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 🍷

Afternoon, hope you're all well.

So agree Epic re the media seeking out (what were) remainers to interview. Even worse IMO is when they choose a Leaver to interview who frankly doesn't have a clue what they are talking about. Made me so mad Friday evening.

Just read Starmer's responses, sorry he didn't answer your question Dusty. He didn't answer mine either but then I did identify myself as a Tory voter. He didn't hang around for very long did he, considering the questions are known in advance.

Lily I hate to complain but STILL waiting for some of your bread and butter pudding. I'm confident you saved me a large portion.

The only way this red line makes sense is if U.K. intention is to regress

It makes perfect sense if the UK is determined to make it clear that it neither needs nor wants a rival trading bloc to determine how it should be allowed to develop its own standards.

Why on earth would the UK be willing to cede authority to a competitor in that way? I can see what the EU would gain by it but what would the UK gain? How can you be sure that the EU won't use that authority to tilt the market against us?

STILL waiting for some of your bread and butter pudding.

My apologies, Silvery! I left a large portion for you in the fridge. It will be just as palatable cold as warm. I put raisins, lemon zest and a touch of ground almonds in it so that counts as, erm, three of your five-a-day?

Lily I’m back, I had a quick read of the Q&A so far and it didn’t grab me and dare I say it was a bit ......static and grey😊. He did answer Dusty’s question though👍🏻😊.

Interested to know what others think - will go back in for a more in-depth read over a cup of tea a bit later.

dare I say it was a bit ......static and grey

So no hesitation, no deviation, then?

Afternoon, everyone. We've deleted some posts here. We just wanted to remind everyone that while we understand people are going to disagree on these issues, and may do so robustly, we believe everyone can disagree in a way that is civil. If we have to delete too many posts, we may end up having to take the whole thread down, which would be a shame.

By agreeing to LPF the U.K. gains reduced trade barriers to the single market and all the Eu want it’s for us to agree to non regression, ie they have no problem with us making our standards better. Comprehensive FTA non starter without agreement to LPF, WTO terms are the alternative which will be very disruptive. As I said, imo Boris red line only make sense if regression is his intention, otherwise how will UK business remain competitive trading with EU on WTO terms and associated increased costs?

A proper gossipy piece on what happened with Claire and the Climate Change Summit.

What with it being planned in Glasgow in November and Nippy openly planning to hi-jack it there is plenty in the story to run and run.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51357200

Off to catch up with Sir Static to see if there is any glimmer of shining armour.

Limited I think others may be interpreting "comprehensive FTA" differently. If by "comp FTA" you mean exactly the same as if we were in the SM and CU the LPF makes sense. However Canada + is not that.

The Nissan story illustrates the point. The UK is a net importer of goods and has no ambitions to change that. The majority of our home produced goods are either not exported or could find equally profitable UK markets. From that perspective it is actually more likely that the EU will struggle to compete on LPF within the UK - eg Germany, France, Spain and Italy are not AFAIK inherently lower cost base production sites.

dare I say it was a bit ......static and grey

I would be happy to take that over blustering and deceitful bombast any day.

Limited Why can't we decide if we want to give state aid or not once we are out? That's the whole point of leaving surely, to be able to make decisions that suit us on these things; to set our own high standards.

I am still bloody irritated about having to move bank because after encouraging Lloyds to rescue HBOS, the EC said Lloyds would have to sell off branches and customers. Sod that, I decide where I bank and with whom, not the EC. If I'd wanted to bank with TSB, I'd have opened an account with them. I didn't.

I'm struggling to follow the conversation. What is LPF? Litres Per Flush?! (I know it's not that!)

You might Arse but would the Labour heartlands of the North because, funnily enough, it’s not just about what you would take.

I also thought his answer on Scotland was interesting.

I’m going Lisa Nandy

Thank you, Howabout, you are right that Limited and I see it from different perspectives. I was indeed arguing it from the point of view of a Canada+ trade agreement. The SM and CU combine to form a protectionist bloc and as the EU made clear - over and over - access to the SM carries FoM with it.

We rejected that in 2016 and as of 31 December, it's a dead duck. A dead end. It's over. We've moved on. There is no point in looking back.

Now we are a "third country" looking for a FTA - not seeking to join again - so on that basis, why on earth would we agree to regulatory oversight by a competitor (which the EU now is). It makes no sense.

Hi ommmward, Level Playing Field.

It's so last year, soooo Theresa May. She wanted a level playing field with the EU.

Boris doesn't. Neither do I. We want a playing field that entirely weighted towards the UK and puts the UK's interests first, last and everywhere in-between.

That's what the EU hasn't accepted yet. The 12 December changed the parliamentary arithmetic and the political dynamic. The 31 December changed the economic one.

funnily enough, it’s not just about what you would take.

Time4

That's a variation of "You can vote for whatever you like...but the majority will decide what you can have".

Same principle.

Thank you!! I could make nothing of the acronym at all!!!

Ok. I agree with lily on this one. I don't think Boris and his team want a level playing field either. The national self interest isn't to be "fair" with our competitors.

To be fair, it must be a bit of a turnaround for the EU negotiators to get their heads around, from the May close alignment approach. Boris has been signalling Canada style since September, but of course he had no power to actually make that happen, what with no parliamentary majority. So it really truly is only since the election that his aspirations will have needed to be taken seriously in Brussels (on 11 December we might have still been heading for whatever Corbyn would have come up with, and then a second referendum... Feels like ancient history now!). So yeah, basically what lily said. Now I need to scroll back up since now i have a hope of understanding the other posts on this topic to see who else I agree with 🙂

Of course we don't want a LPF.
We want to trade with the EU not have them dictate what our environmental standards etc are. They want us to be subject to the ECJ.
I think at long last we have a PM who will put UK interests front and centre.
And the EU know he will stick to his word.
#go Boris. 👏👏👏👏👏

Instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/eu-trade-what-level-playing-field

Helpful summary (though old) of what they are talking about.

He wants to me Dusty's boys!
He talked about the question but didn't answer it.
And he answered SallySally's question.

We want a playing field that entirely weighted towards the UK and puts the UK's interests first, last and everywhere in-between

Fair enough, I think given the choice we’d all like that. But what on earth would induce the EU to give it to us?

Note Boris has started the campaign to soften us up on chlorine chicken. So he obviously doesn’t think we’ll get far with the US either unless we roll over.

Copper oh no that’s disappointing, I only had a very quick skim of the webchat as time not on my side this afternoon and saw a response - so he responded but didn’t answer - quelle surprise.

Limited,
Why should we, are a third country, even consider discussing our environmental and other standards with the EU.
And if we want to give state aid then that is up to our elected government.

They want the ECJ as a court of last resort.
Why should we agree to that.
Did Canada agree?

Still giving my support to Starmer - now showing as head and shoulders above the field.

Just read an article where No 10 Director of Communication is restricting who they will brief including excluding The Independent. Sounds like they are copying Trump - not a good tactic.

But what on earth would induce the EU to give it to us?

Nothing. If you set aside the wee small fact that the UK is now the EU's biggest single export market and the eurozone is teetering with nothing left in its armoury to cushion against another economic shock.

Why do you think Guy Verhofstadt is again pushing "more Europe", for which read "fiscal union"?

Why do you think the EU is so anxious to tie us down?

The tectonic plates have shifted in the EU too, now we've left.