What's in the news?

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

Well up for this idea.

Farage hasn't been elected to parliament so he shouldn't be anything to do with it, if the population wanted him to be in charge they could have voted for UKIP and he would have been. (Plus his idea for Brexit is different to Raab and Davis)

 

The logic is flawed though anyway, if one side of the negotiation knows it's going to be up against what they want in a run off it will have to much of an effect on the negotiation that would be produced.

 

Although even if this was the case would you seriously risk it given one poll last week had "no deal" (which seems to be what Farage wants) ahead in a run off? If it's going to be that much of a disaster with people dying and water running out surely you can't risk that if it's a 5% chance, let alone 50/50?

[FoxNotFox]

 

9 minutes ago, Buce said:

I assume you use a VPN? Because that will slow things down regardless of your connection speed. 

No, no VPN. That, as you say, slows things down even more. I live in deepest darkest rurality; where services are reduced and taxes increase... the home of  'les gilets jaunes'.

 

 

Edited 6 December 2018 by FoxNotFox

[Buce]

2 minutes ago, FoxNotFox said:

 

No, no VPN. That, as you say, slows things down even more. I live in deepest darkest rurality; where services are reduced and taxes increase... the home of  'les gilets jaunes'.

 

 

 

May I suggest that you are very careful which sites you visit then.

[Buce]

Pedal fault caused Vichai helicopter crash:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46471934

 

 

[FoxNotFox]

4 minutes ago, Buce said:

May I suggest that you are very careful which sites you visit then.

I don't visit any! There's a hole in my bucket! (that is, as I said, I don't look at the DW because it is too slow)

 

 

I installed the Tails OS on a PC expressly for the purposes of seeing what's out there... but it turned out to be pretty much a wasted exercise so I gave up on it. I've also used the Tor browser but because of the way it worked that too was a pointless exercise. Guess I'm not interested enough to find out...

 

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

 

I've re-posted my comment, removing the words "like child porn" as they were a distraction from the point that I was really making.

 

Anyway, I'm now removing myself from this particular discussion as (a) I don't know much about it; (b) I'm finding it a bit depressing.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, FoxNotFox said:

I don't visit any! There's a hole in my bucket! (that is, as I said, I don't look at the DW because it is too slow)

 

 

I installed the Tails OS on a PC expressly for the purposes of seeing what's out there... but it turned out to be pretty much a wasted exercise so I gave up on it. I've also used the Tor browser but because of the way it worked that too was a pointless exercise. Guess I'm not interested enough to find out...

 

 

Although there is some truth in what the average person thinks the DW is about, it really isn’t as sinister as it’s made out to be. 

 

The TOR browser was originally funded by the CIA as a means for underground organisations to access the web in countries with high censorship (ie China, Iran, NK etc) and much of it is still used for just that purpose. 

[Guest MattP]

I hope May doesn't see this or she'll be right up for the "all three options second referendum" via constituency. 

 

Shows also just how close a second referendum is going to be if it happens.

 

Edited 6 December 2018 by MattP

[Buce]

12 minutes ago, MattP said:

I hope May doesn't see this or she'll be right up for the "all three options second referendum" via constituency. 

 

Shows also just how close a second referendum is going to be if it happens.

 

 

 

 

It should be ok, Matt - I’m pretty sure she doesn’t visit foxestalk. 

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

A poll is one thing, but actual voting is another. We should all know this by now.

[fuchsntf]

On 03/12/2018 at 23:00, Buce said:

 

I've often thought of how cool it would be to travel the route taken by Alexander the Great.

I have travelled a similar route....without the hordes..

[Buce]

28 minutes ago, fuchsntf said:

I have travelled a similar route....without the hordes..

 

I remember, mate - I thought of that when I posted. 

[Buce]

44 minutes ago, DANGEROUS TIGER said:

A poll is one thing, but actual voting is another. We should all know this by now.

 

I thought they were sending all the polls home?

[bovril]

Just now, Buce said:

 

I thought they were sending all the polls home?

exit poles

[davieG]

Brexit: ITV scraps plans for TV debate between leaders

 

[bovril]

3 minutes ago, davieG said:

Brexit: ITV scraps plans for TV debate between leaders

 

Dance off instead. 

[davieG]

1 minute ago, bovril said:

Dance off instead. 

A game of snakes and ladders might be more appropriate, or a variation of the card game Cheat.

[Buce]

'Norway Plus' isn't an option - Norway doesn't want us:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/norwegian-politicians-reject-uks-norway-plus-brexit-plan

 

Norway Plus, the increasingly touted cross-party plan for the UK to leave the EU, but join Norway in a free trade trade area inside the EU single market, has been rejected by senior Norwegian politicians and business as “neither in Norway nor the UK’s interest”. The UK would need Norway’s permission to join its EFTA club.

The rejection is a blow to an influential cross-party group led by the Tory MP Nick Boles with private cabinet support that is looking for a Plan B if, as expected, Theresa May’s deal is rejected by MPs next Tuesday.

Norway Plus was also condemned on Friday by David Miliband, the former Labour foreign secretary, and Jo Johnson, the former Conservative universities minister, as throwing away a key advantage of current membership “in the form of our vote, voice and veto around the table”.

 

Their joint assault on Norway Plus, in a pamphlet written by the People’s Vote campaign, is in some senses confirmation that the Boles plan could become a credible rival to a second referendum as a MPs search for a way out of a potential Commons deadlock.

The two men insist Norway Plus “would not be easy to negotiate, would not mean reduced payments to the EU and would allow the UK to end freedom of movement for migrants from the EU”.

Norway Plus, the softest form of Brexit, requires the UK to seek to apply the European Free Trade Area grouping consisting of Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein. The scheme, as revised by Boles, would require the UK also to remain in the European Union customs union indefinitely or at least until a solution to the border in Ireland could be found.

But the plan was rejected by Heidi Nordby Lunde, an MP in Norway’s governing Conservative party, and leader of the Norway’s European movement. She said her views reflected those of the governing party even though the Norwegian prime minister, Erna Solberg, has been more diplomatic by saying Noway would examine a UK application.

Lunde told the Guardian: “Really, the Norwegian option is not an option we have been telling you this for one and half years since the referendum and how this works, so I am surprised that after all these years – it is still part of the grown up debate in the UK. You just expect us to give you an invitation rather than consider whether Norway would want to give you such an invitation. It might be in your interest to use our agreement, but it would not be in our interest.”

 

Explaining Norway’s fear of the UK joining the Efta club she said: “The three countries in Efta have to agree on all the regulations coming from the EU so if one country vetoes something we all have to veto which means that if the UK enters the Efta platform and starts to veto regulations that we want, this will affect not just the UK but also us as well. Part of the success we have had with this EEA agreement is for the last 25 years is that we do accept the rules and regulations that do come out of the EU, mostly because it is in our interest.

“If as I understand UK politicians do not want to be ruled by regulations coming from other countries, why would they accept a country with 38,000 citizens like Lichtenstein being able to veto regulations that the UK wants. That would be the reality.”

A member of the parliament’s economic affairs committee, she said “it is not in my country’s interests to have the UK aboard, and I cannot see how possibly an EEA/Efta agreement could be in the interests of the UK.

“As part of the agreement with the EU we accept migration and free movement, we have our own body of justice but it is compliant with the European court of justice, we accept the rules and regulations of the single market”.

She added: “It is not an option for the UK to stay inside the customs union as the UK proposes to solve the Northern Ireland border issue if you are part of the Efta platform since Efta is its own free trade bloc. We have 29 trade agreements with 39 countries outside the EU that the UK would need to be able to accept. I do not understand why it would be in the UK interests to enter into trade agreements on the basis of agreements that have been negotiated in our interests and not the UK’s.”

She said the only politicians in Norway that wanted the UK to join Efat were the eurosceptic party that wants to destroy Norway’s relationship with the EU.

Her fears have been echoed by Ole Erik Almlid of the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise business association who has also questioned whether the UK would be willing to go from rule maker to rule taker. He warned Norway would suffer and parts of the Efta agreement with the EU be suspended if an Efta member to accept the rights and obligations of the agreement.

 

[Guest MattP]

Great news, I had a feeling that was the next option after May's deal is rejected. They probably had a majority for that in parliament as well.

[Buce]

 

"The botched Brexit deal that Theresa May has put to parliament this week is a monumental and damaging failure for our country. Instead of the sensible agreement the prime minister could have negotiated, it is a worst-of-all-worlds deal that works for nobody, whether they voted leave or remain.

Instead of taking back control, it gives up control. Instead of protecting jobs and living standards, it puts them at risk by failing to put in place the basis for frictionless trade. For two and a half years the Conservatives have been negotiating with themselves, rather than the European Union. The result has been a lockdown withdrawal agreement, which ties Britain either into extending the transition phase at unknown cost – or tips us into a lopsided backstop agreement from which there is no independent exit. As the legal advice the prime minister tried to prevent us from seeing this week spells out, the backstop would “endure indefinitely” without the say-so of the EU.

 

What that means in practice is that the wish list of the government’s “future partnership” agreement with the EU would remain just that, without the leverage to get a long-term and effective trade deal. Meanwhile, Britain would have no say in either its own customs arrangements or key market regulations. While workers’ rights would be allowed to fall behind, restrictions on state aid to industry would be locked in.

May claims this is just an insurance policy. But it’s now clear the backstop is at the heart of her deal. It would leave Britain with no say in a humiliating halfway house which we couldn’t leave without the EU’s permission. There is no precedent I am aware of for a British government signing up to an international treaty it cannot withdraw from without the agreement of other countries. It is clearly unacceptable.

The only reason the government has agreed such a convoluted package is to manage the warring factions of the Tory party. But it has failed. Instead it has united Conservative leavers and remainers, the DUP and every opposition party against it.

This dreadful deal must be defeated when it is put to the vote next week. We are working with MPs and parties across the House of Commons not only to ensure it is rejected, but also to prevent any possibility of a no-deal outcome.

But its defeat cannot be taken for granted. In an effort to drag Tory MPs back onside, May is claiming that defeat for her deal means no deal or no Brexit, because there is no viable alternative. That is false. Labour’s alternative plan would unlock the negotiations for our future relationship with the EU and allow us to move away from such a damaging backstop.

 

A new, comprehensive customs union with the EU, with a British say in future trade deals, would strengthen our manufacturing sector and give us a solid base for industrial renewal under the next Labour government, especially for our held-back communities. It would remove the threat of different parts of the UK being subject to separate regulations. And it would deal with the large majority of problems the backstop is designed to solve.

Second, a new and strong relationship with the single market that gives us frictionless trade, and the freedom to rebuild our economy and expand our public services – while setting migration policies to meet the needs of the economy, not fuelling xenophobia with phoney immigration targets or thresholds – makes far more sense than the prime minister’s dismal deal.

Lastly, we want to see guarantees that existing EU rights at work, environmental standards and consumer protections will become a benchmark to build on – not fall behind and undercut other countries at our people’s expense. These rights and protections, whether on chlorinated chicken or paid holidays, are what people actually want. But the government is determined to trade them away in a race to the bottom.

 

Labour has very different priorities. Our alternative plan would ensure an open border in Ireland, provide security for investment, give our manufacturing sector a springboard for renewal, ensure we have the powers to rebuild our economy and public services and guarantee world-beating support for workers, consumers and our environment. We are absolutely committed to internationalist cooperation and anti-racist solidarity across Europe, in or out of the EU, and determined to ensure opportunities for students to study in other countries are protected.

Unlike the Norway-plus option now being canvassed among MPs, our plan would not leave Britain as an across-the-board rule-taker of EU regulations without a say. It’s a plan that can be negotiated with the EU, even at this late stage, with most of the building blocks already in place. The EU has shown it is prepared to renegotiate even more complex agreements than this, such as the Lisbon treaty. And ours is a plan I believe could command a majority in parliament and bring the country together.

The stakes could not be higher next week. If the prime minister’s deal is defeated, the government will have lost its majority on the most important issue facing the country and lost its ability to govern. The best outcome in those circumstances would be to let the country decide on the way ahead and the best team to lead it. That means a general election.

In the past, a defeat of such seriousness as May now faces would have meant an automatic election. But if under the current rules we cannot get an election, all options must be on the table. Those should include Labour’s alternative and, as our conference decided in September, the option of campaigning for a public vote to break the deadlock. Two years ago, people voted remain because they wanted an open, international relationship with Europe and a multicultural society. Many voted leave out of anger at the way the political class had left them behind, with crumbling infrastructure and low-paid, insecure jobs. Our job is to unite people with a plan that works for the whole country.

Given the decisions taken in parliament this week, it should now be easier to build support for an alternative plan to bring the country together. The government’s deal must not stand. In those circumstances parliament has shown it is ready to take control, and Labour will give the leadership the country needs."

 

• Jeremy Corbyn, the MP for Islington North, is the leader of the Labour party

[Guest MattP]

Complete fantasy, if he thinks the EU is going to enter into any sort of customs union with a British say in future trade deals then he isn't listening or paying attention to anything that is going on.

 

I still have no idea why he goes on things like workers rights, anti-racism and enviromental protections either except to throw a few platitudes to his voting base, these things are absolutely nothing to do with any negotiation with the EU and will be determined by the government of the country, not by any sort of international treaty.

No idea how he is still getting away with this to be honest, a small part of me wants a GE called and Labour to win so we can actually hold him to account on it all. If he was serious they would have actually produced a plan, but he won't as he knows it will be torn apart.

[Kopfkino]

So he wants frictionless access to the single market but presumably without FoM and with a say. And then writes complete bollocks about Norway not having a say. So in his mind he wants to negotiate EEA but different and better than the EEA and he expects this to be acceptable for the EU and the EEA nations. And what has the Lisbon Treaty got to do with it. Absolutely delusional, genuinely worse than those pricks in the ERG.

 

Please make it all stop

[FoxNotFox]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

Quote

Labour’s alternative plan would unlock the negotiations for our future relationship with the EU and allow us to move away from such a damaging backstop.

 

Is there time to "unlock negotiations"?  How is Corbyn proposing to deal with the little matter of A50? Revoke and start again? That'd go down well with the EU. And of the EU saying there is no other deal available? Equally, the backdrop situation will be a problem for any deal, no matter whether it's Norway, Canada or whatever. Methinks Corbyn is being disingenuous and indulging in a wee bit of politicking. 

[Guest MattP]

 

[Foxxed]

Norway won't let us join their EU lobbying club.

 

Zombie Brexit it is.

[Buce]

A list of the Top 100 women footballers. 

 

I don’t mean to be unkind but isn’t that a bit like a list of the100 tallest Hobbits?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2018/dec/04/the-100-best-female-footballers-in-the-world-2018