Cliff Edge anyone?

Off to do my ironing now! I too am a bit OCD about it - ironing the tea towels etc but I cannot help it - starting off with a couple of pairs of sheets as we had visitors for the Tour de France!

I'm not convinced that an EEA/EFTA style Brexit would be a smart move politically. It will be exploited by each side. Any problem - crime rate, GDP growth, NHS funding, the leavers will say it's because we didn't 'Brexit enough' and the remainers will say it's because we 'Brexited too much'.
You'd be putting yourself in the middle, surrounded by possible attackers who are going to frame every argument in the context of your Brexit failure.
At least if you go one way or the other, you're only fending off attacks from one side.

The main point about GE voting is the. You get to do it again at least every five years - the is referendum is supposed to be a once only vote.

The EU had the stance of all citizens keeping their current rights - they only changed their position because of the disgusting offer May put forward - which I. Reality took away many rights of EU citizens living in UK and would actually have split families.

People would actually be able to move between countries but need to go to the bother of obtaining visas from other EU countries - would also of course mean visas for UK citizens to go on Spanish (or other EU country) holidays! If the flights are disrupted and people decided to use the ferry - by then Brittany will have their new super ferry in operation - will need a visa for France and another for Spain, Italy etc.

The only votes that ever matter are those cast at the time.
If we applied your logic to GE voting patterns, and voters voted for Labour, say, and then a year later were so worried at their plans and a poll was taken, then those voters may then say they would vote Conservative.
It doesn't matter what polls say.....ever.

46% remain

43% leave.

Latest poll to June 30th

Seems that Brussels wants to keep British people who live and work abroad in only the country they are in presently, and this is holding up progress on rights of all EU nationals.
So much for the EU being so all round wonderful in the eyes of some!
This matter could have been settled ages ago if the EU hadn't been so intransigent.

Yes I have friends who say the same about ironing. I think I must be a bit OCD as I can't not do it.

I think really the trick is to buy stuff that doesn't crease too much.

Waiting for my grandson to arrive with today's paper.
We were reading about landslides and what caused them yesterday, and was it to do with climate change.
Then today's news is earthquakes and tsunamis in Italy, Greece and Turkey.
I wonder if Gove will think about the connections.

Maybe Brexiteers think that once we've left the EU we will not be affected by climate change.

What's ironing?

Oh Lordy - I hope not - I lived in that area for many years - it had a huge amount of housing built there during the 70/80/90s. Many large Victorian houses being knocked down and small estates built and much 'empty' land. I don't suppose he can touch the tank testing area though.

At the moment the farmers are paid according to a acreage - I think the new idea is more to do with what is done with the land re environmental issues. It should discriminate against the really big rich land owners. We are yet to see the level of the subsidy.

An American was on the Today programme this morning talking about trade between Uk and US - he seemed to think it was really easy and would be done in less than two years - that's another interesting one to watch.

No Gove seemed the first to coin it. Presumably he'll try telling the flood defence experts what to do as well. So baton down the hatches folks!!

dj do read Graces article about Davis in Brussels - soooo funny.

I'm in the middle of ironing -hate ironing.

Exactly. Possibly the worst choice for environment secretary, but Mayhem has form on that. An environment secretary who believes the same as trump on climate change?
Wasn't Gove the one who said to ignore the experts, or was that the idiot Boris?

I thought he was keen to build on Surrey Heaths? Not so very environmentally aware then.

Hasn't Gove promised them their susidies back if they look after the environment, whatever he means by that. The Queen will probably be okay, but I don't know about the rest.

It seems to me that Davis is more concerned about how his comments are playing in the UK rather than actually tackling the problems head on. He is such an idiot.

Pleased to hear farmers are happy to give up their subsidies.

The next challenge for Davis is to ensure that Britons living in the Ezu do not lose their rights to move to other member states. This is important for those working for international companies in particular.

Papers today seem to agree that (well all but the Fail) there is a shift in cabinet opinion and a soft Brexit is at the moment the most likely scenario.

How they are going to achieve that is the next challenge.

So listening to and thinking about Fox yesterday and on previous occasions, it seems to me that he didn't show any understandingof the problem facing the UK in relation to U.K. Food exports to the EU.

What he has never explained as I wonder if he understands was that after Brexit we will become a third country and that there will be consequences of being a third country.

What Brexiters are also not showing an understanding of is that there is a difference between being part of the single market with no border controls and having access to it. This will involve a huge amount of paperwork and bureaucracy , tariffs as well as non- tariff barriers.
Barnier 7 July

"For a third country, 100% of imports of live animals and products of animal origin are and would be subject to EU border controls."

My thoughts exactly dj thanks for that

Meg Hillier has some of the concerns that some of us on here do.

"My hon. Friend raises an important point. As we approach the summer recess—with only one Bill published for our exit from the EU, with no serious plans on the table, and with it becoming apparent that when we come back in the autumn we will not get going seriously until October—we are getting to a point at which we will not even have 18 months to get this show on the road. I am assuming and hoping that Ministers will work 24/7 over the summer to get us to a better place, but even then the timetabling of business through this House means that practically—whatever one’s philosophical view—this cannot be done in time.

I am not saying this because I am a remoaner or a doomsayer. I might have been very positive about wanting to stay in the EU, as was my constituency, but let us be practical about the reality. The delay in delivering the sanctions Bill is another of the many concerns.

It is important that I highlight the concerns of many of my constituents who are EU citizens about the uncertainty they are still facing. Even now people are phoning me or coming up to me in the street in tears because of their concerns about their future. We have heard some degree of certainty from the Prime Minister: she has told us that there will be a mechanism for those people already living here who are EU citizens to regularise their stay, but that will not be published until the end of 2018 and there is still no certainty about the costs.

I was a Home Office Minister, and much as I like to gloss the previous Labour Government as one of the best we have ever had, the reality is that the Home Office—then and now—faces huge challenges in the number of people going through its immigration system. I grappled with that as a Minister, and I did not solve it. We grapple with it as Back Benchers. I certainly do in my constituency, where I have a high number of people going through the system. The idea that, between the end of next year and when we leave, all those who so wish will be able to go through a regularisation process is cloud cuckoo land. It is not surprising that those who can afford it are going through the long-winded process of regularising their stay, getting residency and applying for citizenship.

I spoke at the weekend to a constituent, an international banker who has children. It costs £300 to reach the first hurdle in the legal process. She told me, “If I’m not wanted here I might just leave.” For her, leaving is a real option as she could get a good job elsewhere. Other good, skilled people who have given up their lives in other countries to work in the UK and pay taxes feel like turning their back on us. Some who have been settled in the UK for 15 or 20 years, whose children have grown up here, are very concerned about what the future means for them. Despite the Prime Minister giving some words of comfort—late in the day, and I do not know why this could not have been dealt with before—we need to resolve this sooner rather than later.

Sanctions are the main thrust of the debate. I am strongly of the view that UK-EU co-operation needs to be maintained. I say that not because I am trying to rewind the clock on the referendum—much though this is not where I wanted us to be—but because of a simple question: where would we have differed from the EU on sanctions? There are issues with money laundering and our approach to big international questions such as freezing assets across boundaries, travel bans, trade, and market restrictions, which are but a small part of that approach.

The timetabling of a sanctions Bill to fit with the great repeal Bill is another practical problem. For three years, on behalf of the British Government, I negotiated home affairs at the table in Europe with 27 member states. It took long enough to reach agreement but it was possible. However, trying to enact our Bill and align us, where we would normally agree with our European counterparts, will be incredibly challenging. It will be difficult, at this pace, to write that into law.

We must be frank: this House is not very good at legislating. The Government draft legislation—often in a hurry, and quite a lot will now be written in a hurry—the House has little chance seriously to amend it but must instead pick on the bits we can most likely amend, and as a result it often does not hang together very well. We legislate in haste and repent at leisure, taking a long time to unpick things. That is not true in every case, but as Ministers or Back Benchers dealing with our constituents’ problems we have seen it often.

Would the UK seriously go it alone? No, I think we would not, and I hope the Minister will be clear on that. Why do we not find a way of maintaining the status quo, for a transitional period at least? I fear how the Bill will fit in when it eventually comes before the House.

I have some simple questions for the Minister. How do the Government intend to timetable the repeal Bill and the future sanctions Bill, ensuring that they can work together and there is no contradiction? It would be crazy if we ended up legislating on two separate issues related to Europe, only to find that they do not work together."

ukhumanrightsblog.com/2017/07/20/enforcement-of-environmental-law-what-is-not-in-the-brexit-bill/

For anyone who cares about environmental law.

The Norwegians have been warning us that, if we leave the EU, we will still have to pay to have similar terms to them, whitewave, which include free movement of people.

if we leave Europe. Hello, we are leaving

The more I read the more convinced I am that if we leave Europe the more likely we are to have an EEA/EFTA. I can't see a wholesale cliff edge and I don't believe that many in the government do - except the loons of course. I think the narrative is changing very gradually.

Primrose is neither trolling or bullying by asking questions.If you prefer not to answer the question ww then just say so and be done with it.

Seems to me that everything bar the weather is being blamed on Brexit.

I'd give up if I was you Elegran and Primrose , you're not gonna get it!