Brexit discussion thread III

Strazdas

EdgeCase wrote: »

That sounds like yet another convoluted mess of a proposal, designed entirely to ensure the UK has its cake eats its cake.

They essentially keep rebranding and rewording proposals - last time it was "Managed Divergence ™"

It's all cake and eat it nonsense. They want to be a de facto member of the Single Market, getting all the benefits and yet following none of its rules.....an absolute impossibility of course.

Strazdas

Enzokk wrote: »

I assume the people that say the UK proposals are impossible are the only ones that count, the EU. I know there was a story about the EU forensically shutting down the UK borders proposals, but I am not sure if that was stretching the truth. If that didn't happen, you can be sure it will be the case if/when the UK takes these proposals to the EU.

So the UK doesn't want much from the EU. They want a customs partnership, not a custom union, that will mean the UK will mirror the EU regulations and tariffs, but they will be able to negotiate their own trade deals.

A couple of questions, what happens when the USA demands chlorinated chicken as a carrot for a trade deal? Will they accept which means a border, or will they forego a trade deal with the US? Also, it doesn't sort out the problem of a border between NI and the EU. Only the UK remaining in the single market will mean no infrastructure at the border.

It does seem to me that there seems to be a one step forward, two steps back approach to the negotiations at the moment. The UK seems to accept what is facing them, only to backtrack a few days later and to want their cake and eat it again. I would hope this is for local consumption only and the negotiators is actually working towards a proper deal, while the kids are outside the room playing their own games.

Mirroring EU rules and tariffs would never be remotely acceptable to the EU. You're either a full member of the Single Market or you're completely outside it......no half in / half out arrangement.

EdgeCase

All I see is:

1. The UK political bubble has been having a huge negotiation with itself and the tabloid newspapers.
2. The DUP has interpreted it through their paranoid, sectarian glasses and concluded that the only viable solution is a conspiracy against NI unionism
3. There's been absolutely no progress whatsoever on any kind of real agreement.

They're running out of line and they're going to hit the buffers having a brawl in the dining car while the EU (including us) are just left looking on.

Obviously we, as bystanders, will be blamed for crashing the train by failing to change the laws of physics.

Without a radical change of UK politics, this is going to slide into an non-agreed exit from the EU and some kind of unpredictable crisis.

Hurrache

It's all hitting the fan this evening in London based on what a number of reporter there are saying, May seems to be basically forced to decide on what Brexit she wants, finally, maybe.

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/991435809969573888?s=19

Larbre34

Events, dear boys, events. Local elections across much of England on Thursday, including the big metro areas. If she loses ground to this equally banjaxed Labour Party, especially in supposed Brexiter heartlands, she could be gone by the weekend

Capt'n Midnight

Larbre34 wrote: »

Events, dear boys, events. Local elections across much of England on Thursday, including the big metro areas. If she loses ground to this equally banjaxed Labour Party, especially in supposed Brexiter heartlands, she could be gone by the weekend

It will be interesting to see how the Lib Dems do , in some areas this will be a Brexit vote

but YMMV as in other areas Brexit isn't an issue that would get the Lib Dem vote changed

Water John

Another vote of the Lords on the GFA to come today.
A scrutiny of the Windrush Papers might see the end of May
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/01/labour-aims-to-force-government-to-reveal-windrush-correspondence

Lemming

Annnnnd the windrush scandal just keeps growing more legs ...

.. this time involving foreign students being accused by the Home Office, allegedly often under the flimsiest and suspect of "evidence", of cheating on english exams that are required for visas. Numbers up to 40,000 visas revoked.

Financial times link

Guardian link.

Sajid Javid has his work cut out for him, papering over the cracks in May's hostile environment rebranded "oh wont you just fvck off home, please" policy.

Larbre34

Hmm. Windrush is infecting other areas that they really do need a tough line on, like citizenship cheating, sham marriages, disappearing from immigration control, intra family honour punishments all the like.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Maybe someone can help me understand this.

As I understand it, the December agreement means that the UK have accepted that any deal will avoid a hard border, and that failing that regulatory alignment across the island of Ireland and customs checks between Northern Ireland and GB . . .

Not quite. Two quibbles:

First, the UK government haven’t just “accepted” that any deal must avoid a hard border; they have insisted on it. “No hard border” has always been one of their stated objectives. It’s one of their red lines, if you like. It just doesn’t get spoken of as such because its an uncontroversial red line; it aligns with, rather than contradicting, the EU’s objectives.

Secondly, regulatory alignment isn’t something that happens failing a deal on how to avoid a hard border. Rather, it’s one of three ways in which a deal might avoid a hard border. But it’s not just any one of three ways; it’s the default. Unless and until the UK and the EU agree either Option A (super-duper trade deal) or Option B (magic technology, “maximum facilitation”, “customs partnership”, yadda, yadda, yadda) then, they have already agreed, Option C (“regulatory alignment”) is how a hard border will be avoided.

Leroy42 wrote: »

So in effect haven't the UK already tied one hand behind their backs on this one?

Indeed they have. Because Option C is the default, the EU has no incentive to agree to any version of Option A or Option B which would deliver a lousier outcome (from the EU’s point of view) than Option C would. And, leaving aside for the moment the question of whether they are even practicable, none of the proposals advanced by the UK so far, to the extent that they have been fleshed out in any detail, look like delivering the degree of border openness that regulatory alignment would deliver.

Leroy42 wrote: »

So why are the Uk continuing to insist that a solution needs to come from the EU . . . ?

Because May is not negotiating with the EU; she is negotiating with the Tory Party. She is buying time, essentially. As long as she pretends that some version of Option A or Option B that would be acceptable to the ultra-Brexiters might appear in or be provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement, the ultra-Brexiters will not mount a putsch. (Or so she hopes, and so far the hope has been borne out.) Therefore, she pretends that there is a negotiation process with the EU in which the UK has put its suggestions on the table and the next step is for the EU to put its proposals on the table. Whereas the reality is that the UK has put proposals on the table and the EU has looked at them and said the equivalent of “What? No, be serious! What do you really propose?”

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why did May come out and say she could never agree to it (I think she said no PM could) when she had already agreed to it previously?

Because she has to say that to keep ultra-Brexiters on side for the time being.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

You said if there was no deal, ferries would be turned away. If you just meant long queues you should have said so.

Well, ferries will be turned away if there are no berths for them because the previous ferry is blocking the berth because it has been unable to unload because the customs/port clearance process and facilities are clogged . . .

Or, more likely, some ferries just won't sail because sailing will be cancelled because congestion at the destination port means they won't be able to unload. Economically, it comes to pretty much the same thing.

The truth is, I suspect, that even a no-deal Brexit would involve a bare-bones deal to keep aviation routes open, and to prioritise some goods for customs clearance so that a good deal of trade will still happen.

The disaster of a no-deal Brexit isn't something that will unfold in days or weeks, with bread riots in the streets and customs officials being hung from the lampposts. It will unfold in months with supply chains collapsing, businesses folding, prices rising and, I suspect, political chaos.

Zubeneschamali

I was talking about actual no deal crash out. Saying Oh there'd be some minimal deal just emphasizes that No Deal is unthinkable .

It's an empty bluff.

Peregrinus

By "no deal Brexit", I think we mean a Brexit with no Withdrawal Agreement. That would mean no transitional period, no divorce payment, no EU/UK trade deal, no customs facilitation, and the EU and the UK trading with one another as third countries on WTO most-favoured-nation terms.

That would be hard for the EU-26, very hard for Ireland and all but catastrophic for the UK. Nevertheless it wouldn't rule out agreements other than a Withdrawal Agreement; agreements such as third countries make with one another all the time.

I don't think anybody used "no deal Brexit" to describe a situation in which the UK has no agreements of any kind, about anything, with the EU or with any EU member state. Such a concept would not a useful or meaningful one, since it can have no application in the real world. "No deal Brexit" means a Brexit with no Withdrawal Agreement. There would certainly be other agreements that already exist and that would persist (e.g. the Common Travel Area with Ireland; the Lancaster House Treaty with France; etc. Plus, there would be new agreements, entered into to try to manage the consequences of the no-deal Brexit - e.g. agreements to facilitate continued aviation services between the UK and the EU (and, I think, the rest of the world). But we'd still be in no-deal Brexit terrritory, and it would still be incredibly painful.

Nody

Sam Russell wrote: »

That is my reading.

The NI/Irish border will be irrelevant, and all we need is a few portacabins on the major crossings with a Customs inspection with a few roving enforcers. The Dover situation will be extreme and will take the flac.

If the trucks cannot go to France and block the motorways, then they will run out of trucks going the other way.

Today something in the region of 80% of inbound trucks leave empty from the UK; I simply expect the haulers will raise that to 100% (no load means customs check is done in a jiffy) as the route to solve it with the price tag accordingly.

Peregrinus

Nody wrote: »

Today something in the region of 80% of inbound trucks leave empty from the UK; I simply expect the haulers will raise that to 100% (no load means customs check is done in a jiffy) as the route to solve it with the price tag accordingly.

That may solve the hauliers' problem, but it doesn't do much for UK exporters!

Nody

Peregrinus wrote: »

That may solve the hauliers' problem, but it doesn't do much for UK exporters!

Well the post was in response to the idea that UK would have a food shortage due to no trucks returning from the UK. I expect for UK exporters shipment by short sea containers will become more popular simply because of the easier (and cheaper!) storage while waiting for the customs to be worked through.

LeinsterDub

Nody wrote: »

Well the post was in response to the idea that UK would have a food shortage due to no trucks returning from the UK. I expect for UK exporters shipment by short sea containers will become more popular simply because of the easier (and cheaper!) storage while waiting for the customs to be worked through.

I can't wait to eat those fresh(ish) fish and fruits that have been sitting in a baking hot containers for days on end.

Peregrinus

Nody wrote: »

Well the post was in response to the idea that UK would have a food shortage due to no trucks returning from the UK. I expect for UK exporters shipment by short sea containers will become more popular simply because of the easier (and cheaper!) storage while waiting for the customs to be worked through.

In a no-deal situation, a lot of UK exports will be hit by tariffs which the EU will be required to impose under WTO most-favoured-nation rules. The UK might unilaterally not impose such tariffs on what it imports from the EU, and take the flak from the WTO later, but there is no reason to think that the EU would take a similar attitude. Plus, a lot more UK exports will be hit by the fact that they are part of supply chains that will be disrupted by a no-deal Brexit. And some, of course, will be lost because the customers aren't interested in waiting around for product to be worked through customs when they can get the same product without such a delay from a supplier within the EU-27.

Nody

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I can't wait to eat those fresh(ish) fish and fruits that have been sitting in a baking hot containers for days on end.

Refrigerated containers are common and you can easily ship chilled/frozen food to China via slow shipping if you want to. There are stand alone containers (i.e. not plugged into a truck, train, ship or charging station in port) that will run for over 60 days on the diesel generator attached to the container to keep the temperature at what ever level you need it to be. Hence containers are a non issue when it comes to keeping the goods at the right temperature; the issue is more related to the content (i.e. fresh cut flowers don't survive for long no matter what the temperature you put them to).

After all how do you think your bananas from Brazil etc. are making it here on ships in the first place?

Peregrinus wrote: »

In a no-deal situation, a lot of UK exports will be hit by tariffs which the EU will be required to impose under WTO most-favoured-nation rules. The UK might unilaterally not impose such tariffs on what it imports from the EU, and take the flak from the WTO later, but there is no reason to think that the EU would take a similar attitude. Plus, a lot more UK exports will be hit by the fact that they are part of supply chains that will be disrupted by a no-deal Brexit. And some, of course, will be lost because the customers aren't interested in waiting around for product to be worked through customs when they can get the same product without such a delay from a supplier within the EU-27.

Oh I don't doubt there will be a huge disruption and issues for UK export companies in general; but once again the answer was more in relation to if they would use trucks (I'm guessing no as most truckers don't want their assets stuck in customs but some might use a dual set up of shipping to port only kind of set up and then pick up with another driver later) or not. Obviously the issue will vary depending on the goods itself and how well the company has prepared (for example if they already got their goods signed off by a non UK EU based reviewer to quality etc. that will speed things along) along with how easy they supplier can be replaced (once again the better prepared supplier who've built better relationships and can show they are ready will obviously do better than the "Oh they will figure something out" crew when Brexit hits the fan).

Hurrache

Nody wrote: »

After all how do you think your bananas from Brazil etc. are making it here on ships in the first place?

Banana's are a bit different as they're imported into Ireland far from being ripe. Ireland ripens them and ended up at one stage being a big banana exporter [bananas of all size, not just big bananas)

Nody

Hurrache wrote: »

Banana's are a bit different as they're imported into Ireland far from being ripe. Ireland ripens them and ended up at one stage being a big banana exporter [bananas of all size, not just big bananas)

Yes but take those unripened bananas, put them in a steel container without any refrig equipment, stick the container on a ship going through the equator taking 30 days to arrive and see how they would look like :P

ambro25

Nody wrote: »

<...> but once again the answer was more in relation to if they would use trucks (I'm guessing no as most truckers don't want their assets stuck in customs but some might use a dual set up of shipping to port only kind of set up and then pick up with another driver later) or not. Obviously the issue will vary depending on the goods itself and how well the company has prepared (for example if they already got their goods signed off by a non UK EU based reviewer to quality etc. that will speed things along) along with how easy they supplier can be replaced (once again the better prepared supplier who've built better relationships and can show they are ready will obviously do better than the "Oh they will figure something out" crew when Brexit hits the fan).

Such ‘dual setups’ (and many variations on the theme) have long, long been a standard aspect of international shipping and codified as what are generally referred to as ‘INCOTERMs’ (‘CIF’, ‘FOB’, ‘EXW’, etc).

Those are what U.K. (and EU27) exporters and importers without experience of outra-EU shipping need to get to grasp with, and factor into their pricing/supply contracts...in one big hurry once the actual exit terms are known.

And I mean the trading entities here, not the freight companies which provide services and invoice for those according to the negotiated shipping (INCO-) terms, because the INCOTERM defines who pays for what and bears what risks up to where, with the obvious potential to impact the bottom line of a trade in a big way, if that isn’t correctly understood and priced-in before closing the deal.

I doubt that many modern/recent EU28 businesses trading in the EU-only on the back of essentially-paperless ease of trade brought about by the SM, have this knowledge in-house (local Chambers of Commerce should, though). Much fun in perspective.

Peregrinus

ambro25 wrote: »

Such ‘dual setups’ (and many variations on the theme) have long, long been a standard aspect of international shipping and codified as what are generally referred to as ‘INCOTERMs’ (‘CIF’, ‘FOB’, ‘EXW’, etc).

Those are what U.K. (and EU27) exporters and importers without experience of outra-EU shipping need to get to grasp with, and factor into their pricing/supply contracts...in one big hurry once the actual exit terms are known.

And I mean the trading entities here, not the freight companies which provide services and invoice for those according to the negotiated shipping (INCO-) terms.

I doubt that many modern/recent EU28 businesses trading in the EU-only on the back of essentially-paperless ease of trade brought about by the SM, have this knowledge in-house (local Chambers of Commerce should, though). Much fun in perspective.

There's two issues here.

The first is the disruption, when traders anticipate before the event, or discover after the event, the precise nature of the disruption that will be caused to their trade by a crash-out Brexit, work out the least bad workaround, and put it in place. Depending on when it finally becomes certain that, yes, there will be a crash-out Brexit, that disruption could be massive, and very long-tailed.

But the other is the fact that the least bad workaround will be more expensive than what is currently in place. Refrigerated containers, for example, as mentioned above, cost money to lease, and money to keep refrigerated. Effectively, the workarounds represent a whole slew of non-tariff barriers to trade. So, even when the workarounds are up and running, trade will still suffer, imports will be more expensive, exports will be less competitive, and both will suffer more delays, all of which will lead to a significant contraction of UK trade with the EU-27, and a reduction in profitability for the trade that remains.

ambro25

These issues set the context, Peregrinus, in which such standard NTB-mitigating constructs as INCOTERMs are due to make a comeback as, irony of ironies, ‘new’ NTBs (I am qualifying them as such, by comparison to the ‘borderless’ status quo).

I’ve long been aware, and argued with pro-Leavers, that no amount of negotiated ‘borderless’ post-Brexit set up could possibly cost-match the status quo that is the SM, and still less so in view of May’s red lines; moreover that any economic arguments hinged on the notional application of tariffs between the U.K. and the EU were sterile, since the biggest impact could be expected to arise from NTBs, due to the U.K. economy’s makeup (very heavily services-based).

In my profession for example (IP professional services), the statutory requirement to be EEA-based and EEA-qualified for access to practice before the EUIPO is a 100% NTB for the U.K. profession post-Brexit, if the U.K. should lie outside the EEA as an outcome (negotiated or not).

The same considerations pertain to financial services, insurance services, data services (etc.) to a greater (passporting) or lesser extent.

Peregrinus

Yes. Services are generally not subject to tariffs at all, but they can be subject to significant, even insurmountable, non-tariff barriers.

Goods, by contrast, can be subjected to both tariffs and NTBs. The latter are less likely to be insurmountable, but they can often be more significant that the tariff barriers. A crash-out Brexit imposes the highest possible tariffs, and the highest possible NTBs, on UK/EU trade.

Leroy42

But you all seem to be missing a vital point in the Brexiteers argument.

You are making valid points about the increased costs (both time and resources) that will be suffered no matter how good the deal is (on the basis that it won't be as good as the current EU membership).

But any loss on trade will, according to the Brexit plan, be more than made up for in gains for new international trade agreements with the rest of the world, a large portion of which is growing faster than the EU and will continue so.

I'm not saying they are right, but pointing out that pointing out the costs of leaving the EU as some sort of logical reason to go for the softest Brexit possible falls when put up against then, admittedly, unknown advantages to other international trade.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

But you all seem to be missing a vital point in the Brexiteers argument.

You are making valid points about the increased costs (both time and resources) that will be suffered no matter how good the deal is (on the basis that it won't be as good as the current EU membership).

But any loss on trade will, according to the Brexit plan, be more than made up for in gains for new international trade agreements with the rest of the world, a large portion of which is growing faster than the EU and will continue so.

I'm not saying they are right, but pointing out that pointing out the costs of leaving the EU as some sort of logical reason to go for the softest Brexit possible falls when put up against then, admittedly, unknown advantages to other international trade.

The potential advantages are not unknown. They have been modelled in various ways by various people, and none of the models suggest that the damage to EU trade in a hard Brexit can be made up by improvements to non-EU trade realised through trade agreements that can be made after a hard Brexit. There is literally nobody advancing this argument.

(There are those who assert that it will be so, but they never advance an actual argument to suggest or show that it is possible, much less likely. Nor do they ever engage with, or offer critiques of, the models and calculations which show the contrary.)

LeinsterDub

Nody wrote: »

Refrigerated containers are common and you can easily ship chilled/frozen food to China via slow shipping if you want to. There are stand alone containers (i.e. not plugged into a truck, train, ship or charging station in port) that will run for over 60 days on the diesel generator attached to the container to keep the temperature at what ever level you need it to be. .

Frozen fish isn't and can't be sold as fresh, it will only stay fresh for a limited time, same for some fruits such as strawberries they can't sit in a customs queue indefinitely. It will spoil.

So UK exporters will now have to factor in the cost of containers, diesel generators and tariffs. Hardly a model in being competitive.

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

The potential advantages are not unknown. They have been modelled in various ways by various people, and none of the models suggest that the damage to EU trade in a hard Brexit can be made up by improvements to non-EU trade realised through trade agreements that can be made after a hard Brexit. There is literally nobody advancing this argument.

(There are those who assert that it will be so, but they never advance an actual argument to suggest or show that it is possible, much less likely. Nor do they ever engage with, or offer critiques of, the models and calculations which show the contrary.)

I totally agree, just pointing out that that is their 'argument'.

So when one, quite reasonably, points out the difficulties and risks associated with even the softest of Brexit, the retort is, as you pointed out, a vague aspiration that new international trade will cover all losses.

They of course never go into any specifics, or indeed explain how they will deal with the quite logical losses during the transition period (by which I mean moving from trading primarily with the EU to these new trading partners).

farmchoice

https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/8a8be16f-b2ff-443a-b208-50161192d27b
exiting the European union committee sitting at the moment, interesting and informative as always.

ambro25

Leroy42 wrote: »

But you all seem to be missing a vital point in the Brexiteers argument.

Well, no: the Brexiteers argument hinged on future trade deals is invalid in the first place, since it is both illogical and unquantifiable.

So there is nothing to miss as such, bar pointing out its lack of logic and contrasting it’s unquantifiability with the known quantity that is current U.K.- EU27 (and U.K. - non-EU) trade.

Take the simplistic argument of Leavers about tariffs on U.K.-bound BMWs : where else (from which non-EU country, under one of these fabled new trade deals) are they going to source BMWs from, if tariffs end up being reciprocally applied with the EU? Likewise parts and components of e.g. Airbuses and Minis? Etc.

Their ‘argument’ completely misses the elasticity (and inelasticity) of goods demand, beside so many other objective, fact-based variables (with which they could try and build a decent argument, but are seemingly incapable of doing so). It’s back-of-fag-packet wishful thinking, and so deserves about as much consideration in debate.

Enzokk

I think the PM will be gone by the end of the week. She has called for a 3 line whip to suppress documents from the Windrush scandal. This with the news that there is no progress on Brexit and the elections on Thursday, my bet is she will be finished on Friday. It will be open season then on what happens next, no deal Brexit with JRM as leader, or a clown as PM with Boris Johnson who will change his views on what will keep him in power.

https://twitter.com/guardian/status/991622912380669952

Infini

General Election could also be a possibility too couldnt it?

ancapailldorcha

Infini wrote: »

General Election could also be a possibility too couldn't it?

A much riskier gamble than before. May already faced accusations of opportunism for calling the 2017 election which weakened her hand by tying her to the DUP. In the meantime, Momentum have been waiting for their chance by campaigning up and down the country. They've been biding their time by building a solid activist base and prepping nationwide.

Then there's the general level of cynicism which is now prevalent here given that there has been at least one trip to the ballot box per year here (and all the nonsense that comes with election/referendum campaigns to go with it) since 2014. We've had local elections and Indyref in 2014, GE2015, EURef2016, local elections in Scotland, GE2017 and now another trip to the ballot box along with tomorrow's local elections. Then there's my desired outcome of another Brexit referendum.

Enzokk

Infini wrote: »

General Election could also be a possibility too couldnt it?

It could be, if she resigns it doesn't mean a election will happen. That would be up to the new leader/PM and I don't think they would gamble like she did and lose more than they did last time.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think anybody used "no deal Brexit" to describe a situation in which the UK has no agreements of any kind, about anything, with the EU or with any EU member state.

There are 10 months to Brexit. How many months do you imagine it would take to negotiate a keep-the-food-coming deal with the EU after they give up on a real Withdrawal agreement? After one is agreed, how many months to implement it at every UK port?

Is the total more or less than 10? If they don't start now, but wait for utter failure in October, there will be 5 months with Christmas in the middle.

steddyeddy

Infini wrote: »

General Election could also be a possibility too couldnt it?

Hopefully. I see Labour gaining more seats, but if the Tories win May will be outed. Leading to the question as to who could replace her? She wasn't an amazing politician or anything but the people who could replace her are zealots.

EdgeCase

I don't think she'll be gone by the end of the week. You'd have to assume that most Tories actually gave a damn about the plight of those caught up in the Windrush scandal.

I'd say that's very unlikely as they, as a party, are openly pitching towards the right wing element of the electorate who gets off on enforcement of deportation orders, cracking down on protesters, probably a bit xenophobia and so on.

Don't forget they voted for many of these nasty measures and many of them even campaigned for them. They'll just roll in behind her and do some hand wringing and faux virtue signalling to make it look like they actually care.

Enzokk

EdgeCase wrote: »

I don't think she'll be gone by the end of the week. You'd have to assume that most Tories actually gave a damn about the plight of those caught up in the Windrush scandal.

I'd say that's very unlikely as they, as a party, are openly pitching towards the right wing element of the electorate who gets off on enforcement of deportation orders, cracking down on protesters, probably a bit xenophobia and so on.

Don't forget they voted for many of these nasty measures and many of them even campaigned for them. They'll just roll in behind her and do some hand wringing and faux virtue signalling to make it look like they actually care.

It's not just Windrush, it would be the scandal coupled with the elections tomorrow and other factors. Now everything would need to go wrong for her for her to resign, including a scandal (check), an election (check) and her appeasement strategy towards Brexit being tested (meeting on her customs union approach later today). That is all a big if, but if you had told me 2 weeks ago that her position is under threat I would have said she is safe.

ancapailldorcha

steddyeddy wrote: »

Hopefully. I see Labour gaining more seats, but if the Tories win May will be outed. Leading to the question as to who could replace her? She wasn't an amazing politician or anything but the people who could replace her are zealots.

The only thing keeping both of the major parties or coalitions together is the UK's FPTP voting system. Neither of the warring factions in both parties wants to lose their party's brand, identity and loyal voting base. So they trundle ever onwards while the seemingly inevitable split looms over both of them.

Looking at the list of candidates to replace Theresa May does not fill me with hope. The only would I would view in any positive way is Ruth Davidson who seems like a liberal Tory who recognises the need for real change. Sadly, she's both inexperienced and behind big names like Gove, Johnson and Rees-Mogg.

EdgeCase

Davidson is also not an MP in Westminster, which doesn't help.

Given the toxicity of the Tories and the Scottish dislike of them, no matter how nice and progressive she may be personally, she might not even secure a seat in Westminster. She has a good chance of it but, you'd never know. Brexit and the extreme stuff going on in the English Tories might cause big issues for the Scottish Tories generally.

My view is she should probably be better off trying to create a new progressive centrist party. She's got the personality, profile and skills to do it.

Peregrinus

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Looking at the list of candidates to replace Theresa May does not fill me with hope. The only would I would view in any positive way is Ruth Davidson who seems like a liberal Tory who recognises the need for real change. Sadly, she's both inexperienced and behind big names like Gove, Johnson and Rees-Mogg.

. . . and also not an MP, which definitively excludes her. She is an MSP, and First Minister of Scotland; she has no role at Westminster.

EdgeCase

Peregrinus wrote: »

. . . and also not an MP, which definitively excludes her. She is an MSP, and First Minister of Scotland; she has no role at Westminster.

She's not the First Minister. That's Nicola Sturgeon of the SNP. https://firstminister.gov.scot/

Davidson is just the leader of the Scottish Tories and the opposition in Holyrood.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

There are 10 months to Brexit. How many months do you imagine it would take to negotiate a keep-the-food-coming deal with the EU after they give up on a real Withdrawal agreement? After one is agreed, how many months to implement it at every UK port?

Is the total more or less than 10? If they don't start now, but wait for utter failure in October, there will be 5 months with Christmas in the middle.

I don't think they would need a keep-the-food-coming deal with the EU. They could unilaterally abolish tariffs on food (or selected foods) imported from the EU or, if they wished to avoid strife with the WTO, from anywhere in the world. In that scenario, EU producers who sell into the UK could continue to do so on the current terms, and the EU would not stop them. Why would they want to? Even if they did want to, what would be their legal basis for doing so?

There would still be a problem, since the food would have to move through UK ports which would be congested for other reasons, but of course the UK controls its own ports; they could prioritise the handling of food imports and, again, they don't need any agreement with the EU to do that.

What the UK can't do unilaterally is maintain its exports to the EU. This includes the export, so to speak, of things like aviation services. The would need an agreement with the EU not just to export food tariff-free to the EU but even to allow UK-licensed and certified aircraft to land at EU airports, to allow UK airlines to operate EU routes, etc, etc. And since they'd fall out of the similar arrangements that already exist between the EU and the US, they'd need to put something similar in place with the US p.d.q. And all kinds of other technical and regulatory arrangements and agreements would need to be put in place. But, as regards basic imports, the UK can admit any or all of these on an unrestricted basis without requiring the agreement of any other country, if it chooses to.

Peregrinus

EdgeCase wrote: »

She's not the First Minister. That's Nicola Sturgeon of the SNP.

Davidson is just the leader of the Scottish Tories and the opposition in Holyrood.

D'oh!

EdgeCase

I was looking for opinion polling from Scotland and it generally seems less frequent than I'd have expected. Nothing very recent, unless someone has a better source they could link?

LeinsterDub

Enzokk wrote: »

It could be, if she resigns it doesn't mean a election will happen. That would be up to the new leader/PM and I don't think they would gamble like she did and lose more than they did last time.

Doesn't a GE require Labour support due to the fixed term parliament requirement? Do you think they'd be interested in a GE?

ancapailldorcha

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Doesn't a GE require Labour support due to the fixed term parliament requirement? Do you think they'd be interested in a GE?

Absolutely! Having fewer seats won't change their situation too much. Winning will mean being able to enact their manifesto.

Enzokk

More waffle from the PM at PMQ's on the customs union. The UK will apparently leave the EU and customs union to make their own trade deals. They will also assure there is no border. They also wants as frictionless trade as possible. Then she asks what the Labour position is.

Why does she worry about the Labour position? It's not like she will take their advice, they are not going to affect the policy nor are they negotiating with the EU. It's all about point scoring and trying to look strong but in reality she is so weak, the fact that she is the PM is an indictment of where the UK finds itself right now.

Peregrinus

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Doesn't a GE require Labour support due to the fixed term parliament requirement? Do you think they'd be interested in a GE?

Yes, Labour would be interested in a GE, but for that very reason the Tories wouldn't.

I don't see a new Tory leader (if there is one) seeking an early general election. And, with the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, it would hard to force him to a GE that he didn't want.