The fallout from the leak of diplomatic cables by Britain's ambassador in Washington, Sir Kim Darroch, is widely reported and makes the lead for the Daily Telegraph. It says President Trump's aides have called for his sacking - with one source quoted as saying his position is "not tenable" - and Britain should recall him if it wants to maintain its influence with the White House. According to the Times, the publication of the memos appears designed to damage Sir Kim - who it says is widely regarded as a Europhile - and increase the pressure on the next Prime Minister to replace him. A number of commentators think the contents of the memos are neither surprising nor especially controversial.
Sir Kim has been briefing his government about President Trump in much the same way as the average American news pundit on TV speaks to his or her audience, the Spectator website says. It says the expectation now is that the new occupant of Number 10 will replace Sir Kim with somebody who regards the possibility of a new trading relationship between the UK and the US after Brexit as something to be embraced rather than shied away from. The Guardian says the leak inquiry will be working to cross-check how such a wide array of cables covering such a long period came to be in the possession of someone with the motive of putting them in the public domain. The Financial Times reports that the leaks have raised concern among civil servants that government is no longer properly functioning. "If this sort of thing happens, there's no point in having us. We can't tell the truth," one senior diplomat tells the paper.
Fierce infighting According to the Daily Mail's main story, Labour is on the brink of civil war as Brexit and the row over anti-Semitism threaten to split the party. It says Jeremy Corbyn has been rocked by fierce and high-level infighting on both issues ahead of a nightmare week. The Labour leader is braced for a bombshell Panorama documentary on the botched handling of the anti-Semitism crisis, the paper says, and is facing further pressure from within the party to back a fresh referendum. The Guardian leads on the news that hospitals in England are having to cancel operations because consultants have begun working to rule in a standoff over NHS pensions. It says doctors believe the dispute is escalating so fast that it will put NHS services "into meltdown". According to the paper, waiting times for treatment are also worsening as hospitals struggle to find senior doctors prepared to work more than their planned shifts, which can lead to them receiving pension tax bills of up to £80,000.
An investigation by the Daily Mirror has found that the cost of a holiday during the big August getaway can rocket by up to 80 per cent - or more than £1,000 - compared with early July, when children are still at school. It says MPs and families have called for school holidays to be staggered to help alleviate demand. However, teaching unions tell the paper this would likely result in holiday firms charging higher prices for a longer period of time as well as causing problems for families with different term dates for children who go to different schools.
Many of the front pages reflect Donald Trump's latest Twitter outburst at Britain's ambassador to the US. The Times reports the president has "severed relations" with Sir Kim Darroch after the diplomat's unflattering comments about Mr Trump's administration were leaked. The Politico website asks if the ambassador is now "persona non grata" - the term used in diplomatic circles when a country wants to kick out a foreign envoy. A former state department official tells the site that discussions will now take place as to whether the president's tweet should be taken as an official instruction.
Politico concludes that if the federal government stops engaging with Sir Kim, then that alone could lead to him being pulled out of Washington. The Sun focuses on the hunt for those behind the leak, and says officials are investigating whether the information was hacked by a hostile state such as Russia. The Guardian reports that the life of one of the Wiltshire Novichok victims was saved by paramedics giving him an antidote that had never been used on a UK patient before. The paper also says the local ambulance service has revealed that a number of paramedics reported feeling ill after attending the poisonings in Salisbury and Amesbury. It adds that Charlie Rowley's life was probably saved because of the instinct of a paramedic who had attended the first nerve agent attack and treated his case as another one, despite having no information to link the two.
The Daily Express and the Daily Mail both lead on the delays to social care reforms, and say they have cost families coping with dementia £15bn in two years. The Express says the figures from the Alzheimer's Society show it is costing up to £100,000 a year for their care and they often have to sell homes to pay for it. The Daily Mail's editorial urges the government to "bite the social care bullet", and argues if nothing is done "countless people face a wretched old age".
Tory Chris Grayling's secretive phone call that 'tried to silence' critics of Brexit The Tory Cabinet minister threatened to stop involving road hauliers in No Deal Brexit planning after they communicated with the press
Chris Grayling is accused of "trying to silence" truck drivers' bosses after he slapped them down for voicing concerns about Brexit. The Tory Transport Secretary left a voicemail message for the chief of the Road Haulage Association, which represents freight companies, after they spoke out about fears about how Brexit could affect their industry.
Mr Grayling threatened to stop involving the organisation after they communicated with the press following a private briefing with the Transport Secretary last August. In a BBC Panorama documentary, which is due to be aired on tonight, Richard Burnett, chief executive of the Road Haulage Association, said Mr Grayling left him a voicemail after the association issued a press release about the meeting. In the voicemail message, Mr Grayling said: "I've got to say how very disappointed I am. "I had intended to involve you closely in the planning over the next few months, but issuing a press release straight after meeting like that makes it much more difficult for me to do that."
James O'Brien talks a call on Brexit from a brexiteer who is incapable of answering a question.
ollie Richards 1 day ago
steve thinks his barcode reader software is gonna save the uk lmfao
Peter Tollan 23 hours ago
Switerland have freedom of movement, are in the single market, are a member of Schengen and also the EFTA. None of our current Brexit plans include these options, so how can we possibly end up like Switzerland?!
uwe in Hamburg 1 day ago
Steve reminds me of a Nazi jabbering about Wunderwaffen that would change the war while the Russians were a mile away from the Führerbunker...
COASTA LOECSTA 1 day ago (edited)
Typical brexshitter head full of broken wee cars going bang in the night with no headlights
Susan Hammond 1 day ago
I bet he's a tele-sales rep for the company, and I bet the company is full of BS.
Tridhos 1 day ago
Incredible listening to that guy, Central bank for the World, be able to stand independent, nurse the screens, he's out of bed again.
Silvershock Nicktail 19 hours ago (edited)
Oh god. He said the name of my **** home town and I knew which way this was going to go.
The UK's payment and banking systems have been miles ahead of North America for decades. The systems we're talking about are common in the UK. His business isn't doing well so he blames the EU. ****. Read more
Shane Ryan 1 day ago
Central bank for the world 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
d3ngar 16 hours ago
Gotta admire James, giving this nincompoop every chance to answer this question. Obviously, we now have to assume that he's an absolute numpty.
Sean G 23 hours ago
The only independence comes with death. While we live, we depend. This caller depended on someone else building a telephone, and someone else answering when he used it. There is no such thing as independence in this life.
IE B 19 hours ago
China already does cashless, the technology is hardly new.
gantz graf 1 day ago
Welcome back Robespierre!
Tom 16 hours ago
Steve’s company has some revolutionary new technology which means we can pay for goods using our phones instead of cash!! Sounds incredible if it was still 2003!
North Yorkshire Chris 14 hours ago
All the guy had to do was to say "the EU stops my business from trading because of regulation X, Y & Z". He couldn't, because it doesn't.
Bernd Hoffmann 14 hours ago
the best part is missing, when they had called his boss who said Brexit is extremely damaging...
urbanimage 16 hours ago
I wouldn't fancy being an investor in his company.
Jon Howard 1 day ago
I’ve missed these videos
Vic Lineal 1 day ago (edited)
The webpage of the company that is about to revolutionise world economy, and that is held back by the tyranny of the EU, looks like a techno-scam - it's a blog full of techno-management jargon and absolutely lacking in technical content - even superficial one.
For anyone who thinks that this is going to be the Next Big Thing, I've got energy crystals to sell you at a very reasonable price. Read more
Are you still talking? 15 hours ago (edited)
I surely not the only one who doesnt want to live my life through my phone? Why cant this idiot see the dangers of digital / virtual everything?
Ver Coda 17 hours ago
I’d still like to know what future technologies secretive Steve is working in.
Please, please, please, oh God, please let it be robot monkey butlers.
Tamas Marcuis 18 hours ago
If you work in anything associated with economics you hear a stream of "futurologists" like a never ending TED talk. The fictional businesses and te h ology just round the corner or available if you deregulate or get rid of consumer privacy protectiontions. It is all nonsense. Ignorant businessmen and politicians fall for this all the time and people like me have to tell them the story of ENRON. It is the great Con that so many Brexit politicians are part of or have fallen for. Read more
dimitri502 19 hours ago (edited)
What. A. Catastrophic. Moron. "The patents are British" to a technology that already exists all over the world. "We are going digital and we're gonna go virtual". It's like listening to my grandma talking about technology. "Central Bank of the world". I... I don't even know where to start with that one. As a Tech manager I wouldn't even hire this idiot to make teas around the office.
Iamtop 1 day ago (edited)
Cashless payment is already done all over China and somewhat in Europe & USA, so I really dunno what he is on about British patents. Probably one of those guys that beleives crypto will become the world's currency despite the geopolitical problems that make that extremely unlikely.
mookie2637 16 hours ago
Two things: 1. Props to James for at least trying to continue a dialogue with people who it's increasingly hard to have a dialogue with 2. The suspicion that callers to these programmes are not as innocent as they seem (ie are put up by parties or other political organisations) is hard to avoid. Read more
J H 18 hours ago
Sounds like a parody of Gareth from The Office!
Kevin Wellwrought 14 hours ago
Brexiteers are driven by sentiments and that plays into the hands of nationalist extremists.
likklej8 15 hours ago
Steve we need bigger mountains to be like Switzerland. And more yodelling.
Ben Chorley 1 day ago
Ah the title tells me it’s time to go have a night time tea, get into bed and have my daily dose of James O’brain ruining some pleb’s idea of their future
Boris Farage 21 hours ago
The technology this numpty is talking about - your wallet being on your phone - already exists in Scandinavia!
Chris Thornley 22 hours ago
These people are in an absolute fantasy land, it's just sheer nonsense. Ignore people who know what they are talking about, and just believe a load of ****, that's all Brexit is.
Len Noriega 20 hours ago
China has a notable disregard for IP. Good luck Steve.
Sp4rkyM4rk 12 hours ago
Leave on WTO terms and the value of the GBP will decrease even further. Revoke Article 50 and the currency will become much more valuable. It's all very well telling people to "accept the result"; how about accepting that the "democratic majority" does not always make the best decisions.
This video sums up the problem with Brexit and its supporters. They are brainwashed and often uneducated, resorting to echoing the likes of Nigel Farage when they can't think of their own opposition to the debate. Remember it was far from a landslide; we are talking 1.8%. Read more
Pi Squared 11 hours ago (edited)
I thought the answer to the question "what can't you do if you stay in the EU" was obvious - you can't do tax evasion and money laundering because the EU is bringing in tax laws and financial controls to make sure the super rich pay their fair share of UK taxes, and the super corrupt and super fraudsters can't get away with their crimes. That is what all the dodgy fat cats funding the Brexit party are paying for. Read more
David O'Leary 5 hours ago
Alexa, what's the Dunning-Kruger effect?
imedi 11 hours ago
ffs someone tell this clown that switzerland is in the single market
John Smythe 16 hours ago
You must have searched high and low to find people to talk to you!
Frank Crossword 19 hours ago
Whenever the "Steve's" of brexit are on J O'B's show waffling on and on and never answering the question,....... it's odd that the "Steve's" fellow brexitfodder NEVER rush to verify, elucidate nor clarify the likes of the "Steve's" "opinions". !!!
Nice to see that the Labour Party has (FINALLY) managed to come to a coherent position on Brexit.
It is difficult for either of the major parties to come to a unified position, due to the breadth of opinion within their ranks.
It seems pointless (to me) to oppose the idea of Brexit. we have already voted on that. Much simpler (and better) to oppose the actual deal/no deal on the table. The reality is much easier to defeat than the concept. I see considerable benefit in concentrating on what is better for British jobs-the deal on the table or staying in.
I'm sure I'm not alone in being fine with us leaving but staying in the Customs Union, or indeed any of the options that Vote Leave told us we were going to get in 2016, but we are currently driving off a cliff.
Nice to see the Vicar of Bray (Chuka Umunna) attacking the Labour Party. Always good to see the least loyal man in UK politics trying to drop bombs in trenches where he once stood.
Nice to see that the Labour Party has (FINALLY) managed to come to a coherent position on Brexit.
Some people have described their position on Brexit, as constructive ambiguity. I don't claim to be at all clever, but I find the thought that any ambiguity in the position of any political party, could ever be described as constructive.
The job of the opposition is to offer the electorate alternative policies, and not sit on fences. Labour claim to be the most democratic of our political parties, and vote on just about everything. Yet they ignore the results of these votes. Their membership voted on a second referendum at last years conference, and 78% voted in favour.
The other thing Corbyn doesn't understand is that successful political parties campaign for their political aims, and sell them to the public.
Their position on Brexit isn't fully clear as the unions are saying they will have a public vote on any deal, and campaign to remain. So if we had a snap election they would support remaining in the EU, renegotiate a better deal post election, but still have a public vote. So we could end up with a Labour Government, a better deal, then vote to remain. What would leavers think of that?
How could they campaign for getting a better deal and remaining, in an election?
It is difficult for either of the major parties to come to a unified position, due to the breadth of opinion within their ranks.
It is difficult to see how they reach a unified position with such bad leaders. How many of them are even thinking about what is best for the country?
How can a deadline be more important than avoiding a disaster?
It seems pointless (to me) to oppose the idea of Brexit. we have already voted on that. Much simpler (and better) to oppose the actual deal/no deal on the table. The reality is much easier to defeat than the concept. I see considerable benefit in concentrating on what is better for British jobs-the deal on the table or staying in.
The best deal is the one we already have.
No deal should not be contemplated.
The current labour plan seems to be a vote on a deal or remain, and to campaign to remain.
I'm sure I'm not alone in being fine with us leaving but staying in the Customs Union, or indeed any of the options that Vote Leave told us we were going to get in 2016, but we are currently driving off a cliff.
A customs union and some single market access, can apparently avoid an Irish border problem, and satisfy many people.
I watched the Panorama programme about a no deal Brexit. The WTO Brexit idiots seem to ignore stuff like we have only 6,500 permits and 40,000 trucks that will need one, and that the tariffs are guaranteed to attract smugglers. When you introduce tariffs it creates a differential in prices, which makes smuggling attractive.
Nice to see the Vicar of Bray (Chuka Umunna) attacking the Labour Party. Always good to see the least loyal man in UK politics trying to drop bombs in trenches where he once stood.
I am a pretty moderate person, and am disappointed to see him lose credibility, and become a d1ck, changing parties every 5 minutes.
However I am over the moon to see Kate Hoey standing down.
End of UK? Ireland told it must plan referendum on United Ireland as no deal Brexit looms IRELAND has been warned it must step up preparations for a referendum on a United Ireland in case the UK crashes out of the European Union with a no deal Brexit.
More Whoever becomes the new Prime Minister should put their deal, or No Deal, back to the people in a public vote.
In those circumstances, Labour would campaign for Remain against either No Deal or a Tory deal that does not protect the economy and jobs.
Mr Corbyn did not explain what Labour, who have slumped in recent polls, would do if the party won a general election.
WHAT HAS BEEN THE REACTION? Former Labour MP Chuka Umunna, who left the party to join Change UK, before swiftly moving on to become a Liberal Democrat, criticised Mr Corbyn for coming up with “another fudge”.
Mr Umunna tweeted: “Yet another fudge, where the Labour leadership keep open the door to standing on a pro-Brexit platform in a General Election or supporting it in government.
The Conservative leadership debate on ITV is the focus of many of the newspaper front pages. The Daily Telegraph says there were "highly personal attacks" by Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt and his rival Boris Johnson. Their clashes make the Guardian question whether the two could work together in any future government. The Daily Mail's Henry Deedes concludes that there was no question that Jeremy Hunt was the winner of the debate, but suggests it will probably not make a "jot of difference". The Daily Mirror gives Mr Johnson a score of five out of 10 for his performance, saying he "dodged questions and waffled" while Mr Hunt receives six for what the paper calls his "good digs". The Sun says that while Mr Hunt "served up attack after attack" it still looks like it'll be "game, set and match" to Mr Johnson.
Jeremy Corbyn's announcement that Labour would back Remain in a new EU referendum to stop a "damaging Tory Brexit" is strongly criticised by several papers. On its front page the Daily Express accuses the party's leader of caving in to what it calls a "Brexit betrayal". The Sun argues he's "ripped up his promise" to respect democracy, while the Times says Labour's new position does not address the possibility of a general election before Brexit and what the party would do then. According to the Daily Telegraph, Labour MPs in leave-supporting seats have accused Mr Corbyn of handing the next Conservative leader all the ammunition needed to win a snap election. Elsewhere, the Financial Times reports that the Europhile MPs in Labour fear the policy shift has come too late to win back Remainers who switched to the Lib Dems or Greens.
In other Brexit-related news, the Financial Times reports that Mrs May's cabinet has been warned that there is a real risk of all four nations of the UK going their own way in the event of a no-deal Brexit. The prime minister's de facto deputy, David Lidington, has warned that the independence movement in Scotland poses a significant challenge, that support for Plaid Cymru is growing in Wales, and that there was a real conversation in Ireland about a future border poll that could see the north and south reunited.
Nice to see that the Labour Party has (FINALLY) managed to come to a coherent position on Brexit.
Some people have described their position on Brexit, as constructive ambiguity. I don't claim to be at all clever, but I find the thought that any ambiguity in the position of any political party, could ever be described as constructive.
The job of the opposition is to offer the electorate alternative policies, and not sit on fences. Labour claim to be the most democratic of our political parties, and vote on just about everything. Yet they ignore the results of these votes. Their membership voted on a second referendum at last years conference, and 78% voted in favour.
The other thing Corbyn doesn't understand is that successful political parties campaign for their political aims, and sell them to the public.
Their position on Brexit isn't fully clear as the unions are saying they will have a public vote on any deal, and campaign to remain. So if we had a snap election they would support remaining in the EU, renegotiate a better deal post election, but still have a public vote. So we could end up with a Labour Government, a better deal, then vote to remain. What would leavers think of that?
How could they campaign for getting a better deal and remaining, in an election?
It is difficult for either of the major parties to come to a unified position, due to the breadth of opinion within their ranks.
It is difficult to see how they reach a unified position with such bad leaders. How many of them are even thinking about what is best for the country?
How can a deadline be more important than avoiding a disaster?
It seems pointless (to me) to oppose the idea of Brexit. we have already voted on that. Much simpler (and better) to oppose the actual deal/no deal on the table. The reality is much easier to defeat than the concept. I see considerable benefit in concentrating on what is better for British jobs-the deal on the table or staying in.
The best deal is the one we already have.
No deal should not be contemplated.
The current labour plan seems to be a vote on a deal or remain, and to campaign to remain.
I'm sure I'm not alone in being fine with us leaving but staying in the Customs Union, or indeed any of the options that Vote Leave told us we were going to get in 2016, but we are currently driving off a cliff.
A customs union and some single market access, can apparently avoid an Irish border problem, and satisfy many people.
I watched the Panorama programme about a no deal Brexit. The WTO Brexit idiots seem to ignore stuff like we have only 6,500 permits and 40,000 trucks that will need one, and that the tariffs are guaranteed to attract smugglers. When you introduce tariffs it creates a differential in prices, which makes smuggling attractive.
Nice to see the Vicar of Bray (Chuka Umunna) attacking the Labour Party. Always good to see the least loyal man in UK politics trying to drop bombs in trenches where he once stood.
I am a pretty moderate person, and am disappointed to see him lose credibility, and become a d1ck, changing parties every 5 minutes.
However I am over the moon to see Kate Hoey standing down.
Corbyn admits Labour could still fight next general election as pro-Brexit party ‘We will decide very quickly at the start of that campaign exactly what our position will be,’ Labour leader says
The significance of Labour-affiliated trade unions agreeing a new joint position on Brexit There is no realistic hope or prospect that Labour’s policy will survive this year’s conference in its current form
White smoke? Labour’s affiliated trade unions have agreed a new joint position on Brexit: any deal negotiated by a Conservative government must be subject to a referendum that puts it against Remain, with the party to back a Remain vote. They have similarly agreed that any deal negotiated by a Labour government must be subject to a referendum, with a choice between that deal and Remain, and that the party’s position on its preferred outcome will be decided once Labour’s deal has been negotiated.
Labour’s new, fuzzy Brexit position won’t go far enough for ardent Remainers In a public vote on a Tory deal, or no deal, Labour is campaigning for Remain. With a Labour government in power it’s a lot more unclear
“Calm down. There’s no reason to panic. Let’s discuss the situation.” That was the message the powerful boss of the Unite union, Len McCluskey, had for the Labour Party during an appearance on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show. Just eight days later he was at a meeting of the five biggest Labour supporting unions that has taken the party to the brink of backing a final say referendum, regardless of who is in power and what deal is on the table. The statement that emerged says that in the event of a Tory Brexit deal there should be a public vote and that Labour should campaign for Remain. In the event of the party taking power through a general election before Brexit, the position will depend on whether a “jobs first” deal can be negotiated. But there should still be a confirmatory ballot with Remain on it.
Britain would take Ireland’s economy down with it in a no-deal, Brexit Secretary warns Stephen Barclay says damage to Ireland is strong incentive to bring EU back to table
No-deal Brexit will mean checks on Irish trade with ‘significant’ impact on economy, Dublin warns Political relationships on the island of Ireland will be put 'under strain' if the UK crashes out of the EU on 31 October, the Republic's Simon Coveney said.
Some people have described their position on Brexit, as constructive ambiguity. I don't claim to be at all clever, but I find the thought that any ambiguity in the position of any political party, could ever be described as constructive.
The job of the opposition is to offer the electorate alternative policies, and not sit on fences. Labour claim to be the most democratic of our political parties, and vote on just about everything. Yet they ignore the results of these votes. Their membership voted on a second referendum at last years conference, and 78% voted in favour.
The other thing Corbyn doesn't understand is that successful political parties campaign for their political aims, and sell them to the public.
Their position on Brexit isn't fully clear as the unions are saying they will have a public vote on any deal, and campaign to remain. So if we had a snap election they would support remaining in the EU, renegotiate a better deal post election, but still have a public vote. So we could end up with a Labour Government, a better deal, then vote to remain. What would leavers think of that?
How could they campaign for getting a better deal and remaining, in an election?
It is difficult for either of the major parties to come to a unified position, due to the breadth of opinion within their ranks.
It is difficult to see how they reach a unified position with such bad leaders. How many of them are even thinking about what is best for the country?
How can a deadline be more important than avoiding a disaster?
It seems pointless (to me) to oppose the idea of Brexit. we have already voted on that. Much simpler (and better) to oppose the actual deal/no deal on the table. The reality is much easier to defeat than the concept. I see considerable benefit in concentrating on what is better for British jobs-the deal on the table or staying in.
The best deal is the one we already have.
No deal should not be contemplated.
The current labour plan seems to be a vote on a deal or remain, and to campaign to remain.
I'm sure I'm not alone in being fine with us leaving but staying in the Customs Union, or indeed any of the options that Vote Leave told us we were going to get in 2016, but we are currently driving off a cliff.
A customs union and some single market access, can apparently avoid an Irish border problem, and satisfy many people.
I watched the Panorama programme about a no deal Brexit. The WTO Brexit idiots seem to ignore stuff like we have only 6,500 permits and 40,000 trucks that will need one, and that the tariffs are guaranteed to attract smugglers. When you introduce tariffs it creates a differential in prices, which makes smuggling attractive.
Nice to see the Vicar of Bray (Chuka Umunna) attacking the Labour Party. Always good to see the least loyal man in UK politics trying to drop bombs in trenches where he once stood.
I am a pretty moderate person, and am disappointed to see him lose credibility, and become a d1ck, changing parties every 5 minutes.
However I am over the moon to see Kate Hoey standing down.
Boris Johnson's Brexit plan for businesses dismissed by head of WTO
The head of the World Trade Organisation has blown a hole in Boris Johnson’s Brexit plans as Conservative party members vote on whether he should become party leader and prime minister. Mr Johnson has argued that if the UK crashes out of the EU without a deal on 31 October, businesses will still be able to continue tariff-free trade with Europe under an obscure trading law known as Gatt 24. Without this protection, thousands of goods traded between the UK and the EU would be subject to standard WTO tariffs, adding considerably to costs to consumers. But WTO director general Roberto Azevedo has now baldly stated that the mechanism - which his organisation oversees - cannot be invoked unless the parties involved have reached agreement on a future trade deal. He told Prospect magazine that Gatt 24 only applies in the period between a deal being struck and its full implementation.
“If there is no agreement, then Article 24 would not apply, and the standard WTO terms would,” said Mr Azevedo. Standard WTO terms involve tariffs of anything up to 10 per cent on cars and 35 per cent on dairy products. If the UK were to waive tariffs unilaterally for EU exporters under these terms, it would have to do the same for all 164 WTO members around the world or face charges of breaching fair access rules. If the UK left the EU without first agreeing on a future trade arrangement, Mr Azevedo said “in simple factual terms in this scenario, you could expect to see the application of tariffs between the UK and EU where currently there are none”. Mr Azevedo’s predecessor as director-general, Pascal Lamy, said that the introduction of the levies would “certainly hurt” the UK after decades in which it has benefited from the tariff-free conditions of the EU single market. He compared the effect on the quality of trade arrangements to dropping two leagues in a sporting competition.
Mr Lamy, who led the WTO from 2005-13, told Prospect: “Jumping brutally from trade league one (the internal market without borders) to trade league three (a WTO, multilaterally committed trade regime for goods and services) would certainly hurt.” And Stuart Harbinson, former director of the WTO’s general council division, told the magazine: “The effect of increased costs would be to make UK businesses less competitive, with the risk that EU importers of goods and services might look elsewhere.” The WTO director general is the most senior figure yet to contradict Leavers’ claims that the use of Gatt 24 could spare the UK a shock to trade conditions in the case of a no-deal Brexit. Speaking during a TV leadership debate last month, Mr Johnson said that in the case of no-deal, “there will be no tariffs, there will be no quotas because what we want to do is to get a standstill in our current arrangements under Gatt 24, or whatever it happens to be, until such a time as we have negotiated (the free trade agreement)”. Within days of his comments, his argument was rejected by international trade secretary Liam Fox. Dr Fox, who is backing Jeremy Hunt for the Tory leadership, said then that in order to benefit from the terms of Article 24, “there must be an agreement between two WTO members as to the elimination of duties and other restrictive regulations on substantially all trade”. And he added: “A no-deal scenario, by definition, suggests that there would be no mutual agreement between the UK and the EU on any temporary or permanent arrangement. In those circumstances Article 24 cannot be used.” Mr Lamy said: “Affirmations such as ‘WTO terms would be painless, after all many countries do that’ are one of the many Brexit unicorns flying around. “If that were the case, why would all developed countries - and many emerging countries - have negotiated free trade agreements, which provide a higher bilateral level of openness than the multilateral WTO regime?” The was no immediate response from Mr Johnson’s team to a request for comment on Mr Azevedo’s remarks.
Nice to see that the Labour Party has (FINALLY) managed to come to a coherent position on Brexit.
It is difficult for either of the major parties to come to a unified position, due to the breadth of opinion within their ranks.
It seems pointless (to me) to oppose the idea of Brexit. we have already voted on that. Much simpler (and better) to oppose the actual deal/no deal on the table. The reality is much easier to defeat than the concept. I see considerable benefit in concentrating on what is better for British jobs-the deal on the table or staying in.
I'm sure I'm not alone in being fine with us leaving but staying in the Customs Union, or indeed any of the options that Vote Leave told us we were going to get in 2016, but we are currently driving off a cliff.
Nice to see the Vicar of Bray (Chuka Umunna) attacking the Labour Party. Always good to see the least loyal man in UK politics trying to drop bombs in trenches where he once stood.
Amazingly, the antisemitism problem continues. I believe that this is a really simple problem to solve, something that you previously disputed. I am not aware of the current rules, so it might require a rule change or two. This would seem simple for a political party, as the Tories consistently do this. They couldn't get rid of Theresa May, so they change the rules, and immediately oust her. They were concerned over attracting too many leadership candidates, so they change the rules, and reduce the number of candidates. Labour have an agreed definition of what constitutes antisemitism. The beauty of our communication these days is that it provides concrete evidence of our actions. As a solicitor I am certain you could easily determine whether or not some communication met their definition of antisemitism or not. If they immediately threw any guilty parties out of the party, the likelihood is that it would tail off, and stop. Their failure to deal with the problem has allowed it to continue.
My view is that this is just more proof of how pathetic a leader Corbyn is.
They were able to immediately remove Alistair Campbell, in respect of him voting for another party in the EU elections. A matter that most people would consider far less serious.
Their current rules allowed them to do this, if they don't allow the same consequences for those that are clearly guilty of antisemitism, then they just need to change the rules.
Strangely, the other prominent members that admitted to voting for other parties, in support of Alistair Campbell, are still members.
Labour turns on Corbyn over Brexit fudge: Leavers AND Remainers furious as leader backs second referendum and Remain if Tories are in charge - but does not rule out leaving the EU if HE wins a general election Labour leader wrote to party members setting out position this morning Said new PM 'should have the confidence to put their deal, or No Deal, back to the people in a public vote' Added that 'in those circumstances ... Labour would campaign for Remain' But says Labour's own Brexit plan is a 'sensible alternative'
Labour Lords a-leaping: Three peers including ex-party boss quit party over anti-Semitism warning that it is not politically SAFE for Jews under Jeremy Corbyn as leader's ally Chris Williamson faces new hearing that could see him expelled Lord Triesman, a former general secretary of the party under Tony Blair, walked out today saying he felt 'sickened' He was followed out by Lord Darzi and former doctor Lord Turnberg Derby North MP will remain suspended pending the outcome of the hearing He had been let off with a warning, prompting uproar among MPs and party staff Had alleged Labour had been too apologetic about anti-Semitism claims
Boris lover in Tory expenses 'abuse' claim: Carrie Symonds forced to quit £80k Tory HQ job over 'poor work' and accused of costing party thousands in improper expenses Carrie Symonds, 31, was asked to leave her £80k post as director of comms Tory party chiefs said her performance was poor and challenged her expenses Cost the Tory party thousands in unauthorised expenses, a source alleged Trip to Morocco with friends slammed because 'department was understaffed' Also claimed she leaked stories to media that were damaging to Theresa May
Amazingly, the antisemitism problem continues. I believe that this is a really simple problem to solve, something that you previously disputed. I am not aware of the current rules, so it might require a rule change or two. This would seem simple for a political party, as the Tories consistently do this. They couldn't get rid of Theresa May, so they change the rules, and immediately oust her. They were concerned over attracting too many leadership candidates, so they change the rules, and reduce the number of candidates. Labour have an agreed definition of what constitutes antisemitism. The beauty of our communication these days is that it provides concrete evidence of our actions. As a solicitor I am certain you could easily determine whether or not some communication met their definition of antisemitism or not. If they immediately threw any guilty parties out of the party, the likelihood is that it would tail off, and stop. Their failure to deal with the problem has allowed it to continue.
My view is that this is just more proof of how pathetic a leader Corbyn is.
They were able to immediately remove Alistair Campbell, in respect of him voting for another party in the EU elections. A matter that most people would consider far less serious.
Their current rules allowed them to do this, if they don't allow the same consequences for those that are clearly guilty of antisemitism, then they just need to change the rules.
Strangely, the other prominent members that admitted to voting for other parties, in support of Alistair Campbell, are still members.
Nothing amazing here. Just party politics and the like.
The Labour Party was forced, by enormous media pressure, to adopt the full IHRA definition of antisemitism, and not to "dilute" it in any way.
Number of countries that have adopted it? 8. Including the UK, Germany, Austria and Israel.. Not the US, China, Russia, France etc.
There are many criticisms levelled at the current definition, due to it being both vague and inflammatory. To give just 1 example, one critic is the person whose idea it originally was (Kenneth S Stern), who has pointed out that the definition discriminates against Palestinians. This is because "anti-semitic" includes anything which in any way affects Israel's self-detyermination, which necessarily includes all pro-Palestinian activities.
Many Jewish groups oppose the definition-when Corbyn met one of those groups, he was derided as being "anti-semitic". Really? Likewise, if someone dares to suggest that anti-semitism is overblown, there is no debate-it is just root out the anti-semite. Ignoring the fact that all Palestinians and Arabs are Semites, too. Livingstone daring to quote history and facts re Hitler wanting a separate Jewish state-expel him. Don't debate whether this was accurate, don't debate whether it was wise-just histrionics. "just change the rules"? Impossible on this one. Even the Government were forced to back down on this by the Press.
The Conservative Party does not have the democratic rules that the Labour Party has. It cannot change the rules centrally in the way you suggest. Leaders of the Labour Party are not "pathetic"-they have constraints caused by that little thing called democracy. You know, where millions of people vote on things. not like the Conservative Party.
Alastair Campbell was not thrown out for voting LibDem. He was thrown out for making it extremely public, and giving press interviews about it. It's no different to if you had gone on TV declaring that a rival firm provided much better homes than the 1 you currently worked for. You are allowed to think it, just not make a song and dance about it. Unless you are prepared to accept the consequences.
Comments
The fallout from the leak of diplomatic cables by Britain's ambassador in Washington, Sir Kim Darroch, is widely reported and makes the lead for the Daily Telegraph.
It says President Trump's aides have called for his sacking - with one source quoted as saying his position is "not tenable" - and Britain should recall him if it wants to maintain its influence with the White House.
According to the Times, the publication of the memos appears designed to damage Sir Kim - who it says is widely regarded as a Europhile - and increase the pressure on the next Prime Minister to replace him.
A number of commentators think the contents of the memos are neither surprising nor especially controversial.
Sir Kim has been briefing his government about President Trump in much the same way as the average American news pundit on TV speaks to his or her audience, the Spectator website says.
It says the expectation now is that the new occupant of Number 10 will replace Sir Kim with somebody who regards the possibility of a new trading relationship between the UK and the US after Brexit as something to be embraced rather than shied away from.
The Guardian says the leak inquiry will be working to cross-check how such a wide array of cables covering such a long period came to be in the possession of someone with the motive of putting them in the public domain.
The Financial Times reports that the leaks have raised concern among civil servants that government is no longer properly functioning. "If this sort of thing happens, there's no point in having us. We can't tell the truth," one senior diplomat tells the paper.
Fierce infighting
According to the Daily Mail's main story, Labour is on the brink of civil war as Brexit and the row over anti-Semitism threaten to split the party.
It says Jeremy Corbyn has been rocked by fierce and high-level infighting on both issues ahead of a nightmare week.
The Labour leader is braced for a bombshell Panorama documentary on the botched handling of the anti-Semitism crisis, the paper says, and is facing further pressure from within the party to back a fresh referendum.
The Guardian leads on the news that hospitals in England are having to cancel operations because consultants have begun working to rule in a standoff over NHS pensions. It says doctors believe the dispute is escalating so fast that it will put NHS services "into meltdown".
According to the paper, waiting times for treatment are also worsening as hospitals struggle to find senior doctors prepared to work more than their planned shifts, which can lead to them receiving pension tax bills of up to £80,000.
An investigation by the Daily Mirror has found that the cost of a holiday during the big August getaway can rocket by up to 80 per cent - or more than £1,000 - compared with early July, when children are still at school.
It says MPs and families have called for school holidays to be staggered to help alleviate demand.
However, teaching unions tell the paper this would likely result in holiday firms charging higher prices for a longer period of time as well as causing problems for families with different term dates for children who go to different schools.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-48903898
Many of the front pages reflect Donald Trump's latest Twitter outburst at Britain's ambassador to the US.
The Times reports the president has "severed relations" with Sir Kim Darroch after the diplomat's unflattering comments about Mr Trump's administration were leaked.
The Politico website asks if the ambassador is now "persona non grata" - the term used in diplomatic circles when a country wants to kick out a foreign envoy.
A former state department official tells the site that discussions will now take place as to whether the president's tweet should be taken as an official instruction.
Politico concludes that if the federal government stops engaging with Sir Kim, then that alone could lead to him being pulled out of Washington.
The Sun focuses on the hunt for those behind the leak, and says officials are investigating whether the information was hacked by a hostile state such as Russia.
The Guardian reports that the life of one of the Wiltshire Novichok victims was saved by paramedics giving him an antidote that had never been used on a UK patient before.
The paper also says the local ambulance service has revealed that a number of paramedics reported feeling ill after attending the poisonings in Salisbury and Amesbury.
It adds that Charlie Rowley's life was probably saved because of the instinct of a paramedic who had attended the first nerve agent attack and treated his case as another one, despite having no information to link the two.
The Daily Express and the Daily Mail both lead on the delays to social care reforms, and say they have cost families coping with dementia £15bn in two years.
The Express says the figures from the Alzheimer's Society show it is costing up to £100,000 a year for their care and they often have to sell homes to pay for it.
The Daily Mail's editorial urges the government to "bite the social care bullet", and argues if nothing is done "countless people face a wretched old age".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-48916638
Tory Chris Grayling's secretive phone call that 'tried to silence' critics of Brexit
The Tory Cabinet minister threatened to stop involving road hauliers in No Deal Brexit planning after they communicated with the press
Chris Grayling is accused of "trying to silence" truck drivers' bosses after he slapped them down for voicing concerns about Brexit.
The Tory Transport Secretary left a voicemail message for the chief of the Road Haulage Association, which represents freight companies, after they spoke out about fears about how Brexit could affect their industry.
Mr Grayling threatened to stop involving the organisation after they communicated with the press following a private briefing with the Transport Secretary last August.
In a BBC Panorama documentary, which is due to be aired on tonight, Richard Burnett, chief executive of the Road Haulage Association, said Mr Grayling left him a voicemail after the association issued a press release about the meeting.
In the voicemail message, Mr Grayling said: "I've got to say how very disappointed I am.
"I had intended to involve you closely in the planning over the next few months, but issuing a press release straight after meeting like that makes it much more difficult for me to do that."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-chris-graylings-secretive-phone-17490385
James O'Brien talks a call on Brexit from a brexiteer who is incapable of answering a question.
ollie Richards
1 day ago
steve thinks his barcode reader software is gonna save the uk lmfao
Peter Tollan
23 hours ago
Switerland have freedom of movement, are in the single market, are a member of Schengen and also the EFTA. None of our current Brexit plans include these options, so how can we possibly end up like Switzerland?!
uwe in Hamburg
1 day ago
Steve reminds me of a Nazi jabbering about Wunderwaffen that would change the war while the Russians were a mile away from the Führerbunker...
COASTA LOECSTA
1 day ago (edited)
Typical brexshitter head full of broken wee cars going bang in the night with no headlights
Susan Hammond
1 day ago
I bet he's a tele-sales rep for the company, and I bet the company is full of BS.
Tridhos
1 day ago
Incredible listening to that guy, Central bank for the World, be able to stand independent, nurse the screens, he's out of bed again.
Silvershock Nicktail
19 hours ago (edited)
Oh god. He said the name of my **** home town and I knew which way this was going to go.
The UK's payment and banking systems have been miles ahead of North America for decades. The systems we're talking about are common in the UK. His business isn't doing well so he blames the EU. ****.
Read more
Shane Ryan
1 day ago
Central bank for the world 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
d3ngar
16 hours ago
Gotta admire James, giving this nincompoop every chance to answer this question. Obviously, we now have to assume that he's an absolute numpty.
Sean G
23 hours ago
The only independence comes with death. While we live, we depend. This caller depended on someone else building a telephone, and someone else answering when he used it.
There is no such thing as independence in this life.
IE B
19 hours ago
China already does cashless, the technology is hardly new.
gantz graf
1 day ago
Welcome back Robespierre!
Tom
16 hours ago
Steve’s company has some revolutionary new technology which means we can pay for goods using our phones instead of cash!! Sounds incredible if it was still 2003!
North Yorkshire Chris
14 hours ago
All the guy had to do was to say "the EU stops my business from trading because of regulation X, Y & Z". He couldn't, because it doesn't.
Bernd Hoffmann
14 hours ago
the best part is missing, when they had called his boss who said Brexit is extremely damaging...
urbanimage
16 hours ago
I wouldn't fancy being an investor in his company.
Jon Howard
1 day ago
I’ve missed these videos
Vic Lineal
1 day ago (edited)
The webpage of the company that is about to revolutionise world economy, and that is held back by the tyranny of the EU, looks like a techno-scam - it's a blog full of techno-management jargon and absolutely lacking in technical content - even superficial one.
For anyone who thinks that this is going to be the Next Big Thing, I've got energy crystals to sell you at a very reasonable price.
Read more
Are you still talking?
15 hours ago (edited)
I surely not the only one who doesnt want to live my life through my phone? Why cant this idiot see the dangers of digital / virtual everything?
Ver Coda
17 hours ago
I’d still like to know what future technologies secretive Steve is working in.
Please, please, please, oh God, please let it be robot monkey butlers.
Tamas Marcuis
18 hours ago
If you work in anything associated with economics you hear a stream of "futurologists" like a never ending TED talk. The fictional businesses and te h ology just round the corner or available if you deregulate or get rid of consumer privacy protectiontions. It is all nonsense. Ignorant businessmen and politicians fall for this all the time and people like me have to tell them the story of ENRON. It is the great Con that so many Brexit politicians are part of or have fallen for.
Read more
dimitri502
19 hours ago (edited)
What. A. Catastrophic. Moron. "The patents are British" to a technology that already exists all over the world. "We are going digital and we're gonna go virtual". It's like listening to my grandma talking about technology. "Central Bank of the world". I... I don't even know where to start with that one. As a Tech manager I wouldn't even hire this idiot to make teas around the office.
Iamtop
1 day ago (edited)
Cashless payment is already done all over China and somewhat in Europe & USA, so I really dunno what he is on about British patents. Probably one of those guys that beleives crypto will become the world's currency despite the geopolitical problems that make that extremely unlikely.
mookie2637
16 hours ago
Two things:
1. Props to James for at least trying to continue a dialogue with people who it's increasingly hard to have a dialogue with
2. The suspicion that callers to these programmes are not as innocent as they seem (ie are put up by parties or other political organisations) is hard to avoid.
Read more
J H
18 hours ago
Sounds like a parody of Gareth from The Office!
Kevin Wellwrought
14 hours ago
Brexiteers are driven by sentiments and that plays into the hands of nationalist extremists.
likklej8
15 hours ago
Steve we need bigger mountains to be like Switzerland. And more yodelling.
Ben Chorley
1 day ago
Ah the title tells me it’s time to go have a night time tea, get into bed and have my daily dose of James O’brain ruining some pleb’s idea of their future
Boris Farage
21 hours ago
The technology this numpty is talking about - your wallet being on your phone - already exists in Scandinavia!
Chris Thornley
22 hours ago
These people are in an absolute fantasy land, it's just sheer nonsense. Ignore people who know what they are talking about, and just believe a load of ****, that's all Brexit is.
Len Noriega
20 hours ago
China has a notable disregard for IP. Good luck Steve.
Sp4rkyM4rk
12 hours ago
Leave on WTO terms and the value of the GBP will decrease even further. Revoke Article 50 and the currency will become much more valuable. It's all very well telling people to "accept the result"; how about accepting that the "democratic majority" does not always make the best decisions.
This video sums up the problem with Brexit and its supporters. They are brainwashed and often uneducated, resorting to echoing the likes of Nigel Farage when they can't think of their own opposition to the debate. Remember it was far from a landslide; we are talking 1.8%.
Read more
Pi Squared
11 hours ago (edited)
I thought the answer to the question "what can't you do if you stay in the EU" was obvious - you can't do tax evasion and money laundering because the EU is bringing in tax laws and financial controls to make sure the super rich pay their fair share of UK taxes, and the super corrupt and super fraudsters can't get away with their crimes. That is what all the dodgy fat cats funding the Brexit party are paying for.
Read more
David O'Leary
5 hours ago
Alexa, what's the Dunning-Kruger effect?
imedi
11 hours ago
ffs someone tell this clown that switzerland is in the single market
John Smythe
16 hours ago
You must have searched high and low to find people to talk to you!
Frank Crossword
19 hours ago
Whenever the "Steve's" of brexit are on J O'B's show waffling on and on and never answering the question,....... it's odd that the "Steve's" fellow brexitfodder NEVER rush to verify, elucidate nor clarify the likes of the "Steve's" "opinions". !!!
It is difficult for either of the major parties to come to a unified position, due to the breadth of opinion within their ranks.
It seems pointless (to me) to oppose the idea of Brexit. we have already voted on that. Much simpler (and better) to oppose the actual deal/no deal on the table. The reality is much easier to defeat than the concept. I see considerable benefit in concentrating on what is better for British jobs-the deal on the table or staying in.
I'm sure I'm not alone in being fine with us leaving but staying in the Customs Union, or indeed any of the options that Vote Leave told us we were going to get in 2016, but we are currently driving off a cliff.
Nice to see the Vicar of Bray (Chuka Umunna) attacking the Labour Party. Always good to see the least loyal man in UK politics trying to drop bombs in trenches where he once stood.
However I am over the moon to see Kate Hoey standing down.
IRELAND has been warned it must step up preparations for a referendum on a United Ireland in case the UK crashes out of the European Union with a no deal Brexit.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1151325/brexit-news-no-deal-latest-irish-border-ireland-referendum-united-ireland-border-poll
Verified account
@jeremycorbyn
Follow
Follow @jeremycorbyn
More
Whoever becomes the new Prime Minister should put their deal, or No Deal, back to the people in a public vote.
In those circumstances, Labour would campaign for Remain against either No Deal or a Tory deal that does not protect the economy and jobs.
Mr Corbyn did not explain what Labour, who have slumped in recent polls, would do if the party won a general election.
WHAT HAS BEEN THE REACTION?
Former Labour MP Chuka Umunna, who left the party to join Change UK, before swiftly moving on to become a Liberal Democrat, criticised Mr Corbyn for coming up with “another fudge”.
Mr Umunna tweeted: “Yet another fudge, where the Labour leadership keep open the door to standing on a pro-Brexit platform in a General Election or supporting it in government.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/boris-johnson-refuses-to-say-six-times-whether-he-would-keep-sir-kim-darroch/ar-AAE5Ioo?ocid=spartandhp
The Conservative leadership debate on ITV is the focus of many of the newspaper front pages.
The Daily Telegraph says there were "highly personal attacks" by Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt and his rival Boris Johnson.
Their clashes make the Guardian question whether the two could work together in any future government.
The Daily Mail's Henry Deedes concludes that there was no question that Jeremy Hunt was the winner of the debate, but suggests it will probably not make a "jot of difference".
The Daily Mirror gives Mr Johnson a score of five out of 10 for his performance, saying he "dodged questions and waffled" while Mr Hunt receives six for what the paper calls his "good digs".
The Sun says that while Mr Hunt "served up attack after attack" it still looks like it'll be "game, set and match" to Mr Johnson.
Jeremy Corbyn's announcement that Labour would back Remain in a new EU referendum to stop a "damaging Tory Brexit" is strongly criticised by several papers.
On its front page the Daily Express accuses the party's leader of caving in to what it calls a "Brexit betrayal".
The Sun argues he's "ripped up his promise" to respect democracy, while the Times says Labour's new position does not address the possibility of a general election before Brexit and what the party would do then.
According to the Daily Telegraph, Labour MPs in leave-supporting seats have accused Mr Corbyn of handing the next Conservative leader all the ammunition needed to win a snap election.
Elsewhere, the Financial Times reports that the Europhile MPs in Labour fear the policy shift has come too late to win back Remainers who switched to the Lib Dems or Greens.
In other Brexit-related news, the Financial Times reports that Mrs May's cabinet has been warned that there is a real risk of all four nations of the UK going their own way in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
The prime minister's de facto deputy, David Lidington, has warned that the independence movement in Scotland poses a significant challenge, that support for Plaid Cymru is growing in Wales, and that there was a real conversation in Ireland about a future border poll that could see the north and south reunited.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-48931652
‘We will decide very quickly at the start of that campaign exactly what our position will be,’ Labour leader says
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-labour-remain-second-referendum-corbyn-eu-no-deal-vote-commons-a8997246.html
The significance of Labour-affiliated trade unions agreeing a new joint position on Brexit
There is no realistic hope or prospect that Labour’s policy will survive this year’s conference in its current form
White smoke? Labour’s affiliated trade unions have agreed a new joint position on Brexit: any deal negotiated by a Conservative government must be subject to a referendum that puts it against Remain, with the party to back a Remain vote. They have similarly agreed that any deal negotiated by a Labour government must be subject to a referendum, with a choice between that deal and Remain, and that the party’s position on its preferred outcome will be decided once Labour’s deal has been negotiated.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/07/significance-labour-affiliated-trade-unions-agreeing-new-joint-position-brexit
Labour’s new, fuzzy Brexit position won’t go far enough for ardent Remainers
In a public vote on a Tory deal, or no deal, Labour is campaigning for Remain. With a Labour government in power it’s a lot more unclear
“Calm down. There’s no reason to panic. Let’s discuss the situation.”
That was the message the powerful boss of the Unite union, Len McCluskey, had for the Labour Party during an appearance on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show. Just eight days later he was at a meeting of the five biggest Labour supporting unions that has taken the party to the brink of backing a final say referendum, regardless of who is in power and what deal is on the table.
The statement that emerged says that in the event of a Tory Brexit deal there should be a public vote and that Labour should campaign for Remain. In the event of the party taking power through a general election before Brexit, the position will depend on whether a “jobs first” deal can be negotiated. But there should still be a confirmatory ballot with Remain on it.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/labour-brexit-remain-corbyn-second-referendum-deal-a8996836.html
Stephen Barclay says damage to Ireland is strong incentive to bring EU back to
table
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-no-deal-ireland-economy-uk-eu-boris-johnson-stephen-barclay-trade-a8997936.html
Political relationships on the island of Ireland will be put 'under strain' if the UK crashes out of the EU on 31 October, the Republic's Simon Coveney said.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/no-deal-brexit-irish-border-trade-checks-economy-northern-ireland-a8997676.html
Some people have described their position on Brexit, as constructive ambiguity. I don't claim to be at all clever, but I find the thought that any ambiguity in the position of any political party, could ever be described as constructive.
The job of the opposition is to offer the electorate alternative policies, and not sit on fences. Labour claim to be the most democratic of our political parties, and vote on just about everything. Yet they ignore the results of these votes. Their membership voted on a second referendum at last years conference, and 78% voted in favour.
The other thing Corbyn doesn't understand is that successful political parties campaign for their political aims, and sell them to the public.
Their position on Brexit isn't fully clear as the unions are saying they will have a public vote on any deal, and campaign to remain. So if we had a snap election they would support remaining in the EU, renegotiate a better deal post election, but still have a public vote.
So we could end up with a Labour Government, a better deal, then vote to remain.
What would leavers think of that?
How could they campaign for getting a better deal and remaining, in an election?
It is difficult for either of the major parties to come to a unified position, due to the breadth of opinion within their ranks.
It is difficult to see how they reach a unified position with such bad leaders.
How many of them are even thinking about what is best for the country?
How can a deadline be more important than avoiding a disaster?
It seems pointless (to me) to oppose the idea of Brexit. we have already voted on that. Much simpler (and better) to oppose the actual deal/no deal on the table. The reality is much easier to defeat than the concept. I see considerable benefit in concentrating on what is better for British jobs-the deal on the table or staying in.
The best deal is the one we already have.
No deal should not be contemplated.
The current labour plan seems to be a vote on a deal or remain, and to campaign to remain.
I'm sure I'm not alone in being fine with us leaving but staying in the Customs Union, or indeed any of the options that Vote Leave told us we were going to get in 2016, but we are currently driving off a cliff.
A customs union and some single market access, can apparently avoid an Irish border problem, and satisfy many people.
I watched the Panorama programme about a no deal Brexit. The WTO Brexit idiots seem to ignore stuff like we have only 6,500 permits and 40,000 trucks that will need one, and that the tariffs are guaranteed to attract smugglers. When you introduce tariffs it creates a differential in prices, which makes smuggling attractive.
Nice to see the Vicar of Bray (Chuka Umunna) attacking the Labour Party. Always good to see the least loyal man in UK politics trying to drop bombs in trenches where he once stood.
I am a pretty moderate person, and am disappointed to see him lose credibility, and become a d1ck, changing parties every 5 minutes.
However I am over the moon to see Kate Hoey standing down.
Boris Johnson's Brexit plan for businesses dismissed by head of WTO
The head of the World Trade Organisation has blown a hole in Boris Johnson’s Brexit plans as Conservative party members vote on whether he should become party leader and prime minister.
Mr Johnson has argued that if the UK crashes out of the EU without a deal on 31 October, businesses will still be able to continue tariff-free trade with Europe under an obscure trading law known as Gatt 24. Without this protection, thousands of goods traded between the UK and the EU would be subject to standard WTO tariffs, adding considerably to costs to consumers.
But WTO director general Roberto Azevedo has now baldly stated that the mechanism - which his organisation oversees - cannot be invoked unless the parties involved have reached agreement on a future trade deal.
He told Prospect magazine that Gatt 24 only applies in the period between a deal being struck and its full implementation.
“If there is no agreement, then Article 24 would not apply, and the standard WTO terms would,” said Mr Azevedo.
Standard WTO terms involve tariffs of anything up to 10 per cent on cars and 35 per cent on dairy products. If the UK were to waive tariffs unilaterally for EU exporters under these terms, it would have to do the same for all 164 WTO members around the world or face charges of breaching fair access rules.
If the UK left the EU without first agreeing on a future trade arrangement, Mr Azevedo said “in simple factual terms in this scenario, you could expect to see the application of tariffs between the UK and EU where currently there are none”.
Mr Azevedo’s predecessor as director-general, Pascal Lamy, said that the introduction of the levies would “certainly hurt” the UK after decades in which it has benefited from the tariff-free conditions of the EU single market.
He compared the effect on the quality of trade arrangements to dropping two leagues in a sporting competition.
Mr Lamy, who led the WTO from 2005-13, told Prospect: “Jumping brutally from trade league one (the internal market without borders) to trade league three (a WTO, multilaterally committed trade regime for goods and services) would certainly hurt.”
And Stuart Harbinson, former director of the WTO’s general council division, told the magazine: “The effect of increased costs would be to make UK businesses less competitive, with the risk that EU importers of goods and services might look elsewhere.”
The WTO director general is the most senior figure yet to contradict Leavers’ claims that the use of Gatt 24 could spare the UK a shock to trade conditions in the case of a no-deal Brexit.
Speaking during a TV leadership debate last month, Mr Johnson said that in the case of no-deal, “there will be no tariffs, there will be no quotas because what we want to do is to get a standstill in our current arrangements under Gatt 24, or whatever it happens to be, until such a time as we have negotiated (the free trade agreement)”.
Within days of his comments, his argument was rejected by international trade secretary Liam Fox.
Dr Fox, who is backing Jeremy Hunt for the Tory leadership, said then that in order to benefit from the terms of Article 24, “there must be an agreement between two WTO members as to the elimination of duties and other restrictive regulations on substantially all trade”.
And he added: “A no-deal scenario, by definition, suggests that there would be no mutual agreement between the UK and the EU on any temporary or permanent arrangement. In those circumstances Article 24 cannot be used.”
Mr Lamy said: “Affirmations such as ‘WTO terms would be painless, after all many countries do that’ are one of the many Brexit unicorns flying around.
“If that were the case, why would all developed countries - and many emerging countries - have negotiated free trade agreements, which provide a higher bilateral level of openness than the multilateral WTO regime?”
The was no immediate response from Mr Johnson’s team to a request for comment on Mr Azevedo’s remarks.
Details of the WTO chief’s comments can be found at https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/economics-and-finance/jumping-from-league-one-to-league-three-wto-insiders-scathing-assessments-of-a-wto-brexit
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/boris-johnsons-brexit-plan-businesses-161900837.html
Amazingly, the antisemitism problem continues.
I believe that this is a really simple problem to solve, something that you previously disputed.
I am not aware of the current rules, so it might require a rule change or two.
This would seem simple for a political party, as the Tories consistently do this.
They couldn't get rid of Theresa May, so they change the rules, and immediately oust her.
They were concerned over attracting too many leadership candidates, so they change the rules, and reduce the number of candidates.
Labour have an agreed definition of what constitutes antisemitism.
The beauty of our communication these days is that it provides concrete evidence of our actions.
As a solicitor I am certain you could easily determine whether or not some communication met their definition of antisemitism or not.
If they immediately threw any guilty parties out of the party, the likelihood is that it would tail off, and stop.
Their failure to deal with the problem has allowed it to continue.
My view is that this is just more proof of how pathetic a leader Corbyn is.
They were able to immediately remove Alistair Campbell, in respect of him voting for another party in the EU elections. A matter that most people would consider far less serious.
Their current rules allowed them to do this, if they don't allow the same consequences for those that are clearly guilty of antisemitism, then they just need to change the rules.
Strangely, the other prominent members that admitted to voting for other parties, in support of Alistair Campbell, are still members.
Labour leader wrote to party members setting out position this morning
Said new PM 'should have the confidence to put their deal, or No Deal, back to the people in a public vote'
Added that 'in those circumstances ... Labour would campaign for Remain'
But says Labour's own Brexit plan is a 'sensible alternative'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7228011/Jeremy-Corbyn-backs-new-Brexit-referendum-says-Labour-campaign-REMAIN.html
Lord Triesman, a former general secretary of the party under Tony Blair, walked out today saying he felt 'sickened'
He was followed out by Lord Darzi and former doctor Lord Turnberg
Derby North MP will remain suspended pending the outcome of the hearing
He had been let off with a warning, prompting uproar among MPs and party staff
Had alleged Labour had been too apologetic about anti-Semitism claims
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7228285/Chris-Williamson-faces-new-anti-Semitism-row-hearing-EXPELLED-Labour.html
Carrie Symonds, 31, was asked to leave her £80k post as director of comms
Tory party chiefs said her performance was poor and challenged her expenses
Cost the Tory party thousands in unauthorised expenses, a source alleged
Trip to Morocco with friends slammed because 'department was understaffed'
Also claimed she leaked stories to media that were damaging to Theresa May
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7230155/Boris-Johnsons-girlfriend-Carrie-Symonds-quit-job-Conservative-Party-expenses-claims.html
Amazingly, the antisemitism problem continues.
I believe that this is a really simple problem to solve, something that you previously disputed.
I am not aware of the current rules, so it might require a rule change or two.
This would seem simple for a political party, as the Tories consistently do this.
They couldn't get rid of Theresa May, so they change the rules, and immediately oust her.
They were concerned over attracting too many leadership candidates, so they change the rules, and reduce the number of candidates.
Labour have an agreed definition of what constitutes antisemitism.
The beauty of our communication these days is that it provides concrete evidence of our actions.
As a solicitor I am certain you could easily determine whether or not some communication met their definition of antisemitism or not.
If they immediately threw any guilty parties out of the party, the likelihood is that it would tail off, and stop.
Their failure to deal with the problem has allowed it to continue.
My view is that this is just more proof of how pathetic a leader Corbyn is.
They were able to immediately remove Alistair Campbell, in respect of him voting for another party in the EU elections. A matter that most people would consider far less serious.
Their current rules allowed them to do this, if they don't allow the same consequences for those that are clearly guilty of antisemitism, then they just need to change the rules.
Strangely, the other prominent members that admitted to voting for other parties, in support of Alistair Campbell, are still members.
Nothing amazing here. Just party politics and the like.
The Labour Party was forced, by enormous media pressure, to adopt the full IHRA definition of antisemitism, and not to "dilute" it in any way.
Number of countries that have adopted it? 8. Including the UK, Germany, Austria and Israel.. Not the US, China, Russia, France etc.
There are many criticisms levelled at the current definition, due to it being both vague and inflammatory. To give just 1 example, one critic is the person whose idea it originally was (Kenneth S Stern), who has pointed out that the definition discriminates against Palestinians. This is because "anti-semitic" includes anything which in any way affects Israel's self-detyermination, which necessarily includes all pro-Palestinian activities.
Many Jewish groups oppose the definition-when Corbyn met one of those groups, he was derided as being "anti-semitic". Really? Likewise, if someone dares to suggest that anti-semitism is overblown, there is no debate-it is just root out the anti-semite. Ignoring the fact that all Palestinians and Arabs are Semites, too. Livingstone daring to quote history and facts re Hitler wanting a separate Jewish state-expel him. Don't debate whether this was accurate, don't debate whether it was wise-just histrionics. "just change the rules"? Impossible on this one. Even the Government were forced to back down on this by the Press.
The Conservative Party does not have the democratic rules that the Labour Party has. It cannot change the rules centrally in the way you suggest. Leaders of the Labour Party are not "pathetic"-they have constraints caused by that little thing called democracy. You know, where millions of people vote on things. not like the Conservative Party.
Alastair Campbell was not thrown out for voting LibDem. He was thrown out for making it extremely public, and giving press interviews about it. It's no different to if you had gone on TV declaring that a rival firm provided much better homes than the 1 you currently worked for. You are allowed to think it, just not make a song and dance about it. Unless you are prepared to accept the consequences.