Brexit discussion thread III

cml387

The history of British/Australian co operation on rocketry has not always been, well, happy.The Brits tested rockets in Woomera in the 1960's,witnessed by unimpressed Aussie staff in the bars and canteens of the test range.

From "Backroom Boys" by Francis Spufford:

"'So' said a grinning Aussie, 'Did ya launch ya rocket?' No said the brits bitterly,they had not launched their rocket, as it happened.Mutter mutter wind mutter mutter wind shear mutter mutter bloody desert.
'Aww' said the Aussie.'Did the wind blow ya match out?' Instant brawl"

Nody

CelticRambler wrote: »

UK will build own satellite system if frozen out of EU's Galileo

Can we simply add up the promises for recollection please?

• 8 billion for a new GPS (but UK engineers are so smart they can do it for 5 billion only)
• A brand new MaxPac IT system for borderless border checks in NI
• 350 million a week to NHS so about 18 billion a year
• What have we missed that the Tories are funding after Brexit and have built the new money tree of free trade agreements around the world?

Capt'n Midnight

Nody wrote: »

Can we simply add up the promises for recollection please?

• 8 billion for a new GPS (but UK engineers are so smart they can do it for 5 billion only)
• A brand new MaxPac IT system for borderless border checks in NI
• 350 million a week to NHS so about 18 billion a year
• What have we missed that the Tories are funding after Brexit and have built the new money tree of free trade agreements around the world?

actually that 18 billion a year will just about pay for customs paperwork and country of origin paperwork

Sam Russell

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

actually that 18 billion a year will just about pay for customs paperwork and country of origin paperwork

You have forgotten the farm payments, the regional payments, the cost of the IT systems for HMRC for the customs system, the extra customs officers, and the extra Border Force personnel.

Plus all those extra people in the Home Office writing apology letters to all thos Windrush Generation unfairly treated, and all those EU citizens sent threatening letters.

And of course, the 10,000 civil servants employed in the Dept for Exiting the EU. [That will cost about £1 billion / year].

I think they would need more than one magic money tree - a whole forest of them.

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Russell wrote: »

You have forgotten the farm payments, the regional payments, the cost of the IT systems for HMRC for the customs system, the extra customs officers, and the extra Border Force personnel.

Plus all those extra people in the Home Office writing apology letters to all thos Windrush Generation unfairly treated, and all those EU citizens sent threatening letters.

And of course, the 10,000 civil servants employed in the Dept for Exiting the EU. [That will cost about £1 billion / year].

I think they would need more than one magic money tree - a whole forest of them.

And the £1 Bn to the DUP

the £5 Bn to build their own GPS system

and the loss of ESA contracts for space stuff

and ...

there's about 20 different EU agencies they'll need to replicate

they import half their food, so either WTO tariffs, or decimating UK farmers by opening up to world prices

Infini

So "Brexit means Bollox" eh?

They get shut out of Galileo because its an EU project that the UK agreed to in 2011 but when it come's down to it they'll be locked out because they decided to leave and forfeit access. They get upset when the facts go against them so now they're gonna build their own GPS system? With blackjack and hookers too maybe?

Honestly their stupidity is just pathetic at this point.

An Claidheamh

I'm just wondering if Britain are just going to pretend that their plan was not rejected by the EU, is it genuinely not time the EU did break off negotiating?

They're wasting our time, and preventing a head start for Irish/EU businesses in sorting themselves.

Or at least, should there be a grand conference of the EU 27 to help fill in the gaps left from Brexit, like literally find new sources for British products?

Ironically Napoleon Bonaparte attempted this!



*That said, ever since the backstop/Sea border arrangement was made it was clear Britain were just running down the clock to eventually shaft the unionists.

It seems so obvious to me.

I wouldn't be surprised if Varadkar/Barnier were actually told this.

Sam Russell

The EU appear to be discussing UK citizens rights in the EU with most of the EU27 favouring a simple approach.

The Guardian has a piece on it.

Majority of EU27 favour 'simple' approach on Britons’ residency
Only about 10 countries likely to use system similar to that planned by UK for EU nationals

A majority of the EU27 do not plan to force UK nationals living within their borders to apply for a special residency status after Brexit, in contrast to the UK government’s treatment of EU nationals.

An initial meeting of officials and diplomats in Brussels on the treatment of UK nationals post-Brexit found a mood in favour of a “smooth and simple” approach.

Governments across Europe have different approaches to dealing with foreign EU nationals who move to live in their country, with some encouraging or demanding registration.

Many in the meeting on Friday expressed the view that imposing an additional mandatory system on British nationals in their country would prove an unnecessary complication and expense.

I think the UK's 85 page document for permanent residency and charge of £72 is more than a bit over the top. A simple registration system is all that is needed. I assume the vast majority have a National Insurance number, and that should be all that is needed, plus an affirmation that one is an EU citizen and is resident in the UK.

Capt'n Midnight

some snippets of news


Sometimes it's hard to know if someone who wants to live in the UK has a genuine case to do so. EU citizens need to have some confidence in the system.

Apparently working with the UK army on the front line in Afghanistan for up to 13 years where going home means a very definite risk of being killed doesn't really count.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44251343

"It is impossible to reconcile the generosity of the Redundancy Scheme with the utter failure of the Intimidation Scheme to relocate even a single locally employed citizen to the United Kingdom,"
...
The interpreters who worked on the battlefield in Helmand Province had said they faced deportation if they could not find the £2,398 per person to apply for indefinite leave to remain once their visas expired.

An independent Scotland would keep the pound for at least 10 years under proposals set out by the SNP's Growth Commission. indyef2 is about economics




Could resist the lyrics
Is this the real life?
Is this just fantasy?
Caught in a landslide
No escape from reality
Open your eyes
Look up to the skies and see
....
Gallileo, Gallileo,
Gallileo, Gallileo,
Gallileo Figaro - magnifico
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44251337

Labour seized on Mr Hammond's comments, suggesting they showed the government was willing to spend "billions of pounds" on an alternative space programme at a time of continuing austerity in public services.

Governor of the Bank of England warns of devil or deep blue sea choices

People's incomes had been squeezed and spending had been cut back, he said, leaving households 4% worse off than the Bank expected before the referendum
...
"For example, if the transition were disorderly, or the end state agreement materially worse than the average potential outcome, then the MPC [the Monetary Policy Committee, which sets interest rates] could once again be confronted by a trade-off between the speed with which it returns inflation to target and the support policy provides to jobs and activity.

Trump is still making noises about increasing tariffs on imported cars 1 in 7 cars made in the UK are exported to the US* A cynic might suggest that the best deal the UK might get now would be a reduction on any new tariffs rather than getting a deal better than the EU already enjoys with the current ones.

*60% go to the EU and Turkey which takes EU customs rules.





It's the economy stupid. all recent evidence I've seen suggests that the general public are tightening their belts and deferring big purchases, and getting deeper in debt, and future interest rises will affect those owing money and mortgages.

Big names such as Toys R Us and Maplin have collapsed, while chains including Marks and Spencer, Mothercare, Carpetright, New Look and House of Fraser plan to close hundreds of shops in a bid to shore up their finances.

Labour also promising £1 Bn for NI Corbyn waffled on a bit but nothing definite about Brexit. As the money is for Naval stuff then AFAIK there would be no EU problems if the "national security" card was played.

This is a joke, May expects the UK to be allowed EU access as the only country of the 28 not subject to the ECJ. Corbyn wants to ditch the baby with the bathwater, the common market makes it harder to nationalise industries, but there ways and means around that provided it's about getting the best deal for the workers rather than about pure ideology for it's own sake. What ever happened to "politics is the art of the possible" or realpolitik ? The winner takes all UK political system has a lot to answer for.

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think the UK's 85 page document for permanent residency and charge of £72 is more than a bit over the top. A simple registration system is all that is needed. I assume the vast majority have a National Insurance number, and that should be all that is needed, plus an affirmation that one is an EU citizen and is resident in the UK.

They have promised to reduce the 85 pages to something more manageable

£72 is dirt cheap compared to non-EU visas. The Afghan translators will need £2,398 to apply for indefinite leave. This would , if granted, give them the same rights as the Windrush generation :rolleyes:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukia/2018/59/pdfs/ukia_20180059_en.pdf

The Government aims to achieve a self-funded immigration system by the end of the current
spending review period in 2019/20, where the costs of front-line Border, Immigration and
Citizenship operations are to be recovered through fees paid by those who use the system

http://theconversation.com/when-britain-can-deport-eu-citizens-according-to-the-law-86896

In the year ending June 2017, 5,301 EU citizens were deported from the UK, a 20% rise compared to the previous year. This is a troubling figure, especially considering that the law supposedly protects EU citizens from deportation.

Sam Russell

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

They have promised to reduce the 85 pages to something more manageable

£72 is dirt cheap compared to non-EU visas. The Afghan translators will need £2,398 to apply for indefinite leave. This would , if granted, give them the same rights as the Windrush generation :rolleyes:

There used to be a policy by the USA that charged the same for visas to foreign nationals at the same rate that that country charged USA citizens for a visa. So if India charged $85 for a visa for a USA citizen, then the USA charged an Indian national $85, but since Ireland did not charge for visas, then neither did the USA charge Irish citizens.

This to me is a just system. Unfortunately, the USA have gone away from this approach. They even have a premium rate telephone line for queries.

I think that the EU should adopt a similar scheme where they charge British application the same rate as Britain charges. It would be transparent and just.

Lemming

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

This would , if granted, give them the same rights as the Windrush generation :rolleyes:

Such a comforting thought ...

Sam Russell

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

This would , if granted, give them the same rights as the Windrush generation.

As compared with the bums rush they have now.

Capt'n Midnight

News , but not really new.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44266857

Speaking in Lisbon, Michel Barnier said the UK needed to stop playing "hide and seek" and instead clarify its demands.
...
"It is the UK which is leaving the EU. It cannot, in the act of leaving, ask us to change what we are and how we function," Mr Barnier said.

LeinsterDub

The prime minister believes that it would be wrong for Westminster to legislate on a matter that should be decided by the devolved administration in Belfast and ministers fear that imposing pro-choice laws on Northern Ireland could backfire]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/27/theresa-may-oppose-vote-northern-ireland-abortion-law

So the Brexit power grab is grand, pulling Scotland and NI out of Europe is grand but when it comes to abortion it's wrong to impose laws on the North

Capt'n Midnight

More soundbytes, it's a bank holiday weekend in the UK.


Brexit: I don't wish to be PM, says Jacob Rees-Mogg

"I wouldn't challenge Theresa May. That's a ridiculous idea. The prime minister has my full support," he told the BBC's Andrew Marr show.

"I don't wish to be prime minister," he added, saying his "only ambition" was to make Brexit happen.

also Jacob Rees-Mogg says Ruth Davidson should not be allowed to marry


http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-44271370

The author of the SNP's Growth Commission report has said an independent Scotland should aim to be a full member of the European Union.

Theresa May facing calls for abortion reform in NI
DUP are going to love this.
On a separate note this means they can use this to keep Stornmount closed as it's a better excuse than the Irish Language thing.



Sinn Fein calls for united Ireland referendum following abortion poll

Seth Brundle

Spent time this morning in the gym listening to various YouTube conversations between James O'Brien and some pro-Brexit callers.
Comedy gold!
https://youtu.be/7TMq0Q2EvdM (there's links to other vids from here)

Ewan Hoosarmi

I spent a while this afternoon chatting with a guy from a leafy North London suburb. He's a recently retired IT professional, is well educated and any time I have spoken with him previously, I considered him to be quite smart.


We strayed onto Brexit (a subject I have previously avoided) and I was gobsmacked by the stuff he came out with today. Some quotes are " well we're just going to call Ireland's bluff on the border issue" when I pointed out that he should be saying Europe, not Ireland, and there is no bluff, he actually said " it's a border between Ireland and the UK, we'll work it out between us". Again I tried to point out that the border is between the EU and the UK; he just waved it away.


Then he really got going. ""England doesn't need the EU, the EU needs us, we're a huge market etc, etc,,," I said England?? He said "yes, we (England) don't need NI, it's a sinkhole for money, let them away. We don't need Wales either, they have nothing to offer. Scotland will probably vote to break away, let them off too. WE don't need anyone but the English. The city of London if far too important to the EU to let it go.....". "The economy will shrink by 10% and we'll make this up in a couple of years...."



This and more came from someone I wouldn't consider to be a knuckle-dragger. The arrogance was astounding. The Empire will conquer all!



Towards the end I put it to him that the UK would have been better off fully committing to the EU and become a main player, a driver: to change it from the top. This idea seemed foreign to his thinking, as in alien foreign.



I don't think there is any hope of bringing the middle and upper classes around on this issue. The cause is lost. The working class will just blindly follow on and bear the brunt of the pain and suffering. Sad really.

EdgeCase

This notion that the EU “needs” the City of London is utterly diluted thinking. It neither needs it for practical reasons nor will it be keen to treat it any different to Wall Street or Hong Kong. Why exactly would the EU offer preferential terms to London? It would be illogical and totally unfair on New York and elsewhere.

They don’t seem to get what being a third country means and for all the ranting and raving about how much they dislike the EU, they still make an incredibly naive assumption that they can retain all the bits.

From an EU perspective, it also is a golden opportunity to clean up and regulate finance to prevent another 2008. The City or London has been a huge thorn in the side of EU and ECB regulators and also has been overshadowing the development of bigger financial services hubs within the Eurozone, which is far preferable to being stuck with this weird arrangement of a semi detached regulatory haven that seems to openly hate the very concept of the EU.

Just because London is physically closer doesn’t mean very much. There isn’t even a sense of political solidarity or nostalgia to build on. They’re openly hostile to the EU and seem to just want it to fail or be abolished.

Infini

Ewan Hoosarmi wrote: »

I spent a while this afternoon chatting with a guy from a leafy North London suburb. He's a recently retired IT professional, is well educated and any time I have spoken with him previously, I considered him to be quite smart.


We strayed onto Brexit (a subject I have previously avoided) and I was gobsmacked by the stuff he came out with today. Some quotes are " well we're just going to call Ireland's bluff on the border issue" when I pointed out that he should be saying Europe, not Ireland, and there is no bluff, he actually said " it's a border between Ireland and the UK, we'll work it out between us". Again I tried to point out that the border is between the EU and the UK; he just waved it away.


Then he really got going. ""England doesn't need the EU, the EU needs us, we're a huge market etc, etc,,," I said England?? He said "yes, we (England) don't need NI, it's a sinkhole for money, let them away. We don't need Wales either, they have nothing to offer. Scotland will probably vote to break away, let them off too. WE don't need anyone but the English. The city of London if far too important to the EU to let it go.....". "The economy will shrink by 10% and we'll make this up in a couple of years...."



This and more came from someone I wouldn't consider to be a knuckle-dragger. The arrogance was astounding. The Empire will conquer all!



Towards the end I put it to him that the UK would have been better off fully committing to the EU and become a main player, a driver: to change it from the top. This idea seemed foreign to his thinking, as in alien foreign.



I don't think there is any hope of bringing the middle and upper classes around on this issue. The cause is lost. The working class will just blindly follow on and bear the brunt of the pain and suffering. Sad really.

Ill be honest if that's his thinking I would simply have said "be careful what you wish for" because if the UK breaks up over this he'll be seriously screwed over down the line.

Rain Ascending

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

News , but not really new.


Quote:
Speaking in Lisbon, Michel Barnier said the UK needed to stop playing "hide and seek" and instead clarify its demands.
...
"It is the UK which is leaving the EU. It cannot, in the act of leaving, ask us to change what we are and how we function," Mr Barnier said.
__

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44266857

The BBC have missed a much bigger story, probably because the speech is all in French. Richard North's pro-Brexit EUReferendum blog goes into it in a lot more detail. I've had a look at a Google Translate version of the speech and I'd agree with his interpretation.

Basically, Barnier has put the issue of governance for the Withdrawal Agreement on the same level as the Northern Ireland border, in its potential for being a show-stopper for the Withdrawal Agreement negotiations. He insists that there needs to be a proper legal mechanism for dispute resolution and where the dispute has to do with EU law then the ECJ must have jurisdiction. The logic of the last point is simple: within the EU27, everybody else has to submit to the ECJ, so for consistency those in the UK have to do so as well.

Politically, this is another stick of dynamite for Theresa May. The UK government has agreed to the jurisdiction of the ECJ, but only for the transition period, not for the Withdrawal Agreement as a whole. Evidently, to date, the UK government has only proposed a "political" committee to resolve disputes, no legal mechanisms at all.

North doesn't go into detail on the political ramifications -- politics and PR are not his strong suit -- regulation and trade are where he excels. But there are a number of implications that I can think of:

• If there is no movement by Theresa May by June on either governance or Northern Ireland then Barnier can recommend suspension of the talks without the Dublin government having to take a strong public position as being the ones that effectively called a halt to the negotiations. While I've no doubt that Varadkar and Coveney are ready to take the pressure if needed, this makes their lives a lot easier.
• In a way, Barnier's main audience here are the EU27 governments. Hence the speech is in French with no English translation (yet!) on the EU's website. He's giving everybody the heads-up as to the importance of the issue and is looking to avoid any of the governments being surprised in June.
• There are a number of possible counter strategies open to the UK government to get through June, but they all involve significant compromise. Plus ca change! It is interesting to note how EEA membership would resolve all this for the UK at a stroke and indeed looks politically a tough but feasible sell ... if it weren't for that little hurdle called "Freedom of Movement". Which brings us neatly back to Ivan Roger's proposal.

Fudge definitely has a use-by date of 28 June. We are now guaranteed that at least some of the batch will go toxic on that date.

An Ciarraioch

Rain Ascending wrote: »

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

News , but not really new.


Quote:
Speaking in Lisbon, Michel Barnier said the UK needed to stop playing "hide and seek" and instead clarify its demands.
...
"It is the UK which is leaving the EU. It cannot, in the act of leaving, ask us to change what we are and how we function," Mr Barnier said.
__

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44266857

The BBC have missed a much bigger story, probably because the speech is all in French. Richard North's pro-Brexit EUReferendum blog goes into it in a lot more detail. I've had a look at a Google Translate version of the speech and I'd agree with his interpretation.

Basically, Barnier has put the issue of governance for the Withdrawal Agreement on the same level as the Northern Ireland border, in its potential for being a show-stopper for the Withdrawal Agreement negotiations. He insists that there needs to be a proper legal mechanism for dispute resolution and where the dispute has to do with EU law then the ECJ must have jurisdiction. The logic of the last point is simple: within the EU27, everybody else has to submit to the ECJ, so for consistency those in the UK have to do so as well.

Politically, this is another stick of dynamite for Theresa May. The UK government has agreed to the jurisdiction of the ECJ, but only for the transition period, not for the Withdrawal Agreement as a whole. Evidently, to date, the UK government has only proposed a "political" committee to resolve disputes, no legal mechanisms at all.

North doesn't go into detail on the political ramifications -- politics and PR are not his strong suit -- regulation and trade are where he excels. But there are a number of implications that I can think of:

• If there is no movement by Theresa May by June on either governance or Northern Ireland then Barnier can recommend suspension of the talks without the Dublin government having to take a strong public position as being the ones that effectively called a halt to the negotiations. While I've no doubt that Varadkar and Coveney are ready to take the pressure if needed, this makes their lives a lot easier.
• In a way, Barnier's main audience here are the EU27 governments. Hence the speech is in French with no English translation (yet!) on the EU's website. He's giving everybody the heads-up as to the importance of the issue and is looking to avoid any of the governments being surprised in June.
• There are a number of possible counter strategies open to the UK government to get through June, but they all involve significant compromise. Plus ca change! It is interesting to note how EEA membership would resolve all this for the UK at a stroke and indeed looks politically a tough but feasible sell ... if it weren't for that little hurdle called "Freedom of Movement". Which brings us neatly back to Ivan Roger's proposal.

Fudge definitely has a use-by date of 28 June. We are now guaranteed that at least some of the batch will go toxic on that date.

Not sure I'd call the EU Referendum blog "pro-Brexit", he has essentially called for the UK to remain in the Single Market in various posts.

Rain Ascending

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Not sure I'd call the EU Referendum blog "pro-Brexit", he has essentially called for the UK to remain in the Single Market in various posts.

Depends on your definition, I suppose. Perhaps pro-Leave might be a less loaded term?

He was a leading light of the small group of people pushing for the UK to leave the EU, but stay in the EEA ... at least in the short- to medium-term. From his own account, they were frozen out of both of the two main Leave campaigns. Not surprising really: phrases like "take back control" and "take control of our borders" would have had to become a lot more nuanced with that approach and less effective as vote winners. (Of course, post-referendum, both phrases have proved to be traps for the UK body politic.)

Peregrinus

Brexit-backing MP Priti Patel has called for an investigation into spending by the Remain campaign. This follows the Electoral Commission having fined the Leave campaign £70,000 for breaches of electoral law, and having referred its CEO to the police for prosecution.

She's obviously trying to limit the reputational damage to the Leave campaign by suggesting or showing that, basically, they are all at it. But with a Brexiter's unerring instinct for missing the point, she fails to understand that exposing hanky-panky in the Remain campaign may make the Leave campaign look less awful, but it makes the outcome of the referendum look more awful. Multiple breaches of law on both sides don't cancel one another out; they add up, and further undermine democratic legitimacy.

The Remain campaign has a reason for wanting to undermine the legitimacy of the referendum result, but the Leave campaign does not. But this subtlety seems to have escaped Priti.

brian_gall85

Patel knows all about illegality doesn't she?

I'd think somebody who repeatedly broke ministerial code would be flying very far under the radar, but not in Brexitland....she'll probably be PM by Christmas...

Zubeneschamali

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Not sure I'd call the EU Referendum blog "pro-Brexit", he has essentially called for the UK to remain in the Single Market in various posts.

That was absolutely the Pro-brexit mainstream position before May took them off the rails after the Referendum. There is loads of video of them saying no-one is talking about leaving the Single market, them admiring the Norwegian model etc. etc.

Enzokk

Peregrinus wrote: »

Brexit-backing MP Priti Patel has called for an investigation into spending by the Remain campaign. This follows the Electoral Commission having fined the Leave campaign £70,000 for breaches of electoral law, and having referred its CEO to the police for prosecution.

She's obviously trying to limit the reputational damage to the Leave campaign by suggesting or showing that, basically, they are all at it. But with a Brexiter's unerring instinct for missing the point, she fails to understand that exposing hanky-panky in the Remain campaign may make the Leave campaign look less awful, but it makes the outcome of the referendum look more awful. Multiple breaches of law on both sides don't cancel one another out; they add up, and further undermine democratic legitimacy.

The Remain campaign has a reason for wanting to undermine the legitimacy of the referendum result, but the Leave campaign does not. But this subtlety seems to have escaped Priti.

I will be kind to Priti Patel and say that this is a tactic to throw some mud at the situation and the position Vote Leave find themselves in. I will not suggest that she is as naive and brainless to think that the way impartiality works is if you find against one party you actually have to investigate the other party or drop the investigation otherwise you are biased.

I mean imagine having someone who thinks that the only way to be balanced is to investigate both parties if one did something illegal. Maybe don't breach the law and then don't get investigated. This is another black mark against the worst PM of all time. The people she thinks should be in cabinet speaks to her utter ineptitude to be PM. This is a shambles, not only because the premise of Brexit is flawed, but because the person leading them to Brexit and her cabinet is full of the worst of the worst politicians that the UK can offer. The only slight positive for Theresa May is that she hasn't promoted JRM yet, but then again she may have wanted him and he refused a role.

Leroy42

JRM was on the talk shows yesterday still discussion the role that to £40bn payment can play, basically that it is lots of money and the EU need it to balance the books and the UK only agreed to it on the basis of getting a trade deal.

The interviewer never brought up that the payment would be spread over x number of years and so was not the windfall he portrayed it as.
The interviewer never brought up that only that week the minister had told a select committee that it was going to be paid regardless
The interviewer never asked him what the cost of a no deal would be. It stands to reason that any deal they agree to would be better than a no deal (otherwise they wouldn't make a deal) so what is the difference and is it more than 40bn given that HMRC came out during the week claiming business admin costs of a max fac process would be £20bn per annum
The interviewer never asked why they had agreed to the £40bn in the 1st place (goes back to the point above) and why they would be looking to lose out on that.
The interviewer never asked JRM what the costs of Brexit actually would be. Extra staff, extra admin, extra delays etc etc etc.

And this is the core of the problem. The likes of JRM come on with what seem like very thoughtful and sensible positions. "Yeah, why should we pay £40bn for nothing". Who could argue with that? You can understand that someone not invested in the process would see that I conclude that the UK simply needs to get tougher.

CelticRambler

At this stage in the process, it doesn't really seem like there's anything to be gained by challenging people like JRM or Nigel Farage. They avoid directly answering any question that might expose their position's logical weakness (or outright nonsense); and as in Ewan Hoosarmi's example above, what difference is it going to make anyway?

The Guardian, in the last few days, has carried various articles on subjects that touch directly or indirectly on the actuality and consequences of Brexit, but who - in the Brexit camp - will accept any of it as true?

Eurotunnel warns on Tory plans for post-Brexit customs The reality of taking back control of those borders ...

“Those goods feed industry, retail, and consumers and are delivered just in time, just in sequence and just when we need them. Additional checks at the border would delay the speed and frequency of delivery, result in wastage and lost production, and add to costs for consumers.”

He added that technology to prevent delays already existed, but said nothing could be planned or built until the UK and EU had decided on their future trading arrangements. Only then could precise specifications for checking goods be determined, equipment built, staff trained, and people educated about the new situation.

UK farmers warn of soft fruit shortage Perhaps more of a perfect storm than directly due to Brexit but still ...

“Normally we have 10 people being interviewed by our agency for every job,” said Stephanie Maurel, the chief executive of Concordia which supplies around 10,000 foreign workers to 200 farms in the UK each year.

“As of a month ago we are putting three or four job offers in front of each seasonal worker from Bulgaria and Romania. They are picking and choosing the ones they will come to. There has been a total switch around in 12 months. We’ve never had this before.”

(There's a few thousand lads hanging around Calais that'd be glad of a job in Britain - I wonder if anyone's thought of bringing them over ... )

Chicken safety fear as chlorine washing fails bacteria tests

The investigation, by a team of microbiologists from Southampton University and published in the US journal mBio, found that bacilli such as listeria and salmonella remain completely active after chlorine washing. The process merely makes it impossible to culture them in the lab, giving the false impression that the chlorine washing has been effective.

Yeah, but what you don't know won't hurt you! :pac: Besides, millions of Americans live happily with their daily dose of hormone-laden beef, chlorinated chicken and opiate-infused shellfish ...

Then again, seen from across the pond: In Britain, Austerity Is Changing Everything

A wave of austerity has yielded a country that has grown accustomed to living with less, even as many measures of social well-being — crime rates, opioid addiction, infant mortality, childhood poverty and homelessness — point to a deteriorating quality of life.

It has refashioned British society, making it less like the rest of Western Europe, with its generous social safety nets and egalitarian ethos, and more like the United States, where millions lack health care and job loss can set off a precipitous plunge in fortunes.

When you read articles like these, you'd think that the UK/England is going to be the next Greece. With the shenanigans it Italy aswell, maybe we should tell Barnier and Junker that we don't need the EU to be too closely aligned with yet another basket-case economy.

LuckyLloyd

I watched Andrew Marr's interview in mild horror tbh. I can account his soft treatment of Mogg to one of two things:

1) He is uninformed on the detail of the key issues
2) He likes Mogg and his politics and agrees with him

Either is extremely poor for what is supposed to be a linchpin of BBC's political coverage and scrutiny.

I can see how Mogg is beloved by Brexiteers, there's only one country in the world he could come from and he offers simplicity on the issues. Of course, that simplicity doesn't stand up to the smallest bit of examination or digging, but Brexiteers don't care about that. The latter part of the interview lingered a little on the other side of Mogg: he's an extremely wealthy man who has global investment interests and a light touch regulation Britain is probably in his selfish personal interests. But, of course, Marr gave him an easy ride on that topic too.

An Ciarraioch

Keir Starmer suggests that, at present, the form of Brexit pursued by May would fail Labour's "six tests":

https://mobile.twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1000832806652653569

Of course, the problem here is that if the Commons rejects a final deal, then the UK crashes out with no deal, the Lords amendment returning negotiating power to Parliament notwithstanding.

Enzokk

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Keir Starmer suggests that, at present, the form of Brexit pursued by May would fail Labour's "six tests":

https://mobile.twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1000832806652653569

Of course, the problem here is that if the Commons rejects a final deal, then the UK crashes out with no deal, the Lords amendment returning negotiating power to Parliament notwithstanding.

I am getting a little upset by Labour at the moment. You have some sense from their side but I also get the feeling that recently the talk has been all about nationalization of key industries and subsidizing those industries as well. If the leadership pursues that line of thinking they offer nothing more or less than the Tories with Brexit. The UK will be inwardly looking and will cut itself off from the wider world to pursue ideological ideals that isn't compatible with the current status. If they want to change the status then they should man up and state it, not hide behind vague messages that is very much having their cake and eating it as well.

Now I feel we shouldn't harp on too long on the Labour position as they are not in power so it really doesn't matter what they propose as it won't get through parliament. But they should get their act together and state where the leadership stands. If they break up the party then they have to live by it.

The 6 tests that Keir Starmer proposes seems reasonable for me, then again I wanted the UK to remain to minimize the damage to Ireland. Just too bad he cannot get Jeremy Corbyn to back this as well. Corbyn will take lumps from the media in any case but if he stands by this then he should be out and say it. By being coy he really is making him look as weak as the PM, and that takes some doing.

Here is the 6 tests according to Starmer:

1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?

2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?

3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?

4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?

5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?

6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

Keir Starmer: Labour has six tests for Brexit – if they’re not met we won’t back the final deal in parliament

Enzokk

CelticRambler wrote: »

Chicken safety fear as chlorine washing fails bacteria tests


Yeah, but what you don't know won't hurt you! :pac: Besides, millions of Americans live happily with their daily dose of hormone-laden beef, chlorinated chicken and opiate-infused shellfish ...

The defence of chlorinated chicken has always been that if you cook it thoroughly it is fine. This doesn't change that point and I see no new reasons for Liam Fox to be worried by this. He will still insist that cooking the chicken will make it safe. The reasons not to allow it still very much stands but I doubt they will change tack without a change of leadership.

J Mysterio

Seems to me they are failing on 6 out of 6 tests.

Leroy42

Labour are being given far too much of an easy ride on this. It is the job of the opposition to point out the failures in the government, to force redirection when things are being done wrong.

By any measure, Brexit is being done wrong. Whether or not ones believes in the idea of Brexit, even the most ardent of Brexiteers would agree that May is doing a terrible job with it. And what are Labour doing? Nothing. A few smart comments, a few "You are terrible" jibes at PMQ's, but they are doing nothing to drive the consensus that there is another way. The most they are driving is that May is poor but sure who else could do any better.

Obviously the blame for this lies with the main Brexiteers, May and her government, and the Tories. But history will certainly look back at Labour and see that they stood idly by when faced with such a major issue. Their failure to either have a plan, or properly communicate it, means that even when they do raise legitimate concerns they are simply brushed aside with a sneering "well what do Labour propose, you don't even have a plan". Now the simple come back to that is "Well, if you have one, which I don't think you do, then it's a terrible one and clearly not working" before listing out all the areas that will be negatively effect, listing all the areas that haven't even been touched, by highlighting the clear danger to the Union as a whole; but instead they sheepishly grin and try to avoid any further debate for fear of pointing out that Corbyn is failing to offer anything even close to serious leadership.

Labour have effectively been neutered in terms of Brexit, with the main opposition being some Tory backbenchers and some rogue Labour MP's

Labour seem to be of the plan that letting the Tories screw this up will lead them into government and free to carry out a more socialist ideal. But they seem to have ignored the likely outcome that if Brexit results in the costs most commentators seem to suggest, then the UK will have no ability to deliver on their promises.

flatty

I honestly think that worst case scenario is a 20% hit for the UK, possibly more, resulting in a crime wave the likes of which hasn't been seen for a generation, and the breakup of the Union.
What I cannot figure, is how sterling is holding so strong.

Leroy42

flatty wrote: »

What I cannot figure, is how sterling is holding so strong.

Same as why did the markets hold up so well before the crash in 2008.

The markets are gambling that everything will work out in the end, nobody wants to be the 1st guy out and see others making profit.

Zubeneschamali

flatty wrote: »

What I cannot figure, is how sterling is holding so strong.

Currency trades are short term, and generally traders will assume that the Government are not lunatics.

Since a hard Brexit is utter lunacy, they are assuming that it won't happen. They have priced in what they think will happen short term, which is probably a long transition while the end-state is worked out.

If they ever come to believe a Hard Brexit is coming next March, Sterling will drop like a lead balloon.

LeinsterDub

Feta cheese, Parma ham, French cognac and Belgium’s sour lambic beers are the latest cause of indigestion in Brexit talks, after the EU stepped up demands on the UK to legislate to preserve the status of European speciality produce.
EU special status for regional food and drink has emerged as a new sticking point in the negotiations

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/28/brexit-indigestion-row-brewing-over-call-for-uk-laws-to-protect-likes-of-cognac-and-feta


So that's nuclear, trade , science , military and now the food. So much winning.

Peregrinus

J Mysterio wrote: »

Seems to me they are failing on 6 out of 6 tests.

And not only that, but their tests, like the Tories' red lines, are in some respects contradictory.

To satisfy test no. 2, the Brexit terms must obviously guarantee continued free movement, since this is one of the benefits British people have from the UK's membership of the single market. But how is a Brexit deal with includes free movement to be reconciled with test no. 3, ensuring " fair management of migration"? Does Labour think that "fair management of migration" can be acheived simply by regulating non-EU migrants? If so, what has it got to do with Brexit? If not, which of test 2 and test 3 do they propose to compromise on?

Enzokk

Peregrinus wrote: »

And not only that, but their tests, like the Tories' red lines, are in some respects contradictory.

To satisfy test no. 2, the Brexit terms must obviously guarantee continued free movement, since this is one of the benefits British people have from the UK's membership of the single market. But how is a Brexit deal with includes free movement to be reconciled with test no. 3, ensuring " fair management of migration"? Does Labour think that "fair management of migration" can be acheived simply by regulating non-EU migrants? If so, what has it got to do with Brexit? If not, which of test 2 and test 3 do they propose to compromise on?

The wording is sufficiently vague that it could just mean enforcing the three month rule of finding work in areas of the economy that is under pressure from migrants from the EU. It seems to me that Keir Starmer is basically advocating for the softest of Brexits, or even another referendum as those tests are EU membership. The leadership is causing the problems by either not endorsing this line of thought nor distancing themselves from it.

Just to point out that whatever they do I doubt it will have an effect on the PM or her cabinet. They are too busy fighting among themselves to be bothered by what Labour wants. But the indecision is giving TM a stick to beat them with which doesn't look great either. Wish they would stop giving the PM and the press an out to focus on when things are going awfully for them, at the same time if Jeremy Corbyn feels he cannot implement his objectives while the UK is in the EU why should be compromise? I feel he will eventually lose out on support if he continues pushing for a Brexit when the majority of his own support goes against him. It will take time, but it will happen.

LuckyLloyd

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2018/05/29/brexit-divorce-bill-theresa-mays-card-left-must-use/


- use the money as leverage
- remind the EU that 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed'

But, as the article notes itself, Britain hasn't been diligently preparing itself for a hard exit. I have faith that the EU - in so far as is possible - have been drafting contingency plans and guidance documents should the UK become a third country overnight. I also have little doubt that the EU will throw cash and support our way to start preparing for a hard border if this coming summit moves us further towards a hard Brexit.

Getting towards game time.

Zubeneschamali

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Getting towards game time.

So will May fold before the June summit, or bluff until October and then fold?

LuckyLloyd

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So will May fold before the June summit, or bluff until October and then fold?

She'll definitely try the latter option! :pac: It's time to pull them up on progress and narrow them down to committed points.

Nody

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So will May fold before the June summit, or bluff until October and then fold?

October? I expect her try to push it to February or March at least with "last minute negotiations" to intensify to 2 meetings a month...

Leroy42

I have a question.

Why is the NI border issue seen as so important when clearly our trade with Britain is far larger than any trade we do with NI? Is NI being used to try to force a retreat from Brexit by the UK?

I mean, I get the whole "nobody wants a border" thing, but surely the threat of violence is not any way to stick to a position?

I know May said there would be no border, but if faced with a decision of staying in the EU (in all but name) of agreeing to a border, surely there really is only 1 option for May given that many in her own party along with the DUP want this outcome.

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

I have a question.

Why is the NI border issue seen as so important when clearly our trade with Britain is far larger than any trade we do with NI? Is NI being used to try to force a retreat from Brexit by the UK?

I mean, I get the whole "nobody wants a border" thing, but surely the threat of violence is not any way to stick to a position?

I know May said there would be no border, but if faced with a decision of staying in the EU (in all but name) of agreeing to a border, surely there really is only 1 option for May given that many in her own party along with the DUP want this outcome.

The GFA was a carefully constructed agreement that allowed both sides to claim 'victory', i.e. a win/win. Anything that deconstructs the GFA will be seen as a win/lose situation. Creating a hard border is a serious slap in the face for Nationalists in NI. It's the equivalent of telling Unionists that there will be a border down the Irish Sea.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

I mean, I get the whole "nobody wants a border" thing, but surely the threat of violence is not any way to stick to a position?

Our border with Britain is just money. Barriers go up, trade goes down it costs a few bob.

Our border with the North is drawn in blood and lives, we cannot reverse the peace process. Much more important than 2% gdp or whatever.

joeysoap

If you have a border with NI ( a UK EU border, not an Ireland UK border) then you automatically have queues of trucks in Dover etc. I’d guess they want to avoid this and NI is they way out. But just not yet.

Leroy42

But isn't the Uk voting to leave EU not the more important point. The UK should be free to leave if they wish. Nationalists in NI are still part of the UK, whether they like that or not.

But again, if it comes down to a choice between border with ROI or the UK staying in the EU then I really don't see what option any UK government has given that Brexit was voted for.