• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

Theresa May says the UK will be free to strike trade deals with other partners around the world.

"This goes well beyond WTO commitments."

The UK will be leaving the Common Agricultural Policy and will be a free coastal state once again, she says.

The prime minister says there will be a "close and flexible" partnership with the EU on foreign and defence policy.

"There was no ready-made blueprint for Brexit," she says.

"I have been committed day and night to delivering Brexit, committing to the result of the referendum and making sure the UK leaves absolutely, and on time."

"I always said it would be complex and hard work" and that "it has been a frustrating process", she adds.

"A good Brexit in the national interest is possible."

Theresa May says when a final deal is agreed she will bring it to Parliament and will ask MPs "to think in the national interest, give it their backing".

She says "voting against would take us back to square one".

Theresa May says the British people want MPs to "get on with other issues" such as creating jobs, helping families with the cost of living and providing a "brighter future for our country".

She says "the choice is clear: choose to leave with no deal, risk no Brexit at all, or we can choose to unite and support the best deal that can be negotiated".

"This deal ends free movement, takes back control of our borders, laws and money, and delivers an independent foreign and defence policy while continuing the security cooperation to keep our people safe."

She says "this delivers the British people's wish."

"I choose to do what's best in the interest of the British people."





In response, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn says the withdrawal agreement and political declaration represent a "huge and damaging failure".

He says the government has negotiated a "botched deal" that breaches its own red lines.

The withdrawal agreement, he says, "does not meet" Labour's six Brexit tests.

The withdrawal deal is a "leap in the dark", but he tells MPs that leaving the EU without a deal is "not a real option".
 
Jeremy Corbyn asks the PM to confirm that if the government cannot agree a comprehensive relationship by January 2021, then negotiations will change back to extending the transition period.

"The backstop locks Britain into a backstop from which it cannot leave without the agreement of the EU," he says, and no "guarantee exists for workers' rights".

"The list of EU measures that continue to apply" runs to "68 pages of the agreement", he says.

"It is utterly far-fetched for the prime minister to suggest that we have taken control of our laws, money and borders," he states.

He calls the draft agreement a "substantial dilution" from May's previous commitments.

"Uncertainty continues for business and all those who works in those businesses," he states, "many companies may decide the lack of certainty simply means they will Brexit".

"There is no ambition to achieve continuation of the European arrest warrant," he adds.

Leader of the Opposition Jeremy Corbyn says the Brexit secretary promised a "substantive document" and demands to know when the detailed framework will be put in front of MPs.

"This is not the deal that the country was promised, and Parliament cannot, and I believe will not, accept a false choice between a bad deal and no deal," he adds.

Jeremy Corbyn says "people are anxious this morning".

"The government must withdraw this half-baked deal which does not have the backing of the cabinet, Parliament or the country as a whole."

In her first response to Jeremy Corbyn, Theresa May says the government has been and is continuing to prepare for the possibility of a no-deal Brexit.

She rejects his accusation that the agreement is "ill-defined".

She says the prospect of a future UK-EU free trade deal is set out "very clearly" in the documents.

She adds that Jeremy Corbyn wants to stay in the EU's customs union and single market, but this "would not deliver" on the referendum result from 2016.
 
_104351660_sandford-nc.png


Amazingly, when you consider that immigration was one of the key issues during the referendum that led to Brexit, the word "immigration" only appears once in the draft agreement, and even then it is in the context of an "immigration document".

But a large section of the draft agreement - Part Two - is dedicated to the rights of EU citizens to live in the UK, and UK citizens to live in the EU.

The UK will "take back control" of migration from the EU, but it will happen slowly.

The headline is that EU citizens and their families will continue to have the right to move to live and work in the UK (and vice versa) until the end of the transition period in December 2020.

Those who take up residence before the end of the transition period will be allowed to remain beyond transition and, if they stay for five years, will be allowed to remain permanently.

However, once the transition period is over, the draft agreement does allow the UK to require EU citizens who stay on to apply for a new residence document. The agreement says application forms for this residence status "shall be short, simple, user-friendly". All this applies to UK citizens in EU countries too.

The draft agreement says that a country may ask people to "voluntarily" start applying for this residence status before the transition period ends.

Looking to the future, beyond the end of the transition period, the 14-page Outline Political Declaration document says that the UK and the EU will aim to achieve:

  • Arrangements for temporary entry for "business purposes"
  • Visa-free travel for short-term visits
  • Co-operation on tackling illegal immigration
_104351658_campbell-nc.png

Some goods coming into Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK would be subject to new checks and controls if the Brexit backstop is implemented.

The details are contained in the draft withdrawal agreement between the UK and EU.

The backstop would mean Northern Ireland would have to stay aligned to some rules of the EU single market, so goods coming into the nation would need to be checked to see if they meet EU rules.

Guidance published by the EU says: "There would be a need for some compliance checks with EU standards, consistent with risk, to protect consumers, economic traders and businesses in the single market.

"The EU and the UK have agreed to carry out these checks in the least intrusive way possible."

For industrial goods based on risk assessment, these could take place "in the market" or at traders' premises. Such checks would always be carried out by UK authorities.

For agricultural products, existing checks at ports and airports would "be increased in scale in order to protect the EU's Single Market, its consumers and animal health".

However, goods going in the other direction, from Northern Ireland into the rest of the UK, would not be subject to new controls.

The deal states: "Nothing in this protocol prevents the United Kingdom from ensuring unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom's internal market."

_104351659_casciani-nc.png

The proposed transition deal allows the UK to remain part of a number of hugely important policing and security arrangements - for now. There is no certainty over what happens after 31 December 2020.

Under the proposed transition deal, the UK will still be allowed to:

  • Use the European Arrest Warrant to send criminals to face trial in the EU - and bring suspects to justice in the UK
  • Use powerful EU databases to check for alerts for missing people, arrest alerts and look for matches to DNA, fingerprints and vehicle number plates. These systems are used more than a million times a day by British police
  • Continue to take part in a large number of ongoing cross-border policing operations which are co-ordinated by the EU's policing agency, Europol, where the UK is one of the leading partners
  • Check quickly for the criminal records of any foreign suspects arrested in the UK
There is, however, some ambiguity over whether the European Arrest Warrant extradition system will work anywhere near as smoothly as it does presently.

Under a special caveat (Article 185), nations could tell the UK that they can no longer send suspects to face trial, because their own constitution may not allow them to do so. Germany has an explicit ban on sending its citizens to face trial outside the EU.

And once transition ends, so does the access to data. The deal includes an explicit article that will lock the UK out of all EU databases and systems at the end of 2020.

The UK will be able to temporarily continue to request access to systems that will provide intelligence on suspects - but largely only in relation to investigations that are already under way.

As for what follows, the Outline Political Declaration on the future relationship makes clear that the UK wishes to remain part of all the existing security arrangements - including a new form of extradition and database sharing. That will require a special security treaty.

But the document also acknowledges that there may be legal roadblocks that prevent the EU sharing data with the UK on anything like the current scale.

_104351661_coughlan-nc.png

Universities in the UK have been worried about losing access to EU research funding - worth about €100bn (£87bn) in the next round.

But beyond a confirmation that existing funding up to 2020 is assured, there is still no detail on how the UK might take part in future EU research partnerships.

The UK's universities have been among the biggest beneficiaries - and the expectation is that the UK will negotiate to rejoin the club as an external partner.

But the terms - and how much the UK will have to pay - are not really any clearer.

And there are no signals about the place of EU academics at UK universities - who can be a quarter of the staff in some institutions.

That is for future discussion as part of immigration rules.

There is a section on the status of EU students in the UK - with no obligation to provide them with "grant maintenance aid for studies… consisting in student grants or loans".

But it remains open to interpretation as to whether that means an end to tuition fee loans - or only refers to living costs.

Either way, nothing will change until 2020, and the door seems left open for further negotiation, clarification and reciprocal arrangements.

Keeping the UK attractive to EU students and staff is not only about money. It is about culture, competition and maintaining an international status.

More homework and revision are likely before the shape of any final relationship emerges.

_104352386_shukman-nc.png

Nothing is settled yet but the outline agreement on the future of Britain's relationship with the EU conveys a hope that some key features will continue along pretty similar lines.

  • On energy, the document talks of a "framework" so electricity and gas networks can co-operate and supplies can continue to flow through the "interconnectors" that run under the Channel
  • On nuclear fuel, a wide-ranging agreement will be underpinned by commitments "to existing high standards of nuclear safety"
In other words, a system of British safeguards will essentially pick up where the European ones left off.

  • Co-operation on radioisotopes, so crucial to medical treatments, will be through "an exchange of information". Although, again, no detail is given
  • And the document envisages the UK will participate in EU programmes on science and innovation. Although, of course, that is subject to "conditions" yet to be agreed
Getting a mention at all will be a relief for Britain's leading science figures - but it's a long way short of what they're after.

Their long-standing plea is for certainty, not only in the arrangements for UK-based researchers applying for EU grants but also in the immigration rules for EU scientists coming here to study and work.

As the future of research looks unclear, many scientists are wondering whether to continue their work in the UK or look elsewhere.
 
I think the moaning Leavers are really shooting themselves in the foot by pinning their colours to the mast against thi deal. Pre-vote UKIP were talking about the Norway model as a fair setup. Maybe they didn't fully understand what that meant, but this deal May has got, is better than Norway in theory. Well we might lose some trade access but gained on stopping FOM. Of course its still worse than Remaining, but that was always going to be the case.

What markets and the UK needs, is a plan or route map for what would follow if the exit deal is rejected by parliment.
 
Last edited:
SpurMeUp said:
I think the moaning Leavers are really shooting themselves in the foot by pinning their colours to the mast against thi deal. Pre-vote UKIP were talking about the Norway model as a fair setup. Maybe they didn't fully understand what that meant, but this deal May has got, is better than Norway in theory. Well we might lose some trade access but gained on stopping FOM. Of course its still worse than Remaining, but that was always going to be the case.

What markets and the UK needs, is a plan or route map for what would follow if the exit deal is rejected by parliment.
Click to expand...

Maybe that shows it was never about immigration per se. It was genuinely about democracy being subverted by the market police (which of course includes the active drive of economic migration)
 
Gutter Boy said:
Maybe that shows it was never about immigration per se. It was genuinely about democracy being subverted by the market police (which of course includes the active drive of economic migration)
Click to expand...

No I think it shows that what people voted for was never really clear. There were no set facts of what people would get, unlike the 1975 vote, which led to a myraid of different promises. Many of which are being shot down now.

Democracy being subverted is a giggle. It's a sound bite that doesn't mean much. Introduce online voting. That would liberate democracy. Piddeling around with whether the EU makes some laws on things like food safty is not subverting deocracy, its protecting people and trade.
 
Does anyone else find it funny to hear staunch Brexiteers say that remaining in the EU is better than May's exit deal? John Redwood, Boris Johnson to name 2. They are seemingly going against their own ideology. Admiting (almost but not quite) it is better to stay in the EU than leave it.

As to whether a hard exit is any better, or at all possible, is a whole other debate.
 
SpurMeUp said:
Does anyone else find it funny to hear staunch Brexiteers say that remaining in the EU is better than May's exit deal? John Redwood, Boris Johnson to name 2. They are seemingly going against their own ideology. Admiting (almost but not quite) it is better to stay in the EU than leave it.

As to whether a hard exit is any better, or at all possible, is a whole other debate.
Click to expand...
To be fair, they are staying true to what they wanted.
It was always a power grab. They are now trying to take back control of UK political agenda.
 
SpurMeUp said:
Does anyone else find it funny to hear staunch Brexiteers say that remaining in the EU is better than May's exit deal? John Redwood, Boris Johnson to name 2. They are seemingly going against their own ideology. Admiting (almost but not quite) it is better to stay in the EU than leave it.

As to whether a hard exit is any better, or at all possible, is a whole other debate.
Click to expand...

None of them give a fudge about Brexit or the greater good, its about them or their party, and the only reason they care about the party is because of the benefits they personally will get from it.
 
Rees-Mogg: Deal 'worse than anticipated'


Jacob Rees-Mogg has handed in his letter of no-confidence to Sir Graham Brady, chairman of the 1922 Committee, saying Mrs May's Brexit deal "has turned out to be worse than anticipated and fails to meet the promises given to the nation by the prime minister".
 
The Rt. Hon. Sir Graham Brady, M.P.,

Chairman of the 1922 Committee,

House of Commons,

London, SW1A 0AA.

15th November 2018

A few weeks ago, in a conversation with the Chief Whip I expressed my concern that the Prime Minister, Mrs. Theresa May, was losing the confidence of Conservative Members of Parliament and that it would be in the interest of the Party and the country if she were to stand aside. I have wanted to avoid the disagreeable nature of a formal Vote of No Confidence with all the ill will that this risks engendering.

Regrettably, the draft Withdrawal Agreement presented to Parliament today has turned out to be worse than anticipated and fails to meet the promises given to the nation by the Prime Minister, either on her own account or on behalf of us all in the Conservative Party Manifesto.

That the Conservative and Unionist Party is proposing a Protocol which would create a different regulatory environment for an integral part of our country stands in contradistinction to our long-held principles. It is in opposition to the Prime Minister's clear statements that this was something that no Prime Minister would ever do and raises questions in relation to Scotland that are open to exploitation by the Scottish National Party.

The 2017 Election Manifesto said that the United Kingdom would leave the Customs Union. It did not qualify this statement by saying that we could stay in it via a backstop while Annex 2, Article 3 explicitly says that we would have no authority to set our own tariffs. It is also harder to leave this backstop than it is to leave the EU, there is no provision equivalent to Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

The Prime Minister also promised an implementation period which was the reason for paying £39 billion. As was made clear by a House of Lords report in March 2017 there is no legal obligation to pay anything. This has now become an extended period of negotiation which is a different matter.

The situation as regards the European Court of Justice appears to have wandered from the clear statement that we are taking back control of our laws. Article 174 makes this clear as does Article 89 in conjunction with Article 4.

It is of considerable importance that politicians stick to their commitments or do not make such commitments in the first place. Regrettably, this is not the situation, therefore, in accordance with the relevant rules and procedures of the Conservative Party and the 1922 Committee this is a formal letter of No Confidence in the Leader of the Party, the Rt. Hon. Theresa May.

I am copying this letter to the Prime Minister and the Chief Whip and although I understand that it is possible for the correspondence to remain confidential I shall be making it public.

Jacob Rees-Mogg
 
Michael Gove 'turns down Brexit secretary job'
Michael Gove has turned down the job of Brexit secretary, the Evening Standard reports.

Dominic Raab quit the position earlier today.

Gove was one of the major backers of Brexit during the campaign before the June 2016 referendum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back