Brexit discussion thread III

FreudianSlippers

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Of course it is but had Cameron that sort of foresight we wouldn't be in this mess.

No gifs in the politics forum, but I wish there was an exception here where I could post him whistling whilst walking away from the job. It's just spot on.

An Claidheamh

Econ_ wrote: »

The government is incompetent but not completely stupid - most would know that no deal would wreck their reputation and career. In other words they are likely to agree to just about anything to avoid it.

Secondly, the point I actually made in my post which you failed to rebut, is that even in the very unlikely event that the government does end up wilfully leading the country into a no deal in March 2019 - Parliament can force the government to take another path.

So in reality, when you actually examine what needs to happen for a no deal in March 2019 to occur - the prospect is remote.




If the interviewer knew his stuff - he would have put it to him that the UK would be legally required under WTO rules to apply a hard border if NI were to have different customs arrangements. He would have also have challenged the notion that the US-Canada border is largely frictionless - bull****.

Never invite a Brexiteer on unless you know your stuff - they are very skilful liars and Jenkins took that interviewer to the cleaners there quite frankly.

Yesterday people texted into newstalk to give out to Ivan Yates about his interview with that lady, that he did not challenge her nonsense at all.

Newstalk and RtÉ either don't challenge, criticise or ask pertinent questions of Brexiteers out of fear they won’t come on again, incompetence or more likely an inferiority complex.

O'Rourke with Adam Boulton was poor aswell.

Hurrache

An Claidheamh wrote: »

Newstalk and RtÉ either don't challenge, criticise or ask pertinent questions of Brexiteers

They very much do, there's regularly testy debates across the afternoon shows on both channels, Kenny always very critical of them. As I said a few posts ago, his regular spots with Edwina Curry a case in point.

Suggesting it's because of an inferiority complex is a bizzare comment to make.

CrabRevolution

The Irish media have been pretty good on the Brexit situation I've found. The whole inferiority complex thing is mostly gone.

As with our politicians, for years there was a fear of even being seen to have a negative opinion of something the UK was doing. All the talk had to be about how they're our best friends and all in this together. If you didn't follow this narrative, you risked being associated with Sinn Féin, or going further back, the IRA.

The UK knew this too, and if a Taoiseach wasn't cooperating with them, their press and politicians weren't averse to insinuating the Taoiseach was backing Sinn Féin and/or the IRA.

The EU helped the "the UK is not to be criticised" idea, as now we were in the same club, had closely integrated economies, no border checks etc. It made it easier to say we're all on the same page.

But now that brexit is here and is going to be a total disaster for Ireland, the shackles are off and our politicians and journalists are free to call the UKs actions out for what they are.

Brexit has cleaved the connection between standing up for Ireland and militant republicanism. There is now nothing to lose for any politician or journalist who criticises such terrible decisions by the UK government.

If anything it has greatly helped Varadkar and FGs standing in Ireland that they're taking what would traditionally be a dangerously "republican" line and not rolling over for the UK. When various British press and politicians dusted off the old "The Irish government is obviously acting under the orders of Sinn Féin" line hoping to spook them and get a reaction, it was instead greeted with derision in Ireland.

CelticRambler

John Redwood was on RTE at lunchtime spouting the same old nonsense "we won't be putting up a border ... technology will solve any problems ... the EU needs us more than we need them". They brought in a professor of (?)international law to talk about the implications of a country not establishing its own border controls when trading under WTO rules, but his contribution was a bit too high-brow and technical to be useful as a counter-argument to Redwood's airyfairyness.

As the road to Brexit runs out, I get the impression that contributors to this kind of discussion have got to the point where they just don't see the point of trying to contradict the disillusions of the Leave spokespeople. In any case, the latter definitely overestimate how much we continentals care about Brexit. Were it not for the fact that I'm Irish and read boards.ie, I wouldn't hear anything about it from one summit meeting to the next. As far as the French are concerned, Brexit has already happened; it's not news any more; and I imagine the rest of the EU - other than Ireland - has pretty much the same attitude.

This is one of the reasons why I don't think the Brexit bubble will "burst" as predicted by some, but will "deflate" slowly over several years, leaving just a sticky mess that takes ages to clear up. The sportswear manufacturer, cited earlier, is a good example of how things will start but this is obviously a cherry-picked case: a small business with a very significant EU market, and an owner who has made an effort to understand the implications of leaving the EU.

But beyond that, what will be the direct effect on restaurants, high-street retailers, public service employers, the construction industry, the tourist industry, etc? The employees of these businesses, catering to primarily to the British in Britain, are not going to be hit immediately by price rises or sudden shortages of stock, even if they're wrapped up in whatever mess of a transitional arrangement comes into effect.

It'll be the insidious damage of businesses - like the sportsware manufacturer - realising that the sums don't add up any more and either move staff and production (back) to the EU or just close down, that will slowly drain the economy of its vitality, and lead to the infamous lost decade. Such a slow rate of decay will be very hard to pin directly on Brexit, making it difficult to argue in favour of re-joining the EU, unless and until there's a huge gulf between the UK and the rest of the continent.

I'm fairly confident we'll see a United Ireland (as a result of Brexit) before we see England back in the EU.

An Ciarraioch

Won't have any impact on the general Brexit dynamic, but still interesting to note the decision today of the Welsh First Minister to resign:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/21/carwyn-jones-to-step-down-as-first-minister-of-wales

An Ciarraioch

Nissan to cut hundreds of jobs in Sunderland - the same plant where May met the executives during the election campaign last year:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/apr/20/nissan-to-cut-hundreds-of-jobs-at-sunderland-plant

Bit cynical

Econ_ wrote: »

The government is incompetent but not completely stupid - most would know that no deal would wreck their reputation and career. In other words they are likely to agree to just about anything to avoid it.

Theresa May probably want a deal. Others like John Redwood want a clean break from the EU and its institutions. The EU's hard line suits Redwood's agenda.

flatty

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Won't have any impact on the general Brexit dynamic, but still interesting to note the decision today of the Welsh First Minister to resign:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/21/carwyn-jones-to-step-down-as-first-minister-of-wales

Why so?

Econ_

As I was arguing yesterday...

MPs will be able to force Theresa May to accept a fresh referendum on Brexit in a showdown vote as early as the autumn, a minister has conceded.

In a surprise admission, Steve Baker said the crucial vote on the exit deal would not – as expected – be a “take-it-or-leave-it” choice, because “parliament can always seek to amend motions”.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-second-referendum-eu-vote-theresa-may-mps-minister-steve-baker-a8313111.html

Capt'n Midnight

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Nissan to cut hundreds of jobs in Sunderland - the same plant where May met the executives during the election campaign last year:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/apr/20/nissan-to-cut-hundreds-of-jobs-at-sunderland-plant

Also last week, Vauxhall said it was terminating the contracts of all its 326 dealerships in Britain – which employ 12,000 people – amid falling sales, including diesel cars, although it said it did not expect heavy job losses from the move.

Jaguar Land Rover to cut 1,000 UK jobs as Brexit hits the motor industry





This picture from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-16/brexit-bulletin-job-cuts-come-to-car-country shows why the UK needs to be in a customs union. When you factor in that the car industry is based on just-in-time then they have to be in The Customs Union.

Nody

Econ_ wrote: »

As I was arguing yesterday...



https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-second-referendum-eu-vote-theresa-may-mps-minister-steve-baker-a8313111.html

And such a vote would still have zero meaning because:

1) It's not legally binding (and don't expect the parties to be stupid enough to commit to it this time around)
2) They can stall the vote to when it does no longer matter
3) Without a change of government party there is still nothing stopping Brexit since 66 Tory MPs can fire any PM who does not push for a Brexit in practice
4) And the real killer of the deal; the Brexiteers only need to stall out the practice until after 30th March to have their brexit where as remaining requires a completely new government

Hence the vote "after the new year" on the deal to be voted to be routed to the people to have a new referendum in let's say end Feb/Mid March can then be hummed and thought about until 30th March and voila; brexit is completed no matter the vote. Heck; even from the article you link as proof:

The minister was then asked specifically what would happen if an amendment requiring a fresh referendum was carried, replying: “That would be an extremely controversial situation, of course.”

Mr Baker acknowledged such an amendment could not be ignored, adding: “We would be in the position where we would have to look extremely carefully at what the amendment precisely was.”

Also known as "We can stall it out if we don't like it" or put it to a committee to review etc. once again with the knowledge that Brexit happens on 30th March.

Econ_

Nody wrote: »

And such a vote would still have zero meaning because:

1) It's not legally binding (and don't expect the parties to be stupid enough to commit to it this time around)

It's technically not legally binding but there is zero precedence of a govt refusing to follow an amendment passed by parliament. It would create an extraordinary constitutional crisis - it just ain't gonna happen. The govt will follow any amendment made by parliament.

2) They can stall the vote to when it does no longer matter

Nope. Once the relevant bills are tabled - and they will have to be tabled in the coming months in order for there to be any hope of them being agreed in time in conjunction with the EU parliament - parliament can make amendments and the house speaker can allow plenty of votes.

3) Without a change of government party there is still nothing stopping Brexit since 66 Tory MPs can fire any PM who does not push for a Brexit in practice

Yeah and if those Tory MPs forced a leadership battle there's absolutely no guarantee that the new leader would be a Brexiteer. They know this and this is why the closer it gets to March 2019, the less threatening they have become.

4) And the real killer of the deal; the Brexiteers only need to stall out the practice until after 30th March to have their brexit where as remaining requires a completely new government

They can't stall out the withdrawal bill that long. Not possible.


If you want to inform yourself properly on what can/can't happen with regards parliament - watch this

Dominc Grieve, the ex-barrister and former MP who tabled the amendment that secured a final vote for parliament.
.
And a few other experts who actually know what they're talking about

A customs Union is important.

The single market (through EFTA /EEA) is utterly essential though.

Please always recall that we were in a Customs Union with the UK for twenty years and there was still checks and a border to negotiate.

It was the formation of the Single Market that removed those barriers. If the UK leaves (as is govt policy) the Single Market that will present enormous challenges for any and all trade in the Country.

Peregrinus

I think Nody's point is not that a vote in Parliament wouldn't be binding, but that that a second referendum would not be legally binding.

It wouldn't. But, then, neither was the first. And yet the House of Commons, a substantial majority of whose members are Remainers, felt politically bound by it. How much more, then, would they feel bound by a later referendum which voted to Remain?

If there is a second vote, and if it is a vote to Remain, Brexit would certainly be halted; no question. But those are two big ifs.

In terms of bringing about a second referendum, the Leaver objection is that it would be undemocratic, an elitist attempt to frustrate the will of the people as manifested in the first referendum. This is of course b@lls; why should the result of the first referendum be taken as an authentic representation of the will of the people, while the result of a later referendum, held when the electorate have better information about what Brexit entails, be dimissed?

And yet the the remainers do have a point; a functional politics has to be capable of producing outcomes which can be relied on. Otherwise no decisions is ever taken, and every political question is in a constant state of indecision. You can't argue for a second referendum just because you don't like the result of the first. Either a long time has to elapse - and remainers don't have the luxury of time here - or something significant has to change, so that something new or different can be put to the people.

What the Leavers fear, I suspect, is that they will be pushed into backing a hard, no-deal Brexit. It's reasonable to say that a no-deal Brexit would be ruinous, and is not what anyone voted for in 2016, since only a tiny fringe of the Leave movement advocated it, while the mainstream Leaver position was not only that there would be a deal, but that it would be very easily arrived at, and very favourable to the UK. If the UK is looking down the barrel of a no-deal Brexit, that puts the Remain majority in the House of Commons in a strong position to say that there should be a confirmatory referendum.

The government of course would oppose it, but the government's parliamentary position is extremely weak. They have already lost the battle on whether Parliament is to have a "meaningful vote" on the terms of Brexit, and they give every sign of expecting to lose a vote on whether the UK should seek to replicate the Customs Union that they currently participate in. And of course with every victory on such issues, the Remainers will be emboldened.

Historically, there are two reasons why government backbenchers are reluctant to vote against the government in what the believe to be the public interest. The first is the risk of triggering a general election, which all backbenchers hate. The second is the damage they do to their own careers by pissing off the party leadership.

But, of course, the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act significantly reduces the risk that a backbench result will trigger an election (though it doesn't eliminate it). As for political adfvancement, what backbencher in his right mind would bank on the present leadership of the party to show him long-term favour? May is unlikely to be leader of the party for very long, and Fox, Johnson, Gove and the other Leavers will be a busted flush if it becomes apparent that, given charge of Brexit planning and execution, the best Brexit they could deliver was an obviously ruinous one. Few people are likely to think that their long-term interests will be best served by throwing their lot in with such a crowd.

Nody

Econ_ wrote: »

It's technically not legally binding but there is zero precedence of a govt refusing to follow an amendment passed by parliament. It would create an extraordinary constitutional crisis - it just ain't gonna happen. The govt will follow any amendment made by parliament.

They will eventually; they can however stall to when the vote would be simply to ensure it's worded correctly etc. to get the desired outcome.

Nope. Once the relevant bills are tabled - and they will have to be tabled in the coming months in order for there to be any hope of them being agreed in time in conjunction with the EU parliament - parliament can make amendments and the house speaker can allow plenty of votes.

It is to be tabled with the "vote" on the final deal which is only done after October; hence you're talking about a bill that will be tabled between end of October and January; that is easily a vote that can be stalled beyond march 30th.

Yeah and if those Tory MPs forced a leadership battle there's absolutely no guarantee that the new leader would be a Brexiteer. They know this and this is why the closer it gets to March 2019, the less threatening they have become.

I'll give you a hint; there was a reason I pointed out there were 66 of them. They can keep voting down PMs until they get someone they approve of since it only takes 48 MPs to force a PM election. "Wrong" PM won? No problem; vote of no confidence and let's start over. Once again all they need is to stall things out until March 30th to get the result they want.

They can't stall out the withdrawal bill that long. Not possible.

They want Brexit; if that means hard crash out then it's even better since the chaos is what their friends will profit from (vulture funds).

If you want to inform yourself properly on what can/can't happen with regards parliament - watch this

If you want to inform yourself about politics I suggest you start thinking beyond some fantasy that the parliament vote matters for brexiteers. This is an asymmetrical issue; the brexiteers only need to make sure no deal is struck by March 29th to get what they want. They can use anything and everything to stall things out from committees to changing PM (which will freeze the government for weeks while a new PM is elected etc.) etc. to achieve their goal. To remain in EU however the Remainers need to get a new pro EU government in (which means neither Tory nor Labour to win majority), convince the population that EU is actually good for UK after decades of lies AND get it all done by March 29th 2019. That is the part you appear to miss in this; it's not a coin flip for which way it will go but it's a downhill easy sprint for Brexiteers to win and climbing a mountain for remainers to win. That is the core of the problem; brexiteers win by default; remainers have to somehow change people's mind (nothing showing this is the case), change the government (no way May or any Tory government will call an election unless forced) and change enough Tory MPs not to trigger a leadership election.

ancapailldorcha

Peregrinus wrote: »

What the Leavers fear, I suspect, is that they will be pushed into backing a hard, no-deal Brexit. It's reasonable to say that a no-deal Brexit would be ruinous, and is not what anyone voted for in 2016, since only a tiny fringe of the Leave movement advocated it, while the mainstream Leaver position was not only that there would be a deal, but that it would be very easily arrived at, and very favourable to the UK. If the UK is looking down the barrel of a no-deal Brexit, that puts the Remain majority in the House of Commons in a strong position to say that there should be a confirmatory referendum.

Good post but I think that this is the most pertinent point. Leavers would no longer have the luxury of campaigning on the basis of £350 million for the NHS, a great Brexit trade deal courtesy of German car companies, freedom from burdensome EU rules nobody can name and fewer foreigners. This is compounded by the prominence of the Northern Ireland border issue which was ignored last time. The Remain campaign would certainly have the upper hand this time. My primary concern is that they would produce a gutless campaign akin to 2016.

In the meantime, the EU has concluded a new trade agreement with Mexico whereby all trade goods (including agricultural goods) will be duty free.

Peregrinus

I doubt there will be a second referendum, but if there is Remain will be playing to win. Expect a much more energised campaign than last time. The aim will not only be to convert some Leave voters to the Remain camp but also, and perhaps even more, to ginger up the Remain camp. There's a view that the last referendum was lost because, although Remainers were more numerous, they were less motivated. Enough of them didn't vote, either because they took victory for granted or because they felt a bit ambivalent, that the Leavers won. Remain will not want to make that mistake again.

However, I think it's academic. There won't be a second referendum. The Tory government will cave to any degree necessary to secure a withdrawal agreement, and the ultra-Brexiters will not bring them down over it for fear of provoking a political crisis that could lead to a sedcond referendum. The UK will leave the Union on 29 March 2019 with a Withdrawal Agreement more or less on the terms now proposed by the EU.

joeysoap

Reading between the lines and listening to politicians on tv the CU is done and dusted. Single market should be next on the agenda and then UK can exit on schedule. As Peregrinus states ‘more or less on the terms now proposed by the EU’.
Anything to head of a 2nd referendum.

Econ_

Peregrinus wrote: »

I doubt there will be a second referendum, but if there is Remain will be playing to win. Expect a much more energised campaign than last time. The aim will not only be to convert some Leave voters to the Remain camp but also, and perhaps even more, to ginger up the Remain camp. There's a view that the last referendum was lost because, although Remainers were more numerous, they were less motivated. Enough of them didn't vote, either because they took victory for granted or because they felt a bit ambivalent, that the Leavers won. Remain will not want to make that mistake again.

However, I think it's academic. There won't be a second referendum. The Tory government will cave to any degree necessary to secure a withdrawal agreement, and the ultra-Brexiters will not bring them down over it for fear of provoking a political crisis that could lead to a sedcond referendum. The UK will leave the Union on 29 March 2019 with a Withdrawal Agreement more or less on the terms now proposed by the EU.

If the U.K. cave into joining a Customs Union, the whole dynamic of the political landscape changes.

Many Brexiteers are on record saying that leaving the EU but remaining is the CU is worse that membership.

Their whole ‘Global Britain trading around the world’ mantra, which they have relied on heavily since the referendum as an angle to portray Brexit in a positive light - will be gone.

There would be an opening for the remain camp to build momentum towards a vote on the final deal as the Brexiteers favourite argument for leaving will be up in smoke - it makes it much more difficult for them to push back.

It also strengthens Remain’s mantra of ‘that’s not what people voted for’ as an argument for another referendum - and Brexiteers will find that incredibly difficult to argue against given their incessant claims that leaving the CU was central to Brexit.

I think the whole situation is incredibly volatile and very hard to predict. I wouldn’t rule anything out at this stage.

Capt'n Midnight

Trump has great influence, the best influence.

He's helped deliver the deal with Japan and now he's responsible for a new trade deal with Mexico. (population 127 million)


The European Union and Mexico reached an agreement on Saturday on a new free trade deal, a coup for both parties in the face of increased protectionism from the United States under President Donald Trump.

Good news for our food sector.

None of the EU deals with Canada, Singapore, Japan, or Mexico were done overnight, building on years of groundwork We all know the UK would be looking for the same deal day one, but they may be in for a shock.

Sam Russell

Perhaps the cakeists will win out in the end.

They can have all the trade deals they desire, plus a fantastic free trade frictionless border with the EU.

Spoiler - they remain within the CU and single market - and still members of the EU - realising it is better to be in than out.

An Ciarraioch

The University of Kent is far from impressed by the UK Government's negotiating approach:

https://www.kent.ac.uk/news/society/17762/expert-comment-the-uks-brexit-policy-is-beginning-to-disintegrate

Hurrache

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Good news for our food sector.

None of the EU deals with Canada, Singapore, Japan, or Mexico were done overnight, building on years of groundwork We all know the UK would be looking for the same deal day one, but they may be in for a shock.

And as a result Mogg needs to revisit his cunning plan to bankrupt us, not that it was ever cunning in the first place


https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/949510/brexit-news-eu-northern-ireland-border-jacob-rees-mogg

If Britain trades on WTO terms, we could potentially slap tariffs of up to 70 per cent on Irish beef.

That could bankrupt Ireland, who export £800million of beef to us every year.

And if there is no deal, the EU doesn't get their £40billion divorce bill money and becomes insolvent.

Econ_

Hurrache wrote: »

And as a result Mogg needs to revisit his cunning plan to bankrupt us, not that it was ever cunning in the first place


https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/949510/brexit-news-eu-northern-ireland-border-jacob-rees-mogg

I see this is getting a lot of traction online. Those quotes from Rees-Mogg are from weeks ago.

The Daily Express are recycling it and presenting it as fresh news. A disgusting newspaper and morally bankrupt editor trying to whip up anti-Irish sentiment in light of the Customs Union reports.

EdgeCase

Bear mind Ireland is also one of their biggest export markets on its own and is also part of the EU and if they were to impose a 70% on EU agricultural exports there would be a similar counter measure taken by the EU against the UK.

48% of UK exports in 2016 were to the EU. He might want to think about that figure before he suggests imposing 70% tarrifs.

What's being proposed in that article is unrealistic nonsense.

It's not our bluff they'd be calling. It's their own.

Of course they're free to impose huge tarrifs but those kinds of actions have consequences. An automatic imposition of similar measures by the EU and making them look like an unstable, unpredictable, business-unfriendly state that plays games of bullying politics with trade - Russia springs to mind.

How does that fit with the spin of an "open Britian trading with the world".

It's jingositic headlines and talk of imposition of politically driven trade barriers. That's protectionism and gearing up to cause trade wars.

How anyone takes this stuff seriously is beyond me.

It's incoherent garbage.

Sam Russell

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Jaguar Land Rover to cut 1,000 UK jobs as Brexit hits the motor industry





This picture from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-16/brexit-bulletin-job-cuts-come-to-car-country shows why the UK needs to be in a customs union. When you factor in that the car industry is based on just-in-time then they have to be in The Customs Union.

Of course, if the UK intermediate step were to be relocated to Austria, or Germany, the part would no longer cross La Manche three times, but only once - inside the engine.

Another real possibility is for BMW (a German company) to relocate the assembly of the BMW Mini to Hungary along with all those robots*. That would solve the problem of customs and delays.

*Robot comes from the Hungarian for man - tobor - but spelt backwards.

EdgeCase

All of these companies operate internal markets with competing production sites.

If a UK site becomes uncompetitive, it will lose new product lines and shrink / close. That's not politics. It's market economics and the very philosophy the Tories hold dear.

Those aren't political decisions. They're cold, rational, business decisions. There'll be no sentimentality involved.

For a party that would claim to be pro business and about free trade and economic liberalism, they seem to be presenting a future of politicised trade and showing a willingness to undermine business for dogmatic reasons. It really doesn't bode well.

Why would you invest in a country that is likely to pull the rug put from under your business due to what amounts to a political hissy fit?

Enzokk

Hurrache wrote: »

And as a result Mogg needs to revisit his cunning plan to bankrupt us, not that it was ever cunning in the first place


https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/949510/brexit-news-eu-northern-ireland-border-jacob-rees-mogg

The fact that Brexiteers is allowed to get away with lies is staggering. There is a dereliction of duty from journalists in the UK. What you get instead is moral outrage when someone calls them out for being a bunch of elitists and a lot of it has to do with who you know and where you went to school. Then they are quick to reply, but when someone in power spouts untruths all you hear are crickets.

The divorce payment is not predicated on a deal. The UK already said they would pay their share of what they committed to. Someone tell JRM this as he doesn't seem to know, or most likely knows and will keep lying.


https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/988300618824585216

https://twitter.com/GPWebb/status/988301024162205696

The British media is a closed shop. These are the facts.

Professor Moriarty

Sam Russell wrote: »

Of course, if the UK intermediate step were to be relocated to Austria, or Germany, the part would no longer cross La Manche three times, but only once - inside the engine.

Another real possibility is for BMW (a German company) to relocate the assembly of the BMW Mini to Hungary along with all those robots*. That would solve the problem of customs and delays.

*Robot comes from the Hungarian for man - tobor - but spelt backwards.

Pedant that I am, the word 'robot' is Czech and comes from a play written in 1920.

Peregrinus

Nody wrote: »

I'll give you a hint; there was a reason I pointed out there were 66 of them. They can keep voting down PMs until they get someone they approve of since it only takes 48 MPs to force a PM election. "Wrong" PM won? No problem; vote of no confidence and let's start over. Once again all they need is to stall things out until March 30th to get the result they want.

This is not correct. It only take 48 MPs to demand a leadership vote, but it takes a lot more than that to win one. There are 312 Tory MPs, and unless 157 or more of them vote against the current leader (or unless she resigns, of course) then she stays in office.

This is why the Brexiters don't call a leadership vote. They don't think they have the numbers to spill the current leadership and go to an election of a new leader, and their influence within the party would be diminished by an unsuccessful attempt to do so.

LeinsterDub

https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/988320706046906368?s=20

TM staking her leadership on the upcoming votes?

Peregrinus

RTE is reporting that leading Brexiters within the Cabinet (Johnson, Davis, Fox) are going to tell May that her preferred "customs partnership", under which the UK would collect EU import tariffs on behalf of Brussels, is unworkable.

Ironically, this is also the view which the EU has taken of the customs partnership.

Maybe I'm missing something, but the timing of this seems odd to me. With the Lords vote last week and various rumblings within the British government being reported over the weekend, it's clear that May is under considerable pressure to ditch her policy and instead opt to remain in a Customs Union with the EU. So if they don't favour that, this seems like a very odd time for Johnson & Co to increase the pressure on May to ditch her policy.

Zubeneschamali

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/988320706046906368?s=20

TM staking her leadership on the upcoming votes?

She should go if she loses, this whole out-of-CU-and-SM policy is hers, and the kicking she got at the subsequent election is not a mandate to destroy the UK.

I can't see why anyone who wants the government to lose and/or change tack would want to keep May, so it looks like an empty threat to me.

Peregrinus

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/988320706046906368?s=20

TM staking her leadership on the upcoming votes?

That does suggest that she is extremely worried that she will lose the votes.

EdgeCase

She doesn't seem to have a clear vision on this at all and urgently needs to decide whether she's leading the Tory Party or UKIP.

Leroy42

EdgeCase wrote: »

She doesn't seem to have a clear vision on this at all and urgently needs to decide whether she's leading the Tory Party or UKIP.

I think she does have a clear vision, its just that that clear vision is completely removed from any reality.

I really do think she meant what she said in her Lancaster House speech, she wants Britain to be the head of a new global order, to be the centre of a new system. Part of Europe, but only in terms of telling it what to do.

The problem is that EU, and this is one of the core reasons it was set up, is stronger than pretty much any other single entity. May's plan would have been workable had the EU not existed. Certainly the likes of Ireland would have had little choice but to accept the new settings.

The vision she has simply is not workable when looked at from any angle except a purely UK one. Why would other countries simply hand over every advantage to the UK for nothing. That is what they are asking for.

At the same time they are claiming to maintain the highest standards (and thus regulatory alignment is a non issue) ministers like Fox etc are out claiming that the UK will gut regulations and reduce as many forms of trade policies as possible.

Nody

EdgeCase wrote: »

She doesn't seem to have a clear vision on this at all and urgently needs to decide whether she's leading the Tory Party or UKIP.

There is a difference these days?

As for vision; her only vision from day 1 has been to remain PM at any cost and to get out from under the jurisdiction of European Court of Justice (which she has confused with European Court of Human Rights for some reason) which has blocked several deportations she wanted to do. Anything else is up for negotiation as long as they meet those two requirements.

Sam Russell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Pedant that I am, the word 'robot' is Czech and comes from a play written in 1920.

You are quite right, I just got my countries mixed up - I should have Czech'd it before I posted. The Czech Gov would love to have the BMW plant as well.

I suspect that most of the motor assembly plants will start moving over to the EU if GB leaves the customs union. The logistics will be incompatible with normal JIT manufacturing - it is not as if the robots will have any language problems.

Professor Moriarty

Outside the Tory party, May is also under serious pressure. The CBI is constantly pressing for a customs union. A rather pointed slap down of a Tory minister, Sajid Javid, on Twitter yesterday by the Head of the CBI Paul Dreschler. Javid (who should know better as a former Deutsche Bank executive) tweeted that the referendum gave "clear instructions" to leave the customs union and accused some of seeing it as a "kind of post-Brexit comfort blanket".

Dreschler's reply: "An MP of your talent should rise above ideology and lead based on fact, analysis and evidence - all of which favours a customs union. Always happy to discuss."

Leroy42

Strangely, the input of the Head of the CBI will actually be seen by many as the very definition of the EU cosy state and the opposite view will actually be taken.

He is right that many of the discussions are based on ideology rather than fact, but there seems little appetite to challenge or change that.

The fact that the UK economy did not fall off a cliff on 27th June is the only cover they need to dismiss pretty much anything as scaremongering.

Sam Russell

Leroy42 wrote: »

Strangely, the input of the Head of the CBI will actually be seen by many as the very definition of the EU cosy state and the opposite view will actually be taken.

He is right that many of the discussions are based on ideology rather than fact, but there seems little appetite to challenge or change that.

The fact that the UK economy did not fall off a cliff on 27th June is the only cover they need to dismiss pretty much anything as scaremongering.

Of course, those of that mindset have yet to notice that the UK have not yet left the EU and all that has happened is that the GBP has dropped significantly in value which caused a significant rise in inflation. Now that a year has passed, such inflation has washed through the official figures, and the Bank of England actions have mitigated the worst effects - so far.

However, the storm clouds are gathering, crops are being left to rot in the fields as migrant workers from the EU are going elsewhere to avoid the low wages and racist attitudes towards them.

UK politics is a fact free zone.

MBSnr

From Digital Spy forums

Rolls-Royce mulls European move as Brexit deal worries grow
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/04/23/rolls-royce-mulls-european-move-brexit-deal-worries-grow/

ambro25

Leroy42 wrote: »

<...>

The fact that the UK economy did not fall off a cliff on 27th June is the only cover they need to dismiss pretty much anything as scaremongering.

The UK economy was never going to fall off a cliff in June 2016, no more than it will fall off a cliff come April 2019 come-what-may (and that includes an accidental hard Brexit).

But the U.K. economy began to suffer the proverbial death of a thousand cuts on June 2016.

Decisions to shelve investment, withdrawn projects, delocalised R&D, slowed recruitment, restriction of tenders, erosion of personal/commercial goodwill overseas...it’s a long, long list of pernicious and mostly indirect variables, all with their own little weight within the whole that comprises the UK’s socio-economic drive/momentum.

Their cumulative effect will not be felt at street level for a good year or two yet, but kid yourself not, they are all under way, have been awhile now.

And that effect will still be felt, even if the U.K. was to somehow reverse Brexit before this time next year. Again, it’s an issue of momentum, gathered from lost opportunities over a non-trivial period of time.

Professor Moriarty

MBSnr wrote: »

From Digital Spy forums

Rolls-Royce mulls European move as Brexit deal worries grow
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/04/23/rolls-royce-mulls-european-move-brexit-deal-worries-grow/

From the article:

"...as the EU aviation authority will hold the right to certify they are safe to fly in the event of a hard Brexit."

This is an example of what Pascal Lamy (former Head of WTO and ex-Eu Trade Commisioner) is emphasising repeatedly. It's not the tariffs that will catch Britain, it's the regulations.

Leroy42

ambro25 wrote: »

The UK economy was never going to fall off a cliff in June 2016, no more than it will fall off a cliff come April 2019 come-what-may (and that includes an accidental hard Brexit).

But the U.K. economy began to suffer the proverbial death of a thousand cuts on June 2016.

Decisions to shelve investment, withdrawn projects, delocalised R&D, slowed recruitment, restriction of tenders, erosion of personal/commercial goodwill overseas...it’s a long, long list of pernicious and mostly indirect variables, all with their own little weight within the whole that comprises the UK’s socio-economic drive/momentum.

Their cumulative effect will not be felt at street level for a good year or two yet, but kid yourself not, they are all under way, have been awhile now.

And that effect will still be felt, even if the U.K. was to somehow reverse Brexit before this time next year. Again, it’s an issue of momentum, gathered from lost opportunities over a non-trivial period of time.

Granted, yet unemployment is down, wages are going up.

There was talk of massive recession if Brexit was voted for, this never happened and two years later (whilst I entirely agree that the markets are banking on a soft Brexit) people on the street are not seeing the doomsday that was portrayed.

Given that, and the fact that many seemed to regard experts as worth nothing (helped in no small part by few of the experts seeing the crash in 2008) to be taken seriously, it is any wonder that the UK as a whole continues on this view that Brexit is a best a small effect and certainly a risk worth paying.

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

Granted, yet unemployment is down, wages are going up.

There was talk of massive recession if Brexit was voted for, this never happened and two years later (whilst I entirely agree that the markets are banking on a soft Brexit) people on the street are not seeing the doomsday that was portrayed.

Given that, and the fact that many seemed to regard experts as worth nothing (helped in no small part by few of the experts seeing the crash in 2008) to be taken seriously, it is any wonder that the UK as a whole continues on this view that Brexit is a best a small effect and certainly a risk worth paying.

I think public opinion really doesn't have a say. What might stop a hard Brexit is the influence of big business warning against it explicitly and implicitly in the form of being big donors to the Tory party.

Zubeneschamali

Financial Times: Hiring tumbles at UK fund houses as Brexit plans kick in

Fund managers have cut the rate at which they are hiring in London by as much as half since the UK voted to leave the EU in June 2016.

Nody

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

From the article:

"...as the EU aviation authority will hold the right to certify they are safe to fly in the event of a hard Brexit."

This is an example of what Pascal Lamy (former Head of WTO and ex-Eu Trade Commisioner) is emphasising repeatedly. It's not the tariffs that will catch Britain, it's the regulations.

And the challenge for them will be that ALL UK certifications done to date will be worthless on 30th and need to be redone by a EU based agency. This applies across the board from chemicals to cars etc. as well which means several companies are already moving the certification out from UK this year already to ensure their certification is valid after Brexit.

On a separate note some fun comments on the article:

This shows how much power we have given away and lost so much independence. There should be a UK aviation safety authority, time we set one up and maybe set up a commonwealth aviation authority.

You got one m8; the problem is they can't certify it for EU any more...

I think though that it will be another example of the storm in a teacup about customs processing. After the dire warnings of turning the M20 into a lorry park, it turns out that the computerised customs processing systems are not under the control of the EU or its agencies - it's all under the purview of the WTO. The EU therefore has no power to interfere with the systems themselves - it only has the power to sabotage them via bureaucratic intransigence.

I bet you that in due course we'll discover that the EU agency in question is subject to global agencies anyway, and that regulatory equivalence has the technical capacity to replace the existing arrangements. Once again though, the EU will probably try to torpedo such a move - but that's politics, it's not the collapse of operational systems requiring huge investment to replicate.

So much misinformation; so little time...

But it is views like this which is why I think a hard brexit is required to clear out the misinformation because anything less will end up in another round of Brexit votes with in the decade.

ArthurDayne

Leroy42 wrote: »

Granted, yet unemployment is down, wages are going up.

There was talk of massive recession if Brexit was voted for, this never happened and two years later (whilst I entirely agree that the markets are banking on a soft Brexit) people on the street are not seeing the doomsday that was portrayed.

Given that, and the fact that many seemed to regard experts as worth nothing (helped in no small part by few of the experts seeing the crash in 2008) to be taken seriously, it is any wonder that the UK as a whole continues on this view that Brexit is a best a small effect and certainly a risk worth paying.

The ironic thing here of course, for those in Wales and the north of England, is that London is the product which is keeping the ship afloat. In a vote which was apparently predicated on 'sticking it' to the banks and the establishment, the Brexit vote has actually emphasised the importance of the City, and the financial industry in general. London has arguably never been more important to the UK as it is now, and conversely the regions outside London have arguably never been more irrelevant. Many decades as the heart of a global empire, and subsequent regaining of prestige as the global financial capital (thanks in no small part to its location within the EU of course), are not easy to reverse. Capitalism has wound strong roots into the soil of London and these roots will take some serious pulling.

Take London out of the equation and what are you left with? Cities such as Manchester offered a cheaper alternative to London, with an easily-reachable educated workforce -- with EU access making it a very attractive option for both foreign investment and as a place from which to grow a business. The position of the northern cities post-Brexit is now unclear. If the UK is about to undergo some epic metamorphosis from the stifling cocoon of EU membership, I am finding it difficult to see what the north of England offers versus London or, indeed, Ireland.

The concept that Brexit was about the 'little people sticking it to the big banks' is about as convincing as saying that Jacob Rees Mogg is a man of the people, or Boris Johnson is anti-establishment. The vote has more-or-less entrusted the banks with the whip-hand in Britain's economic future.