Today I'm angry about.....

[BWFC_Insane]

Our disgrace of a government thinking it is above our parliament. Find it weird how there isn't a complete outrage over this. Parliament instructed them to publish the full legal advice. Therefore they had to do it. But simply are refusing. They have no grounds to do so.

Clearly hiding exactly how bad our legal position in the backstop would be. May really is doing everything she can to win worst PM in post war history. She's got it nailed.

I don't think it's quite that simple. Usual position is govt doesn't disclose its legal advice from AGO (in fact the standard position is to refuse to even confirm there has even been any advice). There is clear public interest IMO in making sure the govt can have frank legal advice without the worry it will be published. You make them publish this, then next time the govt is less likely to get legal advice (can't have anything embarrassing disclosed if it doesn't exist) or the AG will be less likely to be frank (and so upset his boss). Neither of those are good options. I can't see an argument that the Brexit advice is any different. Although P seems to have the power to compel disclosure I'm really not sure it should.

That said, given it has, no excuse for the govt not doing so.

The government could have opposed the motion on grounds you laid out. But abstained fearing an embarrassing loss. (How has that worked out?).

Therefore, they tried to subsequently defy parliament. They lost twice on this issue today.

A disgrace of a government. 26 of their own MPs voted against them too.

[BWFC_Insane]

Folk determined to work against the democratic wishes of the majority and in their own selfish political interests rather than respecting legal professional privilege and the common law.

The democratic will of the people was supposedly all about the sovereignty of our parliament. Funny how that suddenly is ‘working against the democratic wishes of the people’ when it doesn’t suit.

Typical Brexit drivel. Straight from the Mail and Express. This government is a disgrace. A shambles. And they are pushing a deal that nobody wants. Remainers nor Brexiteers.

[Prufrock]

Our disgrace of a government thinking it is above our parliament. Find it weird how there isn't a complete outrage over this. Parliament instructed them to publish the full legal advice. Therefore they had to do it. But simply are refusing. They have no grounds to do so.

Clearly hiding exactly how bad our legal position in the backstop would be. May really is doing everything she can to win worst PM in post war history. She's got it nailed.

I don't think it's quite that simple. Usual position is govt doesn't disclose its legal advice from AGO (in fact the standard position is to refuse to even confirm there has even been any advice). There is clear public interest IMO in making sure the govt can have frank legal advice without the worry it will be published. You make them publish this, then next time the govt is less likely to get legal advice (can't have anything embarrassing disclosed if it doesn't exist) or the AG will be less likely to be frank (and so upset his boss). Neither of those are good options. I can't see an argument that the Brexit advice is any different. Although P seems to have the power to compel disclosure I'm really not sure it should.

That said, given it has, no excuse for the govt not doing so.

The government could have opposed the motion on grounds you laid out. But abstained fearing an embarrassing loss. (How has that worked out?).

Therefore, they tried to subsequently defy parliament. They lost twice on this issue today.

A disgrace of a government. 26 of their own MPs voted against them too.

I'm not saying they dealt with it well at all, in just saying it's not as simple as they're a shambles amd only them. Parliament, IMO, shouldn't be pushing for it (though there are reasons they were). Was nice for a moment to see two of the few grown-ups on Starmer and Clarke look like they might sort it out before Leadsom got back involved and put the kibosh on it.

[Prufrock]

Folk determined to work against the democratic wishes of the majority and in their own selfish political interests rather than respecting legal professional privilege and the common law.

The democratic will of the people was supposedly all about the sovereignty of our parliament. Funny how that suddenly is ‘working against the democratic wishes of the people’ when it doesn’t suit.

Typical Brexit drivel. Straight from the Mail and Express. This government is a disgrace. A shambles. And they are pushing a deal that nobody wants. Remainers nor Brexiteers.

That's not wrong but they've been set an impossible task. I think v few people understand the genuine impossibility of what they're being asked to do. It's like a Greek tragedy where power inevitably means failure but people still want power.

There is no way of squaring the circle than includes the good Friday agreement commitment to no hard border in Ireland, the commitment that there will be no border in the Irish sea, and an ability to have our own trade deals. The point of view of many brexiteers might well be 'feck Ireland' but I think rightly that isn't the policy of either party, and in particular the Conservative and Unionist Party.

[Enoch]

..another load of drivel...

.
You really are a presumptuous prick.

[BWFC_Insane]

Folk determined to work against the democratic wishes of the majority and in their own selfish political interests rather than respecting legal professional privilege and the common law.

The democratic will of the people was supposedly all about the sovereignty of our parliament. Funny how that suddenly is ‘working against the democratic wishes of the people’ when it doesn’t suit.

Typical Brexit drivel. Straight from the Mail and Express. This government is a disgrace. A shambles. And they are pushing a deal that nobody wants. Remainers nor Brexiteers.

That's not wrong but they've been set an impossible task. I think v few people understand the genuine impossibility of what they're being asked to do. It's like a Greek tragedy where power inevitably means failure but people still want power.

There is no way of squaring the circle than includes the good Friday agreement commitment to no hard border in Ireland, the commitment that there will be no border in the Irish sea, and an ability to have our own trade deals. The point of view of many brexiteers might well be 'feck Ireland' but I think rightly that isn't the policy of either party, and in particular the Conservative and Unionist Party.

Well firstly her job would have been easier if she hadn't called an ill-timed GE or having done so performed so badly she made Corbyn look good.

Secondly given the position we're in, her job is to find a deal that has a consensus in parliament. There is a deal that has - but she'd have to face off her hardline Brexiteers in her own party. She hasn't the gumption to do that so has instead tried to sit on the fence and in doing so has just irked everybody.

[Prufrock]

Well in one sense it wouldn't have been easier because it's impossible. The Ireland/free trade problem is not hyperbolically "impossible" but literally and definitively. May fecking a GE or not being very good doesn't alter that.

I also don't think there is a deal that has a majority in Parliament.

[BWFC_Insane]

Well in one sense it wouldn't have been easier because it's impossible. The Ireland/free trade problem is not hyperbolically "impossible" but literally and definitively. May fecking a GE or not being very good doesn't alter that.

I also don't think there is a deal that has a majority in Parliament.

How is the Irish border impossible under a Norway style deal? That sort of deal DOES have a majority in Parliament.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Well in one sense it wouldn't have been easier because it's impossible. The Ireland/free trade problem is not hyperbolically "impossible" but literally and definitively. May fecking a GE or not being very good doesn't alter that.

I also don't think there is a deal that has a majority in Parliament.

How is the Irish border impossible under a Norway style deal? That sort of deal DOES have a majority in Parliament.

I've mentioned before: Switzerland. I'll repeat it, Switzerland, Switzerland, Switzerland.
The only reason we are not going to get a deal, a proper good deal, that doesn't require any adjustment on the Irish border is simply because the EU are determined to punish the UK for having the temerity to leave.

So, no, the Irish border/free trade dilemma is Not Impossible. In fact it's not even difficult. If the EU weren't being politically vindictive.

[Prufrock]

Well in one sense it wouldn't have been easier because it's impossible. The Ireland/free trade problem is not hyperbolically "impossible" but literally and definitively. May fecking a GE or not being very good doesn't alter that.

I also don't think there is a deal that has a majority in Parliament.

How is the Irish border impossible under a Norway style deal? That sort of deal DOES have a majority in Parliament.

The border isn't but free trade deals and an end to free movement are.

I'm not sure why you're so convinced there is a majority in Parliament for Norway. I don't think there is.

Norway is anathema to both main categories of leave supporter. You still have free movement and so uncontrollable immigration, and you can't have your own free trade deals and so no Singapore-on-Thames.

[Prufrock]

Well in one sense it wouldn't have been easier because it's impossible. The Ireland/free trade problem is not hyperbolically "impossible" but literally and definitively. May fecking a GE or not being very good doesn't alter that.

I also don't think there is a deal that has a majority in Parliament.

How is the Irish border impossible under a Norway style deal? That sort of deal DOES have a majority in Parliament.

I've mentioned before: Switzerland. I'll repeat it, Switzerland, Switzerland, Switzerland.
The only reason we are not going to get a deal, a proper good deal, that doesn't require any adjustment on the Irish border is simply because the EU are determined to punish the UK for having the temerity to leave.

So, no, the Irish border/free trade dilemma is Not Impossible. In fact it's not even difficult. If the EU weren't being politically vindictive.

Switzerland doesn't help either, and has nothing to do with the EU punishing us. The EU is not going to move on the fundamental freedoms and the integrity of the customs union, it never was and that's nothing to do with punishing us. So.

1) firstly and most importantly, Switzerland has a hard border with the EU. It's v efficient but it exists. That means immediately it doesn't work because of the Good Friday agreement. There is physical infrastructure and an average wait for goods lorries of 20mins-2 hours.

2) one of the reasons it is so efficient is because it practice it follows the EU on standards/regulation/trade. It can strike it's own trade deals, but if they were to differ hugely from the EU, then that border time would go up.

3) Switzerland is not comparable to the UK. The EU is worried about the integrity of the customs Union. It does not want cheap goods from outside the EU flooding the market. Switzerland, a land locked nation surrounded entirely by the EU (and Liechtenstein, itself surrounded entirely by the EU) is obviously much less of a threat to that than the world's sixth biggest economy which contains a number of huge international shipping ports.

So there is a hard border, and even if the Swiss border were acceptable (which it isn't) it would prevent any meaningful free trade deals with the rest of the world, or would lead to further border checks.

[TANGODANCER]

Here is a summary of current events: Something to savage the poster for on a rainy day. Brexit shall be left out of it (mainly)

Someday, somebody, somewhere will wake up and a massive light will click on. Instead of deriding the past and filing it away under decades of facts and figures (a popular if somewhat short-sighted pastime) , and brandishing the instruction manuals for a Brave New World every twenty years, ( every four is we believe politicians) they may eventualy realise the one "No shxt Sherlock" that can't be argued with: "Man ( submit "person" as required) does not live forever!"

Whilst the old biblical "Three score years and ten" has been extended by a probable ten years as a life estimate, the fact remains that getting "here and now" sorted out is of far more consequence than making plans for a Hilton hotel on the moon because even the planners will be deceased by the time it happens. The fact that after two thousand years (of basically recorded memory, we might accept) we still haven't managed very much in terms of progress that benefits society as a whole. A few wars, a couple in recent memory that blasted the country to bits and killed half the population, a succession of governments all striving to be the new saviours,cars from every part of the globe outnumbering anything British and underpants etc, with "Made in Taiwan" on the label.

Best maybe to not say much more other than it's time for somebody ( in authority) to stop and take a good look at history (some of it not too long past) and realise we haven't progressed too far from robber barons, greedy power hungry individuals and joke politicians (related in a common if personal cause) and that robbing the rich to pay the poor ended with the last page of the Robin Hood tale and has been tydily reversed to exactly the opposite. About all that has really progressed from the 13th century is that instead of sending Crusaders out with swords using God as an excuse for funding the top dogs and filling oak chests with coin, we now have hedge fund managers, forecasters, investors and money launderers who do it all by computer from the comfort of their offices and bank accounts and instead of dukedoms, land and castles, ( always the sole domain of Her Maj and co) these are replaced by offshore companies, villas abroad and luxury yachts. Meanwhile, our prisonsers (all 93,000 of them in 2018 for those who like facts and figures and if the internet is to be believed) live in fear of authority (not),and sue the authorities over every daft reason known to man (persons) and a few besides. "Suspended sentence" may well be the new tattoo of the moment.

Meanwhile again,In the background, the Westminster govenment choir sing repeatedly,

"Cuts, cuts, we must make blxxdy cut, by the score, by the score.
There'll be cuts, cuts everlasting cuts, while the gang think up some more "

Meanwhile,again, again, the board of Bolton Wanderers Football Club wish all their supporters a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.....

Amen.

Savage it...

[BWFC_Insane]

Well in one sense it wouldn't have been easier because it's impossible. The Ireland/free trade problem is not hyperbolically "impossible" but literally and definitively. May fecking a GE or not being very good doesn't alter that.

I also don't think there is a deal that has a majority in Parliament.

How is the Irish border impossible under a Norway style deal? That sort of deal DOES have a majority in Parliament.

The border isn't but free trade deals and an end to free movement are.

I'm not sure why you're so convinced there is a majority in Parliament for Norway. I don't think there is.

Norway is anathema to both main categories of leave supporter. You still have free movement and so uncontrollable immigration, and you can't have your own free trade deals and so no Singapore-on-Thames.

And?

As for majority in Parliament - had May brought the Norway style deal back.

Labour would support it - their 7 Brexit MPs. 250. Lets take another 20 Northern leave seat Labour MPs off. 230
Lib Dems would support 12
SNP (Probably) support reluctantly 35
12 Tories who voted to keep UK in CU and are hardcore remainers would support 12
People's vote Tories would support 4
May loyalists and government MPS (said to number 50) lets say 30 supported it which is lowballing
Then from the rest of the non hardline Brexiteer Tories (~200 total) you technically need 4 to guarantee a majority. But reality is a lot of those would support a Norway deal IF that is what May had brought back. Lets be ultra cautious and say only 50 of those (far more in reality).

That is 373. And I've really lowballed a couple of groups to get there. A few Lib Dems might not support but rest is not far fetched at all.

EDIT: and the plan for a Norway model is already being discussed cross-party.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politic ... 08981.html

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Well in one sense it wouldn't have been easier because it's impossible. The Ireland/free trade problem is not hyperbolically "impossible" but literally and definitively. May fecking a GE or not being very good doesn't alter that.

I also don't think there is a deal that has a majority in Parliament.

How is the Irish border impossible under a Norway style deal? That sort of deal DOES have a majority in Parliament.

I've mentioned before: Switzerland. I'll repeat it, Switzerland, Switzerland, Switzerland.
The only reason we are not going to get a deal, a proper good deal, that doesn't require any adjustment on the Irish border is simply because the EU are determined to punish the UK for having the temerity to leave.

So, no, the Irish border/free trade dilemma is Not Impossible. In fact it's not even difficult. If the EU weren't being politically vindictive.

Switzerland doesn't help either, and has nothing to do with the EU punishing us. The EU is not going to move on the fundamental freedoms and the integrity of the customs union, it never was and that's nothing to do with punishing us. So.

1) firstly and most importantly, Switzerland has a hard border with the EU. It's v efficient but it exists. That means immediately it doesn't work because of the Good Friday agreement. There is physical infrastructure and an average wait for goods lorries of 20mins-2 hours.

2) one of the reasons it is so efficient is because it practice it follows the EU on standards/regulation/trade. It can strike it's own trade deals, but if they were to differ hugely from the EU, then that border time would go up.

3) Switzerland is not comparable to the UK. The EU is worried about the integrity of the customs Union. It does not want cheap goods from outside the EU flooding the market. Switzerland, a land locked nation surrounded entirely by the EU (and Liechtenstein, itself surrounded entirely by the EU) is obviously much less of a threat to that than the world's sixth biggest economy which contains a number of huge international shipping ports.

So there is a hard border, and even if the Swiss border were acceptable (which it isn't) it would prevent any meaningful free trade deals with the rest of the world, or would lead to further border checks.

Switzerland is after the US and China, the EUs third largest trade partner. You say there's a hard border, and I say it's a series of stations on the main roads, mostly unmanned most of the time. I, personally have travelled between Lugano and Menaggio and vice versa well over a hundred times, and seen border guards there twice, looking at number plates and waving cars and lorries through without stopping. (And in fact, the roads [plural] between Cremenaga and Monteggio don't even have signs telling you which country you're in, never mind customs posts). That sort of border, whether you call it hard, soft, or Sunnyside up, will not be a hindrance to the Good Friday agreement.
The Irish border issue has been deliberately dragged up and politicised out of context precisely because the EU saw it as it's best card in the punishment regime, and we've fallen for it.

[BWFC_Insane]

Well in one sense it wouldn't have been easier because it's impossible. The Ireland/free trade problem is not hyperbolically "impossible" but literally and definitively. May fecking a GE or not being very good doesn't alter that.

I also don't think there is a deal that has a majority in Parliament.

How is the Irish border impossible under a Norway style deal? That sort of deal DOES have a majority in Parliament.

I've mentioned before: Switzerland. I'll repeat it, Switzerland, Switzerland, Switzerland.
The only reason we are not going to get a deal, a proper good deal, that doesn't require any adjustment on the Irish border is simply because the EU are determined to punish the UK for having the temerity to leave.

So, no, the Irish border/free trade dilemma is Not Impossible. In fact it's not even difficult. If the EU weren't being politically vindictive.

Switzerland doesn't help either, and has nothing to do with the EU punishing us. The EU is not going to move on the fundamental freedoms and the integrity of the customs union, it never was and that's nothing to do with punishing us. So.

1) firstly and most importantly, Switzerland has a hard border with the EU. It's v efficient but it exists. That means immediately it doesn't work because of the Good Friday agreement. There is physical infrastructure and an average wait for goods lorries of 20mins-2 hours.

2) one of the reasons it is so efficient is because it practice it follows the EU on standards/regulation/trade. It can strike it's own trade deals, but if they were to differ hugely from the EU, then that border time would go up.

3) Switzerland is not comparable to the UK. The EU is worried about the integrity of the customs Union. It does not want cheap goods from outside the EU flooding the market. Switzerland, a land locked nation surrounded entirely by the EU (and Liechtenstein, itself surrounded entirely by the EU) is obviously much less of a threat to that than the world's sixth biggest economy which contains a number of huge international shipping ports.

So there is a hard border, and even if the Swiss border were acceptable (which it isn't) it would prevent any meaningful free trade deals with the rest of the world, or would lead to further border checks.

Switzerland is after the US and China, the EUs third largest trade partner. You say there's a hard border, and I say it's a series of stations on the main roads, mostly unmanned most of the time. I, personally have travelled between Lugano and Menaggio and vice versa well over a hundred times, and seen border guards there twice, looking at number plates and waving cars and lorries through without stopping. (And in fact, the roads [plural] between Cremenaga and Monteggio don't even have signs telling you which country you're in, never mind customs posts). That sort of border, whether you call it hard, soft, or Sunnyside up, will not be a hindrance to the Good Friday agreement.
The Irish border issue has been deliberately dragged up and politicised out of context precisely because the EU saw it as it's best card in the punishment regime, and we've fallen for it.

Sort of agree about Switzerland HOWEVER, it isn't the EU's fault. May took those sorts of deals off the table right at the start.

She was the one with red lines ruling them out. Had we negotiated on these positions (Norway or Switzerland) we'd have been in better shape. The Irish border arises purely because of the type of deal May demanded from the outset. She tried to square the circle instead of standing up to the 80 or so loonies in her party and negotiating something with broad cross party consensus. She was more concerned with her political future and elect-ability than she was in looking at a realistic model that would be possible to pass through parliament and bring an end to this.

[Prufrock]

Well in one sense it wouldn't have been easier because it's impossible. The Ireland/free trade problem is not hyperbolically "impossible" but literally and definitively. May fecking a GE or not being very good doesn't alter that.

I also don't think there is a deal that has a majority in Parliament.

How is the Irish border impossible under a Norway style deal? That sort of deal DOES have a majority in Parliament.

I've mentioned before: Switzerland. I'll repeat it, Switzerland, Switzerland, Switzerland.
The only reason we are not going to get a deal, a proper good deal, that doesn't require any adjustment on the Irish border is simply because the EU are determined to punish the UK for having the temerity to leave.

So, no, the Irish border/free trade dilemma is Not Impossible. In fact it's not even difficult. If the EU weren't being politically vindictive.

Switzerland doesn't help either, and has nothing to do with the EU punishing us. The EU is not going to move on the fundamental freedoms and the integrity of the customs union, it never was and that's nothing to do with punishing us. So.

1) firstly and most importantly, Switzerland has a hard border with the EU. It's v efficient but it exists. That means immediately it doesn't work because of the Good Friday agreement. There is physical infrastructure and an average wait for goods lorries of 20mins-2 hours.

2) one of the reasons it is so efficient is because it practice it follows the EU on standards/regulation/trade. It can strike it's own trade deals, but if they were to differ hugely from the EU, then that border time would go up.

3) Switzerland is not comparable to the UK. The EU is worried about the integrity of the customs Union. It does not want cheap goods from outside the EU flooding the market. Switzerland, a land locked nation surrounded entirely by the EU (and Liechtenstein, itself surrounded entirely by the EU) is obviously much less of a threat to that than the world's sixth biggest economy which contains a number of huge international shipping ports.

So there is a hard border, and even if the Swiss border were acceptable (which it isn't) it would prevent any meaningful free trade deals with the rest of the world, or would lead to further border checks.

Switzerland is after the US and China, the EUs third largest trade partner. You say there's a hard border, and I say it's a series of stations on the main roads, mostly unmanned most of the time. I, personally have travelled between Lugano and Menaggio and vice versa well over a hundred times, and seen border guards there twice, looking at number plates and waving cars and lorries through without stopping. (And in fact, the roads [plural] between Cremenaga and Monteggio don't even have signs telling you which country you're in, never mind customs posts). That sort of border, whether you call it hard, soft, or Sunnyside up, will not be a hindrance to the Good Friday agreement.
The Irish border issue has been deliberately dragged up and politicised out of context precisely because the EU saw it as it's best card in the punishment regime, and we've fallen for it.

One wonders why, if it isn't a problem, they bothered having it in there. Famously both sides were keen to agree all sorts and so no doubt they threw loads of shit in there they didn't really care about bit quickly agreed.

And the Swiss border works great most of the time. But sometimes it doesn't. It's not uncommon for there to be tailbacks of over an hour (for goods). That is a border and that is physical infrastructure. For normal people they are in Schengen so it's easy to move.

And again, we couldn't even manage that. The point about Switzerland isn't the size of the trade (they're bang on the middle, of course the EU is a huge trading partner) but what that trade is. Switzerland is not a gateway to the EU for his from the rest of the world. Switzerland doesn't have a huge international port 45 miles from the EU border for goods to come into. Goods that depending on any trade deal could have wildly different standards than the EU (not a problem for Switzerland which basically copies the EU, something I don't think Liam Fox is keen to do).

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Well in one sense it wouldn't have been easier because it's impossible. The Ireland/free trade problem is not hyperbolically "impossible" but literally and definitively. May fecking a GE or not being very good doesn't alter that.

I also don't think there is a deal that has a majority in Parliament.

How is the Irish border impossible under a Norway style deal? That sort of deal DOES have a majority in Parliament.

I've mentioned before: Switzerland. I'll repeat it, Switzerland, Switzerland, Switzerland.
The only reason we are not going to get a deal, a proper good deal, that doesn't require any adjustment on the Irish border is simply because the EU are determined to punish the UK for having the temerity to leave.

So, no, the Irish border/free trade dilemma is Not Impossible. In fact it's not even difficult. If the EU weren't being politically vindictive.

Switzerland doesn't help either, and has nothing to do with the EU punishing us. The EU is not going to move on the fundamental freedoms and the integrity of the customs union, it never was and that's nothing to do with punishing us. So.

1) firstly and most importantly, Switzerland has a hard border with the EU. It's v efficient but it exists. That means immediately it doesn't work because of the Good Friday agreement. There is physical infrastructure and an average wait for goods lorries of 20mins-2 hours.

2) one of the reasons it is so efficient is because it practice it follows the EU on standards/regulation/trade. It can strike it's own trade deals, but if they were to differ hugely from the EU, then that border time would go up.

3) Switzerland is not comparable to the UK. The EU is worried about the integrity of the customs Union. It does not want cheap goods from outside the EU flooding the market. Switzerland, a land locked nation surrounded entirely by the EU (and Liechtenstein, itself surrounded entirely by the EU) is obviously much less of a threat to that than the world's sixth biggest economy which contains a number of huge international shipping ports.

So there is a hard border, and even if the Swiss border were acceptable (which it isn't) it would prevent any meaningful free trade deals with the rest of the world, or would lead to further border checks.

Switzerland is after the US and China, the EUs third largest trade partner. You say there's a hard border, and I say it's a series of stations on the main roads, mostly unmanned most of the time. I, personally have travelled between Lugano and Menaggio and vice versa well over a hundred times, and seen border guards there twice, looking at number plates and waving cars and lorries through without stopping. (And in fact, the roads [plural] between Cremenaga and Monteggio don't even have signs telling you which country you're in, never mind customs posts). That sort of border, whether you call it hard, soft, or Sunnyside up, will not be a hindrance to the Good Friday agreement.
The Irish border issue has been deliberately dragged up and politicised out of context precisely because the EU saw it as it's best card in the punishment regime, and we've fallen for it.

One wonders why, if it isn't a problem, they bothered having it in there. Famously both sides were keen to agree all sorts and so no doubt they threw loads of shit in there they didn't really care about bit quickly agreed.

And the Swiss border works great most of the time. But sometimes it doesn't. It's not uncommon for there to be tailbacks of over an hour (for goods). That is a border and that is physical infrastructure. For normal people they are in Schengen so it's easy to move.

And again, we couldn't even manage that. The point about Switzerland isn't the size of the trade (they're bang on the middle, of course the EU is a huge trading partner) but what that trade is. Switzerland is not a gateway to the EU for his from the rest of the world. Switzerland doesn't have a huge international port 45 miles from the EU border for goods to come into. Goods that depending on any trade deal could have wildly different standards than the EU (not a problem for Switzerland which basically copies the EU, something I don't think Liam Fox is keen to do).

Yes, I can see that the Swiss model is not ideal, necessary, on the table, or has even been considered.
MY point isn't that UK/EU trade relationships should mirror Switzerland/EU trade relations, but, BUT, that in the Liechtenstein-Swiss border with the EU we DO have a model that can be applied to the Ulster/Eire border - not the UK/EU border, but the border on the island of Ireland.
(You are by the way, incorrect to assert that just because they don't have a sea port that the Swiss aren't intermediaries between country A and the EU - over 50% of exports from Switzerland to the EU is chemicals, and some 30% of that gets flown in to Switzerland and shipped out to the EU directly. That's a bigger direct outflow (in monetary terms) from a non-EU country into the EU than any one category of goods we export to the EU. Switzerland aren't some minnow on the world trade scene... They are one of the most expensive countries to live in in the world, not because the residents are poor, but because they are rich - and they're not rich through alpine pastures, ski resorts, (mythical Swiss) cuckoo clocks, and banking, but through trade).

PS and by the way, I don't know if you've ever driven a lorry from the UK to Italy via Switzerland (I haven't but I have a neighbour who does that trip and one to Hungary on a regular basis) but any delays you're likely to face are between the UK and France: and that's with us both in the EU. Yet more Project Fear, this delay stuff.

[Prufrock]

Fair enough on the chemicals exports, I did not know that! Not the first thing the word Switzerland conjures to mind!

But that doesn't address the standards point. The Swiss border as is would be unacceptable in Ireland, there is a commitment to no hard border and no physical infrastructure. But the only reason the border in Switzerland is as low key as it is is the standards point. If we suddenly start importing chlorinated chicken, there is no way the EU is allowing trucks to be waived through on the nod.

[Hoboh]

Norway, no way.

Not unless we get a vast reduction on payment into the EU and retain the right to deal with EU migrants the same way as everyone else.
There are other problems connected with this deal as far as trade agreements with non EU countries, the EU will not find it acceptable for us to trade on our own terms with other nations and undercut them.
That in a nutshell is the crux of the matter, removing any chance for us to do better in case it undermines the soon to be Federal union.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Fair enough on the chemicals exports, I did not know that! Not the first thing the word Switzerland conjures to mind!

But that doesn't address the standards point. The Swiss border as is would be unacceptable in Ireland, there is a commitment to no hard border and no physical infrastructure. But the only reason the border in Switzerland is as low key as it is is the standards point. If we suddenly start importing chlorinated chicken, there is no way the EU is allowing trucks to be waived through on the nod.

I agree, but we could have negotiated with the EU to maintain and mirror standards as the basis of our negotiations, but oh no, the EU insisted that the Irish border was more important. The Irish border as a starting point to free trade necessarily creates a catch-22. Maintaining and mirroring standards as a starting point for free trade negotiations opens up the world to us - something the EU cannot stomach, hence their insistence on the paramountcy of the Irish border in the negotiations. Negotiations for a negotiation, remember!