personally, I would have much preferred to keep free movement of labour.
Ah, apologies. I misread your post as "If Starmer and Labour *do* vote for this then....
If the Libdems were in a better place then voting for it could also cost them a lot of votes but I doub't it will make much difference at the moment. The uber remainers will vote Libdem or Green anyway.
Labour's bigger problem is how to prise the seats in Scotland they need for a majority off the SNP. As the withdrawal agreement is not neccesarily to the SNPs advantage, that is another reason for Labour to ensure it passes.
Negotiations is process by which two or more parties set out their starting positions and desired outcomes then proceed through a series of discussions that culminate in a mutually satisfactory position, normally lying somewhere between the original starting points.
Different government = different starting points and desired outcome = different deal.
Better is subjective, but one would assume that Labour would have sought to minimise the disruption to trade (both goods and services) and so would have accepted a greater degree of regulatory alignment.
2021 is too soon. The Government is going to blame everything on Covid-19 through at least mid-2022. Questions are going to start to be asked if the rest of the EU is in recovery come 2023 and we're not.
Last edited:
Good point, it would be too soon. Perhaps 2024 isn’t too bad after all (although 2023 would perhaps be better). Hopefully Boris will lose his cult status by then (if he is still around). If the EU largely recovers and we don’t as much, it might be more difficult to get people on side (although no doubt some scapegoat will be used).
Well the only way Labour would get what they see as a better deal would be the slavishly follow the EU rule book on a level playing field etc, and maybe a Customs Union deal as well which of course is beyond a red flag to many Brexiteers
The Deal that Johnson's got appears to be as near to a Canada style deal as your ever going to get with the EU and I think there were quite a few who said he could never get such a deal with the EU, and I will give credit to Johnson for pulling that off with the Hard Ball game that he played.
Off course I realise that extra paperwork of not being in the Customs Union will be a real pain and cost for some businesses and guess there is still the possibility that some companies might still eventually bail because of it but hopefully not too many.
The leavers claim that we can do better trade deals around world, which I have always been sceptical of, but I guess we will see now if that's the case or not, I guess if that doesn't really work there may be a case to look at going back into the EU Customs Union, but I think any party pushing for Single Market with Freedom of Movement is going to be on a sticky wicket for the foreseeable future after all if Cameron could have got more of a concession on that from the EU I expect we would still be in the EU now.
Even through I voted remain I accepted that we lost the referendum, I thought the Lib Dem position at the last election was totally unacceptable, I was happy to leave with some sort of deal, although I thought No Deal was totally unacceptable, and overall I think its the best deal we can get which meets the majority of Hard Brexiteers red lines.
birchesgreen
Established Member
I suspect Johnson will step down next year (maybe early), he will have achieved "his" deal. Will he want to continue dealing with the fallout of that deal and covid? I have my doubts. If we start getting stories in the media about him having "continued covid complications" that may be preparing the ground for a departure.
eoff
Member
This is why I don't like constitutional change based on a simple majority. I think it is easier to promote a campaign where new=good (the grass is greener) and to point to bad things about the current situation. Same goes for Scottish Independence.
One side wins (just) and the wrangling goes on forever. The process needs to be much more decisive.
I don't see a way out of it unless there are two referendums in these cases, one with a greater than simple majoirity barrier on the principle and one on an actual documented implementation plan, then nobody can complain that they didn't know what they voted for.
They'll blame Covid-19 and the EU of course. What Labour (and the other opposition parties) need to do is keep pointing out that the Tory government was responsible for the post-Brexit trade relationship and our response to Covid-19.
I think you are right on that the referendum should have always been on the basis of a second vote, saying this is the deal Yes or No and if its No we stay as we are, it should apply to any Scottish referendum but I doubt it will.
The idea that Scotland's seats are hugely important to a future Labour victory is a bit shaky because of the small number relative to England. As an example, if every seat won by the SNP this time last year had instead been won by Labour, the Conservative majority would be unchanged. Only if the race in England and Wales is extraordinarily close will Scotland's seats be materially important.
Any reason why you appear to still support the Conservatives when it is clear that it is a very different party to the one that existed when you were young? You claim to be a Remainer but that is inconsistent with voting for Johnson's Tories. Arguably, today's Labour party is closer to the Conservatives before the 80s. Surely you are not one of those people who stick to a particular "brand" no matter how it changes?
Last edited by a moderator:
The only economic area that is viable for Labour to build on the FTA is a services, investment and mobility framework. There has been talk of such a deal with the US prior to a proper FTA but one could also be added on top of the EU-UK FTA should both sides agree. I suspect the EUs line that any deal on services is cherry picking the single market will soften once the UK starts signing more deals that include services. A mobility / services deal was recently agreed with Switzerland to allow high skilled workers to work for clients and sister companies for up to 90 days a year visa free. The Japan deal eased visas a bit and went further on data than the EU-Japan FTA. The CPTPP contains more stuff on services and investment than any of the UKs rolled over trade agreements, so the UK is trying to get its deals with CPTPP members closer to CPTPP level as preparation for applying to join.
A mobility agreement wouldn't be anything close to FOM. That will make the EU reluctant. The UK - Japan deal eases requirements for inter company transfers and allows Japanese Citizens to apply for 5 year high skilled visas (although they will still be able to choose 2 x 30 month visas). The Australian government has said that negoiations with the UK include extending youth mobility visas from 1-2 years to 3 years and ease requirements for high skilled workers. There have been unconfirmed rumours of 2 year (non renewable) service sector visas for medium skilled Brits and Australians. India wants a similar deal on temporary work as Switzerland as part of a prospective UK - India deal. The UK government has indicated it would be happy with that (probably limited to companies that have sponsor licences for long term high skilled workers). The Tories won't stretch such schemes too far from the principle that all immigrants should be treated equally and Labour won't reintroduce unlimited Immigration with EU.
Last edited:
GusB
Established Member
Labour does not need Scottish seats to have a majority in parliament.
In theory no but in reality yes. Labour needs 124 seats to have a majority. Its unlikely to make significant gains in Wales were it is in a declining but still dominant position. It won't win any in Northern Ireland. 124 seats additional seats in just England would be a huge challenge.
Although for a fair number of jobs technology makes visas a bit of nonsense. Working for a Worldwide Scandinavian based company up until a couple of years ago, we used to swap IT people between countries for short periods, obviously that would be more difficult now in the UK, but we only did it as cultural exchange, because in most cases of doing the job, you could work from any office or potentially anywhere around the world with a decent internet connection, and I used to cover the Swedes from the UK when they did their usual habit of disappearing off on Holiday for 2 months in the summer.
In 1997 Labour won 418 seats. Their biggest ever victory with a majority of 179. 56 of those labour seats were in Scotland. If the SNP had won them Labour's 1997 majority would have only been 67.
In 2001 if then SNP had won Labours seats, Labours majority instead of 167, would have been 55.
In 1945 if the SNP had won Labours seats, Labours majority would instead of 146, have been 72.
In no other election would Labour have won a majority had the SNP won the Scottish seats (and in the 60s the SNP might have kept the Tories in power had they been kingmakers)
Also, the updating of constituency boundaries, even if Parliament stays at the existing 650 seats and isn't reduced to 600 will make it even more difficult for Labour.
I would guess the non EU countries that the UK has reciprocal health agreements with: Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, New Zealand, the Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories. It doesn't look like there will be much change, just putting everything into one group.
Until January 2016 the UK also had reciprocal agreements with: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. Its not hard to see why these were dropped!
Gibraltar seem to be heading to join the Schengen area. Does that mean they will be able to live anywhere in the Schengen Area, or even the full EEA plus Switzerland? Everywhere else in the Schengen area enjoys that privilege. They've hit the jackpot if that's the case, as they will have gained passport free travel throughout the Schengen area as well as keeping free movement. I don't see how that's compatible with free movement between the UK and Gibraltar.
brad465
Veteran Member
Labour might gain some seats in Scotland if/when the economic fallout from Covid comes to fruition and their voters realise how much Sturgeon's restrictions, which have often been stricter than England, contirbuted. However that may not happen before the 2021 Holyrood elections, and the strategy failures would have to stay fresh in mind come 2024.
Somewhere else that Labour might make some gains (or have the potential to) is Kent, given the border disruption potential in what is Tory heartland (Covid impacts may also help a swing/increase in abstention). In the past Op Stack was as a result of bad weather and/or French strikes, however if a Tory decided departure from the Customs Union leads to relentless disruption for months, which for some could be a matter of life and death (e.g. struggling to get to hospitals), then there's plenty of swing potential. There are only 16/17 Tory seats in Kent, but even half of them swinging could make a difference somewhere.
No. Schengen is seperate to FOM rights. Its purely passport less travel. Residents of Gibraltar will have the right to travel freely as visitors but not live in EU states without a visa. A large number of residents of Gibraltar are normal British citizens not British Overseas Territories Citizens, it would be difficult to give one group FOM and not the other. In addition, British Overseas Territories Citizenship is not unique to Gibraltar. They would have to narrow it further to people who also have "belonger status". Gibraltar is leaving the single market on 31st December (90% of its services trade is with the UK) and it was never in the customs union.
Edit: Remain supporting media has taken amusement that Spanish Citizens won't have their passports checked but British Citizens will. That is conflating arrival country with Citizenship. A Spainiard arriving from outside the EU would certainly go through passport controls and a Brit crossing the land border would not! British Citizens will continue to be able to move to Gibraltar subject to current requirements. Spanish Citizens will be treated like any other third country citizens for working rights. That shouldn't make it difficult for them to only work in Gibraltar crossing the border each day.
I doubt current local disruption will have much bearing on the election outcome in May 2024. People have very short memories!
Last edited:
brad465
Veteran Member
Depends how it's settled: if they can eventually sort it out through building more facilities and improving systems then maybe, however if this involved further concessions towards the EU that proved what's happened so far was a failure that'll be easier to remember (i.e. because people like Farage won't let it go).
The EU will not give better access than the UK is getting to a "third country" and the UK won't be joining the EEA or rejoining the EU. Both sides will have to make the FTA work or trade will start moving elsewhere.
Given that the main reason for proposing Schengen seems to be ensure that the large number of people crossing the border for work can do so without passing through immigration, surely this must at least include being allowed to work? Are all these people going to need work permits?
Sorry I edited my post to clarify. Gibraltar can give visas and they may or may not include right of residency. Gibraltar is likely to tightly control residency to prevent it becoming Spanish. Property prices provide a large disincentive to live in Gibraltar. La Linea (other side of border) is an awful place with massive unemployment and drug problems but people live there paying much less rent and walk to Gibraltar. During the 1969 to 1986 border closure the guest workforce was largely Morocan and took the ferry home to Tangier at weekends. This dropped sufficiently that the ferries stopped about 5 years ago only operate from Spanish ports.
Edit: As I explained in my edit to #655 the biggest issue to giving FOM to residents of Gibraltar is the lack of a Gibraltan Citizenship. They would have to either have to give it to people with British Overseas Territories Citizenship and with belonger status in Gibraltar (missing out a huge chunk of long term residents) or give it to any British Citizen who had lived there for a specified time, which would create a back door for EU Citizenship (perhaps an easier and more appealing one than Ireland). I might be wrong but all the stuff I have seen indicates they are looking at a form of associate Schengen membership. For instance the Gibraltar Border Force would be replaced at the airport by Frontex staff (EU border agency) to avoid the use of British officials (not trusted to operate a Schengen border) or Spanish border force (which the Gibraltar Government would never agree to). The land border would still be retained for vehicles because Gibraltar would remain outside the customs union (it was never part of it).
Last edited:
brad465
Veteran Member
I was thinking more about how easily we could have some form of relationship like that between the EU and Turkey now (i.e. a form of customs union only), as I don't expect us to re-join any other market/level of market access for at least the rest of the decade (not least because most parties, even the staunchly pro-EU Lib Dems are not pushing it for now). If the situation at ports all around the country is sorted out capacity wise, without the need to for continued use of lorry parks, then trying to re-join anything won't be essential. However if it remains a problem, or trying to ease the flow of goods has marked benefits compared to whatever is going on in 2024, some form of closer arrangement will at least be the subject of an election campaign I think.