The Westminster Arms

[DustyDiamond]

Shiny new thread 😍😍

The Westminster Arms:
A non-partisan politics pub-thread for varied political chit-chat & other such stuff

Cheers all 🍷

Copper (I'm not stalking you, honest) the PMQs for labour leader candidates was just a suggestion from a labour source allegedly, and it is the Daily Fail, so it is very unlikely to happen, but it would be a great form of national hustings as Lily suggests.

I reckon Boris would absolutely welcome the experience. He must be so unchallenged with JC every week and it would put him on his toes. Win win all round as far as I can see.

Just heard Boris' speech to business leaders.

I only caught the tail end, Copper, but I did notice that roughly two-thirds of the audience rose to give him a standing ovation while the other third remained resolutely in their seats and looked thunderous.

I'm guessing that it's the small and medium business owners who were most in favour. Right now, that's where most of the economic growth is coming from.

At about 3.30 today, Priti Patel is expected to update the House on immediate plans to challenge current regulations around convicted terrorists.

Around the same time, the HoL will debate on Government plans to improve the safety and security of public venues, and whether the Government intends to introduce a Protect duty under the Contest strategy for countering terrorism.

they just want more than UK word that we aren’t going to lower them, ie, if we do there will be consequences.

I'm guessing that's the rub, LimitedSimba. "Consequences" suggests that the EU wants legal oversight of our standards and the right to fine the UK if it doesn't agree with what we decide. In other words, the ECJ all over again. To compete on a constantly evolving global stage, our standards will have to be of the highest anyway, but what other "third country" in its right mind would ever agree to hand over regulatory authority to a trading bloc competitor (which is what the EU now is)? That would be insane.

Thanks Hospitality,
I realise it is only speculation but it is a good idea.
And I reckon Jezza is tired of being shredded very week, and his MPs certainly are fed up with it.
And yes, I think Boris would welcome it.

Afternoon all
Just got in from work so have done a big skim read of the last 4 pages (and caught the 1pm news in the car) but have I understood the jist is that we couldn’t be competitive whilst in the EU as those are the rules but, we are also not allowed to be competitive outside either, going by what MB has said?

Have I got the wrong end of the stick? (wouldn’t be the first time😉!)

Intimated not intimidated.

Mumsnet. This is why you need a block feature.

Not so singing if you read the EUs negotiating mandate released today, under governance they want to establish a binding independent arbitration panel in event of dispute, the CJEU would only decide on cases if independent panel feel dispute concerns EU law and refers it to them.

So if we assume we don’t want to lower standards (all the NM asks is for non-regression of current UK laws, except for state aid where we would have to follow current EU rules) not agreeing to LPF seems like a strange hill to die on when the alternative is mega disruptive WTO terms.

"The mistake you make, is thinking that I give more than zero fucks about the opinon of a poster who intimidated using rat poision to repel leavers. And called us all vile goblins on your other thread. "
Before I hide this thread -I fucking well did not do any of those things. Jesus Christ.

Sorry guys. I ignored my own advice, but days after this shit first started Ive had enough. I’ll go back to using my ‘block’ button. ❌

Not you Bellini!!!! Arse!

Why do you always assume shit is about you!!!

You know the history too! So why so ‘baffled’????

Ugh. I’m out. I know I’ve ruined it for everyone, sorry guys, I’m so sick of this bullshit. MN just allow it to go on and one without intervention. Enough. Enough.

all the NM asks is for non-regression of current UK laws, except for state aid where we would have to follow current EU rules

Current UK law is EU law. We adopted EU law in its entirety as part of our preparations for leaving, so that it could be reviewed later to determine whether it was fit for UK purpose or whether it should be amended or replaced. The EU is demanding we suspend our existing law in aspic and further wishes to tie our hands wrt state aid.

Which other third countries did it impose those same conditions on as a requirement for a trade deal?

Because the post was about the response to my hiding the fucking thread. Which I will do now.
I was told by regulars on this thread that anyone who wasn't in your little clique was vermin or a snake. I put up with that stupid shit and reported it for MNHQ to take care of. I wasn't the only one. Then shite about Zoflora. Then allegations of sock puppetry.
Catch yourselves on, you lot.

Epic give it one of these❌- I cant be doing with the hypocrisy that randomly pops up (it gets me ragey) so I’m ignoring.

Why are you still here then? If you think we are bullies?? Why come here and go on about it in every single god damned post for fucking weeks???. If we are as awful as you say???

What a crock of absolute shit.

Certainly should be enough

Look folks - and I am being absolutely non-partisan here - this is not helping anyone.

I value this thread. Others do too. I don't want it to be pulled. So let's just remember MNHQ's advice if you see posts that irk you. Don't respond. Don't engage.

Please.

Have a cuppa, have a break, hide the thread - do whatever it takes to help you regain your composure.

Anyone checked into the Keir webchat yet to see what’s going down?

I've saved it to read later, Time4. Have you had a look yet?

Not in respect of all workers rights, as has frequently been mentioned on this thread, in some respects our working rights are better. They are just asking that we don’t weaken them in return for reduced trade barriers, I don’t see why Boris has an issue with that. It’s pointless comparing our deal to other FTAs with other third countries like Canada, mainly due to proximity, which is obviously a barrier to trade in itself, as trade volumes generally half with every doubling of distance.

The EU obviously want to protect the single market, why would they allow a country on their doorstep to have easier access to single market whilst that country simultaneously weakens their own laws in respect of level playing field, allowing the single market to be undercut by U.K.?

The only way this red line makes sense is if U.K. intention is to regress on things like state aid, workers rights and environmental protections, and as a consequence we won’t get a FTA with EU. If that’s the case Boris needs to cut the bullshit and be upfront about this so we can all prepare for no deal or ‘Australian-style’ deal as he is now trying to spin it.

"The mistake you make, is thinking that I give more than zero fucks about the opinon of a poster who intimidated using rat poision to repel leavers

That is a blatant lie

In Peston's defence he was probably incoherent because he was tweeting out that the sound quality in the Hall was appalling and he couldn't hear Boris - or maybe he's got the same ear blocking mind numbing head cold as me.

I agree it would make sense for Corbyn to step aside at PMQs to give Leadership candidates a go. Not sure what the protocol is though and whether it might give Boris an excuse not to put in a replacement for him. AFAIK if the PM is not there then their replacement doesn't face the Leader of the Opposition. So there must surely be something covering the Opposite?

On Trade Disputes Courts and the ECJ Leo Varadkar was interesting on Marr. He was presuming a similar set up to the Canada / EU arbitration mechanism. He also correctly made the point that the WTO doesn't really function when the US decide not to play. I still think both sides are actually trying to create enough smoke just now in the public sphere to give them enough room to negotiate privately.