Brexit, for once some facts.

[Fingers]

As discussed here, now from YouGov...

Labour 'could win 1.5m more votes' by backing Brexit referendum
YouGov says endorsing ‘people’s vote’ would bring net gain in general election

Even with those 1.5m votes the Tories could still get in.

They are changing borders. Another reason why Clegg is the real reason we are in this mess.

I never wanted to be asked the question Re the EU. Once asked though I will look into it.

Cleggs red lines were no vote on Brexit, proportional representation and free tuition fees for students.

Who do you think sold the country down the river for a shiny executive jag with bodyguards?

 

[Fingers]

we can live with Canada or even WTO deal while negotiating a permanent deal with the EU and rest of the world - that's not the problem, but we need to pay the divorce bill and have some transition period. Without signing the withdrawal treaty with the EU, it will be chaos for months.

But it is a bit quid pro quo.

Our science and security should get some rebate too.

They are being aggressive. But that’s them. We know that. They know we know that and they know we know that.

Do they want a horrible divorce? Maybe. As much as I hate Tories I do think we need to be able to say no.

I’d back a no deal just to show the world what the EU is.

A lot of African countries know this and is why they are in bed with China.

 

[Danidl]

But it is a bit quid pro quo.

Our science and security should get some rebate too.

They are being aggressive. But that’s them. We know that. They know we know that and they know we know that.

Do they want a horrible divorce? Maybe. As much as I hate Tories I do think we need to be able to say no.

I’d back a no deal just to show the world what the EU is.

A lot of African countries know this and is why they are in bed with China.

All the European countries had colonies in Africa, in their heady days of empire and that is why they are with China. Being a colony leaves a bad taste.

 

[Woosh]

I watched BBCQT last night. Camilla Tominey of the Telegraph made an ironic remark. As the margin is small, some says we should be half in half out. If the result was the other way, would they say we should half leave?

 

[Woosh]

the Telegraph has this 'secret dossier':

The Tory document | Who could be May’s successor?

Assumption The 1922 will invite the PM to stand down soon(ish) after March 2019.
Conclusion: manoeuver immediately.

Candidates in Cabinet

• David Davis – claims not to be interested, but is. Won’t succeed. Too late.
• Liam Fox – will repeat 2016 strategy to try to protect frontline career. Fading.
• Michael Gove – has consistently made noises suggesting he remains on manoeuvres – future Chancellor?
• Philip Hammond – thinks he has a chance. Not a hope, but will want to remain at the Treasury.
• Matt Hancock – super ambitious, hawkish on Syria with an eye on the Party in the country.
• Damien Hinds – a Remainer, but reported as a threat by Williamson allies. No profile.
• Jeremy Hunt – dark horse, near the front of the pack coming up on the rail (note John Major 1990).
• Sajid Javid – wants it, trying to recover from Referendum positioning error.
• Boris Johnson – bookies favourite after JRM, but the front-runner never wins.
• Andrea Leadsom – intends to correct her errors in 2016 leadership race but totally unsuitable.
• David Lidington – a Remainer, but not credible. Would be deselected early.
• Penny Mordaunt – insufficient authority and profile in the near-term.
• Amber Rudd – credible, notwithstanding Windrush but a Remainer; very small majority (346). Has hired CT.
• Liz Truss – on manoeuvres, probably replicating Fox’s strategy.
• Gavin Williamson – in full campaign mode, but very reliant on PM controlling her own departure point.

Candidates Ex-Cabinet

• Justine Greening – still ambitious. No caucus of support.
• Nicky Morgan – aggressive Remainer. Only hope is to block Brexit. Unpopular.
• Priti Patel – definitely on manoeuvres. Issues of judgement?
• Owen Patterson – not given up. Bitter. Too late.

Candidate ‘Over the Water’

• Ruth Davidson – saved the day in 2017, but not in the Commons.

Junior Ministers

• Tobias Ellwood – very popular Remainer and highly respected. On an upward curve.
• Dominic Raab – discreet ERG support. Might very well succeed. Adroit talking head.
• Rory Stewart – acquired taste. Might bid but won’t succeed this time round.
• Tom Tugendhat – being talked-up. Too early.
• Robin Walker – no profile.

Candidates Not in the Government

• Jacob Rees-Mogg – the Party’s favourite. Unlikely to succeed to the last two.
• Johnny Mercer – high profile. Lack of experience very obvious.

 

[oyster]

Is anyone blaming this mistake on EU intransigence?

Macron puts the boot in after May's Brexit breakfast blunder
The UK dropped a bombshell on the Irish issue, and France ripped up the summit plan

The spin from Downing Street had been that Theresa May’s meeting with her Irish counterpart, Leo Varadkar, shortly after breakfast in the margins of an EU summit in Austria, had been “relatively warm”, albeit “frank”. The dawning truth later that evening was that, in a premiership littered with missteps, May had made one of her worst errors of judgment as the two leaders and their teams met in a private room in Salzburg’s Mozarteum University.

For weeks the working assumption in Brussels had been that, on the Irish issue at least, a major step forward would be made by the next leaders’ summit in October. But over the coffee the prime minister dropped a bombshell. She did not believe it would be possible for the British government and Brussels to come to a solution by then. Six months after promising to come up with a fix that would avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland in all possible circumstances, the British appeared to be stalling for time again.

The message reverberated around the Salzburg summit and reached the ear of the French president, Emmanuel Macron.

The intention had been that this would be a good summit for the prime minister, giving her something to work with on the eve of a difficult Conservative party conference. “Things didn’t happen as we expected,” an EU official admitted.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/20/macron-puts-the-boot-in-after-mays-brexit-breakfast-blunder

 

[oldgroaner]

I have an interest in politics but many of the regulars in this thread know a great deal more about it than I do. So I have a few questions for you to see what your thoughts are.

I am going to make what I assume are reasonable assumptions. Lets say TM manages to get her Chequers deal with a few alterations, approved by the EU.

She then brings it back to our parliament and tells everyone if it is rejected then we leave on WTO rules.

Question 1.
What do you folks think will happen in this situation.

The labour leadership will instruct their MPs to vote against because the deal will not tick their list of criteria. Many right wingers in the Conservative party will vote against because they don't consider it to be a proper Brexit.

So unless some labour MPs who are worried about crashing out on WTO rules vote with the government, TM's deal will not get approval.

Question 2.
Assuming TM loses the vote, do we leave on WTO rules even though there is apparently no majority in parliament for this option?

Question 3.
Could TM call for a peoples vote as a way around this dilemma?

I know she has always been against this idea, but how many times did she say she would not be calling a snap election when she first became PM. Then when she thought she was likely to get a 100 plus majority she suddenly changed her mind.

Question 4.
If TM and the government lose the vote and decide to just leave things as they are and so we leave on WTO rules, can parliament themselves do anything about it?

I think there is a majority of MPs that do not want to crash out on WTO rules, but I think there is a danger it might happen as a kind of default option. Is there some kind of procedure in parliament that can prevent this. As I understand it, everything is currently in place (ie its the law) that if there is no deal, then we automatically leave on WTO rules next March.

Question 5.
If we leave on WTO rules will it be as bad as many of the experts predict? There are experts on both sides of this debate, but I see it a bit like the climate debate. There are experts on both sides of the climate change argument, but there are a lot more experts that say we facing global warming than there are that say we are not.

It seems the same with WTO rules there seems to be a lot more credible people saying WTO rules would be very harmful for us than there are people saying it would be good for us.

Question 1
Assuming that we are not going through a PR exercise and a staged "Breakthrough" isn't underway,question 1 is beginning to look a little on the "No longer applicable" list, but discounting that, unless May agrees to us remaining in effect in Both the single Market and Customs Union, in my opinion Labour would vote against the deal obtained in the full knowledge that they would be unable to win, or unseat the Government and cause a General Election
We can anticipate them to oppose Brexit once the chance of being forced out to trade under WTO rules, in a no deal scenario occurs, which Labour will point out we can't even assume will automatically immediately be available to us and incur considerable time, effort and expense to deploy fully.
Not to mention incur the loss of Foreign manufacturers who are here for the trade links into the EU

Question 2
We cannot at this stage be certain of being accepted into the embrace of the WTO without agreements drawn up with the other members as our membership with it is on the basis that we are part of the EU joint membership, with agreed conditions attached on quotas that will not apply as an independent country.
Question 3
That is indeed the question! after the last time she went to the public for support I suspect not as it is too dangerous to herself and the Conservative Party's hold on power
Question 4
Parliament could indeed cancel Brexit if it went through the normal process, but the Political repercussions with the public make this extremely unlikely
Question 5
The answer is that the WTO scenario will possible, but not without drawbacks and things will be worse,
There's some info here
http://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/no-deal-the-wto-option/
Better than nothing but not an optimum outcome.
And of course what is there to keep Nissan and others here?
A bit like having your teenage child come back after borrowing your car and announcing "The airbags worked Dad!"

My assessment?
It's not clear whether an agreement is possible at this stage as the issue is clouded by the EU side being resolute and our side dithering and fighting each other like rats in a sack, with the Press baying at their backs in favour of crashing out
Byzantine politics have made a comeback., here is a classic example
Just before the referendum the leave campaign stressed there was no question of leaving either the Single Market or the Customs union, and yet after the referendum a determined campaign introduced leaving both into the Tory manifesto to satisfy the ERA , and the public simply forgot what was offered at the time of the referendum, and voted Tory at the GE.
Remarkably no one noticed the change of stance at the time!

At this point perhaps we can expect a few encouraging words from those on the forum who voted for Brexit?

 

[oldgroaner]

Is anyone blaming this mistake on EU intransigence?

Macron puts the boot in after May's Brexit breakfast blunder
The UK dropped a bombshell on the Irish issue, and France ripped up the summit plan

The spin from Downing Street had been that Theresa May’s meeting with her Irish counterpart, Leo Varadkar, shortly after breakfast in the margins of an EU summit in Austria, had been “relatively warm”, albeit “frank”. The dawning truth later that evening was that, in a premiership littered with missteps, May had made one of her worst errors of judgment as the two leaders and their teams met in a private room in Salzburg’s Mozarteum University.

For weeks the working assumption in Brussels had been that, on the Irish issue at least, a major step forward would be made by the next leaders’ summit in October. But over the coffee the prime minister dropped a bombshell. She did not believe it would be possible for the British government and Brussels to come to a solution by then. Six months after promising to come up with a fix that would avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland in all possible circumstances, the British appeared to be stalling for time again.

The message reverberated around the Salzburg summit and reached the ear of the French president, Emmanuel Macron.

The intention had been that this would be a good summit for the prime minister, giving her something to work with on the eve of a difficult Conservative party conference. “Things didn’t happen as we expected,” an EU official admitted.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/20/macron-puts-the-boot-in-after-mays-brexit-breakfast-blunder

Well at least the woman is consistent, is there anything left for her to fail to achieve?

 

[oldgroaner]

But it is a bit quid pro quo.

Our science and security should get some rebate too.

They are being aggressive. But that’s them. We know that. They know we know that and they know we know that.

Do they want a horrible divorce? Maybe. As much as I hate Tories I do think we need to be able to say no.

I’d back a no deal just to show the world what the EU is.

A lot of African countries know this and is why they are in bed with China.

That's interesting, so now you think you know what the EU is?
Do elaborate on that.

 

[Woosh]

“Things didn’t happen as we expected,” an EU official admitted.

TM only admitted to the real difficulties of brexit.
Telling Leo Varadkar the truth does not pay.
There is no possible solution for the Irish border that will keep the present benefits for NI and the ROI after brexit, even EFTA membership still needs customs border.

 

[oldgroaner]

TM only admitted to the real difficulties of brexit.
Telling Leo Varadkar the truth does not pay.
There is no possible solution for the Irish border that will keep the present benefits for NI and the ROI after brexit.

Has everyone forgotten the backstop promise she made way back?
What happened to that?

 

[Woosh]

Has everyone forgotten the backstop promise she made way back?
What happened to that?

'regulatory alignment?' the EU is partly at fault to let her pass the first phase. They should have pointed out that the current absence of a border for goods in the island of Ireland is only possible because of the single area for VAT.
There is no mechanism for a third country to be member in this system.
example: a bike shop in the ROI buys bikes from Austria KTM, It pays no VAT.
It ship those bikes to a friend in the North, again, no VAT. The friend sells them on Amazon very competitively.
You see the potential for fraud?

 

[oyster]

You see the potential for fraud?

You'd have to be really, really dumb not to see that potential. (Even the government might have realised?)

It might be possible to more-or-less manage commercial VAT issues, but not when the movement across borders is done by one-man-and-a-dog outfits or individuals - though they could just be the final step in an otherwise commercial operation.

Further, if there is any divergence of technical standards, this opens the gate to non-compliant products flowing, possibly in both directions, and regardless the VAT issues.

On the subject of VAT, brexit looks like a nail in the coffin of small companies exporting to the EU - the ones that use MOSS. They would probably have to register in all 27 EU countries separately. That would be fun for a two-men-and-two-dogs outfit.

 

[Zlatan]

Don't you all think this shows one of major faults of EU.
Macron taking time off from being French president to tell us all about the requirements of the UK /Irish border... (, a bloke BTW whose best mates idea of fun is to dress up in riot gear and go out clubbing...clubbing protesters protesting about democracy)
Then all the other 26 HoS will have their say, then organise a massive summit to not find a solution.
Its utterly ridiculous.

 

[Woosh]

Don't you all think this shows one of major faults of EU.

are you talking about the Salzburg Summit?
it's either TM's diplomatic blunder for frank talking to the Taoiseach or the slow realisation that the magical thinking of tory MPs is being shown up.

I doubt that the EU has made a mistake. They can wait for years to come, we can't. When troubles start, people are going to take their money out of the UK, then the government will fall, new GE then second referendum. Fingers likes that we can just leave and tell them to whistle for their money but in the cold light of the day, we are looking at hundreds of billions that are moving out of the UK should we fall off the cliff.

 

[Zlatan]

are you talking about the Salzburg Summit?
it's either TM's diplomatic blunder for frank talking to the Taoiseach or the slow realisation that the magical thinking of tory MPs is being shown up.

I doubt that the EU has made a mistake. They can wait for years to come, we can't. When troubles start, people are going to take their money out of the UK, then the government will fall, new GE then second referendum. Fingers likes that we can just leave and tell them to whistle for their money but in the cold light of the day, we are looking at hundreds of billions that are moving out of the UK should we fall off the cliff.

Not specifically, merely the whole hopeless structure. If it were a business it would fail.

 

[oldgroaner]

Don't you all think this shows one of major faults of EU.
Macron taking time off from being French president to tell us all about the requirements of the UK /Irish border... (, a bloke BTW whose best mates idea of fun is to dress up in riot gear and go out clubbing...clubbing protesters protesting about democracy)
Then all the other 26 HoS will have their say, then organise a massive summit to not find a solution.
Its utterly ridiculous.

Agreed, ridiculous that we were unable to comprehend a situation occurring because of rules our Government helped write.
How the heck do you manage to blame the lamentable incompetence of our government on the EU,
And why did you make another personal attack on an EU official? what has that to do with the rest of your post?
Doing that just shows your weird obsession with officials in the EU
The rest of the 26 will simply move on and leave negotiations to the accredited officials, which is what May should have done instead of trying to sow dissent among them in appallingly bad faith.

 

[Woosh]

Not specifically, merely the whole hopeless structure. If it were a business it would fail.

that's brexit for you. It'll cost an arm and a leg.
the alternative to a soft brexit is no brexit.

 

[oldgroaner]

Not specifically, merely the whole hopeless structure. If it were a business it would fail.

Why is it hopeless?

 

[Zlatan]

Why is it hopeless?

Because of the number of "important" people involved. Like the saying says about camels and horses.