Brexit discussion thread III

Zubeneschamali

Enzokk wrote: »

Maybe this is to do with Jeremy Corbyn now coming to the realisation that while there are parts of the EU that he may not agree with, it has been better for the UK economy and as a result better for the workers he represent.

part of it may also be the surge of younger voters for Labour, and the fact that young people in the UK are pro-EU, the poor feckers.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

Firstly - just because regulators don't want to move services doesn't mean that customers in those member states won't require them.

Secondly - I already answered the point about a clearing house collapsing. There are ways that this can be regulated by introducing (if they are not already there) stress tests like in US regulations for banks on clearing houses.

Thirdly - If the UK pursues MiFID II equivalence it will probably be joining the US and other countries in doing so. This article on Bloomberg is useful into looking into how it works with some US and EU examples with stocks.

Finally - I agree with you on bailouts. That's why there's been a heck of a lot of regulation in the banking sector since 2008. The US has been much more aggressive in recent years than the EU but hopefully Trump won't remove these controls. Dodd Frank was hugely important. MiFID II will do the same for the EU and the UK as it departs.

(Edit: you ask if I'm happy for the UK to take the risk on clearing Euro denominated derivatives - it already does so I guess yes I am provided the right regulation is in place)

I answered your question very clearly in my first post. I'm quite happy to align regulation with the EU if it means continued access to EU markets.

Okay, great to see you are coming around to the idea of "aligning" regulation if it is in the financial interest of the UK. We can have a debate whether aligning actually means just plain following or making their own rules to be roughly the same, but the point probably is that the UK will follow the rules of the EU. That is not taking control but for me that is neither here nor there.

On your link, the story you linked only has one regulator in France that doesn't want the clearing houses to be moved. The story where that is said is behind a subscription so I am not sure whether the view is that this is a permanent solution or just as the quote in the story says, abrupt relocation, which will hurt the EU economies. I am not sure if he would be in favour as others in the story suggest of either a gradual movement, or to keep it as is if the UK keeps on taking the risk and aligns itself with EU rules.

It seems to me that this isn't a victory for the UK, it is another climb down from what Brexit really means. The UK will have to accept EU rules to continue doing business in the EU and in this case they will continue taking the risks associated with these transactions. If anything I am for this, if a clearing house fails you as a UK tax payer will be paying that cost, not us here in Ireland. Its not as if this is cost that will be lost to the EU as it doesn't make money from this right now.

Peregrinus

murphaph wrote: »

He May be but Starmer says the price of leaving the SM and CU appears to be too high. Labour front bench are clearly indicating they would go for the softest of Brexits. They just need to formalise this position so the electorate can prevent the worst. So what if Corbyn is a spendthrift...at least there'll be something to spend if the cliff edge is avoided.

Labour, in theory, has the same diversity of opinion about Brexit as the Tories, but they have the advantage of being in opposition, so it doesn't get the same degree of scrutiny. That advantage would of course disappear were they to be returned to government.

But they have a second advantage which should be more enduring, which is that they have an opportunity to learn from the Tories' mistakes. May, starting out with having no Brexit objectives beyond platitudes ("Brexit means Brexit!") progressed to a series of inconsistent and contradictory objectives in an attempt to please the diversity of opinions within her own party. That's now coming home to roost in a big way.

Labour can see - everyone can see, at this point - that eventually you have to make choices, disappoint some people, even resile from some of the positions or objectives you have adopted in order to have a Brexit strategy that is actually functional and coherent. And it's much easier to make the necessary moves while you're in opposition. So that what they're doing now.

Plus, as murphaph points out, they have realistic coalition/minority government opportunities with the Scots Nats and the Lib Dems that the Tories don't have, and those opportunities are greatly enhanced by adopting a softer rather than harder Brexit stance.

Yes, Corbyn is leery of the EU, which he sees as a basically capitalist entity. But he's not absolutist about it; he campaigned to remain and says he would vote to remain again. You may think that this is because he can also see its progressive side with respect to workers rights, etc, or you may think its a cynical stance designed to attract political support but, either way, that's his stance. And having seen how hewing to a harder Brexit has worked out for the Tories, he's not now going to harden his, or Labour's, Brexit position. All the incentives, all the omens, point towards movement in the other direction.

Zubeneschamali

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But Labour are still a million miles away from getting anything like a strong parliamentary majority.

This is not true at all. Some polls have Labour 8% ahead of the Tories. Blair's Labour party got 9% more than the Tories in 2001, and won 413 seats to the Tories 165.

The fact that the British Media is still full of "Corbyn has narrow lead but not ready for Government" stories is because the British media is run by the same pack of rich boys who run the Tories and the Blairite wing of Labour, and these people think Corbyn is some sort of alien.

But if he got, say, a 5% edge in an election, he would wipe the floor with the Tories, whether the media think he is "ready" or not.

Zubeneschamali

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Obviously Brexit is a huge single issue but it's not the only issue and both Wales and Scotland will want as big a deal, if not a bigger one, than May gave the DUP.

The point of such a Labour/SNP government would be to give the whole UK the same deal - stay in the Single Market.

Peregrinus

The bookies all have Labour odds on to win most seats at the next general election and, historically, the bookies' odds have been better predictors of the outcomes than the polls. Just sayin'.

"Most seats" is not necessarily a majority but, as already noted, Labour has a lot more potential allies/supporters among the minor parties than the Tories do.

Labour will form the next government. And, whether it is a majority governent, a minority government or a Labour-led coalition, it cannot possibly be a worse government than the one the UK has now.

Junkyard Tom

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is not true at all.

I've been following this with a lot of interest, watching the polls, local election results etc and paying attention to the grass roots LAB growth.

I usually avoid making predictions but I reckon the Tories are out for at least the next two election cycles. Remarkably, the CONs aren't even absorbing the UKIP vote which has collapsed.

Enzokk

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

part of it may also be the surge of younger voters for Labour, and the fact that young people in the UK are pro-EU, the poor feckers.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is not true at all. Some polls have Labour 8% ahead of the Tories. Blair's Labour party got 9% more than the Tories in 2001, and won 413 seats to the Tories 165.

The fact that the British Media is still full of "Corbyn has narrow lead but not ready for Government" stories is because the British media is run by the same pack of rich boys who run the Tories and the Blairite wing of Labour, and these people think Corbyn is some sort of alien.

But if he got, say, a 5% edge in an election, he would wipe the floor with the Tories, whether the media think he is "ready" or not.

Its one of those things where we won't know if he really has changed his view or not. What I have seen is that he has been more exposed to the EU as leader of the opposition and he will have had to learn about the EU before going into discussions with them recently. It could be that this has changed his view, or that he still has reservations but sees the bigger picture. Either way I think all parties in the next election will have to nail their colours to the mast on Europe and having a consistent view is a good thing. He campaigned (reluctantly, but still did) for remain, and now he seems to be more open to the EU.

On their prospects in an election, it seems to me that people in the UK hasn't learned from the Labour surge of the last election. There is anger at the Conservatives for the past 7 years of governance and with Brexit I don't see this changing. It doesn't matter if people don't like him, but voting for another 5 years of the same will not be tolerated. The youth has also become more involved and if Labour can get the vote out again they will easily win a majority. There is a shift happening in the UK and people that keep telling you he will not be leader doesn't seem to correlate with the polls.

The Tories has also totally wrecked their own reputation on being the party that is responsible with the economy. That will not fly with the young voters who are suffering at the moment. When you hear stories from MPs about families that were lucky to have been invited to a funeral as they could get a meal that day, there is a problem in the UK that is being ignored by the press. They do this at their own peril.

solodeogloria

Enzokk wrote: »

Okay, great to see you are coming around to the idea of "aligning" regulation if it is in the financial interest of the UK. We can have a debate whether aligning actually means just plain following or making their own rules to be roughly the same, but the point probably is that the UK will follow the rules of the EU. That is not taking control but for me that is neither here nor there.

On your link, the story you linked only has one regulator in France that doesn't want the clearing houses to be moved. The story where that is said is behind a subscription so I am not sure whether the view is that this is a permanent solution or just as the quote in the story says, abrupt relocation, which will hurt the EU economies. I am not sure if he would be in favour as others in the story suggest of either a gradual movement, or to keep it as is if the UK keeps on taking the risk and aligns itself with EU rules.

It seems to me that this isn't a victory for the UK, it is another climb down from what Brexit really means. The UK will have to accept EU rules to continue doing business in the EU and in this case they will continue taking the risks associated with these transactions. If anything I am for this, if a clearing house fails you as a UK tax payer will be paying that cost, not us here in Ireland. Its not as if this is cost that will be lost to the EU as it doesn't make money from this right now.

Good morning!

Firstly - by aligning I mean applying for MiFID II equivalence like a third country. That would be on the same basis as America applying for this status. No more and no less. On Brexit day of course UK regulation would be exactly the same as EU regulation.

Secondly - on central counterparties / clearing houses again it is the job of regulators to mitigate against the risk of failure. Clearing already happens on a huge scale in London. From a quick Google I can see that clearing houses are already subject to liquidity limits (this mitigates against crashes like what you describe) and stress testing both across Europe and in the US. The UK is happy to take the risk and manage the risk and is pretty well rewarded for doing so.

Thirdly - I've always said for trading into the EU you need to follow EU rules. I.E for activity into the EU. In the same way for trading into the US you need to follow US rules. This applies to goods as well as services. What Brexit should deliver is ultimate control for what happens in Britain.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

Firstly - by aligning I mean applying for MiFID II equivalence like a third country. That would be on the same basis as America applying for this status. No more and no less. On Brexit day of course UK regulation would be exactly the same as EU regulation.

Secondly - on central counterparties / clearing houses again it is the job of regulators to mitigate against the risk of failure. Clearing already happens on a huge scale in London. From a quick Google I can see that clearing houses are already subject to liquidity limits (this mitigates against crashes like what you describe) and stress testing both across Europe and in the US. The UK is happy to take the risk and manage the risk and is pretty well rewarded for doing so.

Thirdly - I've always said for trading into the EU you need to follow EU rules. I.E for activity into the EU. In the same way for trading into the US you need to follow US rules. This applies to good as well as services. What Brexit should deliver is ultimate control for what happens in Britain.

On the equivalence, you are right that the UK can apply for MiFID equivalence. This ignores that it is EU rules that will need to be followed/have to change your own rules to be equivalent either way.

This is all that posters have been trying to say about Brexit. Its a crazy idea because the UK is so intertwined with the EU that unless they go at it alone, which will destroy the UK, they will have to accept EU rules. This will eventually include ECJ oversight on any EU matter. You may rail and shout about control and how the UK needs to extradite itself from the EU, but it will not be possible if the UK wants to have a close relationship with the EU.

The UK will accept EU rules, it will be written as equivalence, but the EU will change their rules without UK input and this will force the UK to do the same unless they want to lose access to the EU. The trade from outside the world will not replace the importance of the EU to the UK.

So it seems to me that the penny is finally dropping. The UK will not take back control from the EU as they need the EU. They will give up control to keep the GFA in tact. They will give up control to have access to EU markets and in the end they will give up control and pay to be part of EU institutions that currently do work for the UK that allows everyday life to go on.

On clearing houses, you posted the story that maybe they will not be leaving the UK as previously thought. That is fine, as the story points out the EU seems to want to think about it before pulling the trigger. This is because there is risk attached to it. What the story doesn't say is that this will be the majority view though. We will have to see how this plays out and at the end of the day this is a decision outside of the UK's control. Taking back control looks a lot like giving a lot of it up to me.

devnull

Having had a look around twitter and various UK sites this morning it's interesting to see there is somewhat of a change of tack from the Tories at the moment in relation to the border issue.

Iain Duncan Smith seems to be trying to spin the line that the current impasse is related to unreasonable demands of the EU in relation to the Irish border, rather than an domestic political issue.

It doesn't surprise me of such tactic - it's always been something the leave wing of the Tory party does, if they can't solve something, blame someone else and claim they are being unreasonable to take the heat off themselves.

FrancieBrady

devnull wrote: »

Having had a look around twitter and various UK sites this morning it's interesting to see there is somewhat of a change of tack from the Tories at the moment in relation to the border issue.

Iain Duncan Smith seems to be trying to spin the line that the current impasse is related to unreasonable demands of the EU in relation to the Irish border, rather than an domestic political issue.

It doesn't surprise me of such tactic - it's always been something the leave wing of the Tory party does, if they can't solve something, blame someone else and claim they are being unreasonable to take the heat off themselves.

The Dutch MEP, Verhoffstadt's deputy, on Newsnight BBC last night was resolute in her support of Ireland and withering about the seemingly new proposals coming out of Davis and the UK.
Kind of: 'Yeh, that is good to hear, but what is the point of Brexit then' was her line.

Blowfish

So, for anyone interested, David Davis is talking to the Exiting The European Union Committee here: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/887635ea-6bb5-4b0a-8bf7-3875507a319b.

He's just admitted that they haven't done any impact assessments of Brexit as part of the 'Sectoral Analysis'. At all. They have no idea how Brexit will affect the economy.

That's absolutely incredible incompetence.

ancapailldorcha

del_c wrote: »

Aye, perhaps we should get some strapping Essex lads in red berets to police it?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Perhaps the Argentinians would May help out by invading Gibraltar?

Stop posting nonsense please.

solodeogloria

Enzokk wrote: »

On the equivalence, you are right that the UK can apply for MiFID equivalence. This ignores that it is EU rules that will need to be followed/have to change your own rules to be equivalent either way.

This is all that posters have been trying to say about Brexit. Its a crazy idea because the UK is so intertwined with the EU that unless they go at it alone, which will destroy the UK, they will have to accept EU rules. This will eventually include ECJ oversight on any EU matter. You may rail and shout about control and how the UK needs to extradite itself from the EU, but it will not be possible if the UK wants to have a close relationship with the EU.

The UK will accept EU rules, it will be written as equivalence, but the EU will change their rules without UK input and this will force the UK to do the same unless they want to lose access to the EU. The trade from outside the world will not replace the importance of the EU to the UK.

So it seems to me that the penny is finally dropping. The UK will not take back control from the EU as they need the EU. They will give up control to keep the GFA in tact. They will give up control to have access to EU markets and in the end they will give up control and pay to be part of EU institutions that currently do work for the UK that allows everyday life to go on.

On clearing houses, you posted the story that maybe they will not be leaving the UK as previously thought. That is fine, as the story points out the EU seems to want to think about it before pulling the trigger. This is because there is risk attached to it. What the story doesn't say is that this will be the majority view though. We will have to see how this plays out and at the end of the day this is a decision outside of the UK's control. Taking back control looks a lot like giving a lot of it up to me.

Good morning!

What matters is the detail. If the UK has more control than today Brexit will be a success. I.E if it can remain outside the single market and customs union and align regulations in certain sectors.

If control of borders is regained, if control of trade policy is regained and the UK is no longer directly subject to ECJ rulings then Brexit will be a success even if there is regulatory alignment in some areas. That outcome would be much better than the status quo.

Let's see what is agreed.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Professor Moriarty

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Dutch MEP, Verhoffstadt's deputy, on Newsnight BBC last night was resolute in her support of Ireland and withering about the seemingly new proposals coming out of Davis and the UK.
Kind of: 'Yeh, that is good to hear, but what is the point of Brexit then' was her line.

Her response to a long question about if the EU/other 26 were completely behind Ireland's position on the border was a curt and steely "Yes". Another time she spoke about her irritation with Britain and was visibly angry. I don't think the UK realises how much they are annoying everyone else nor do they realise how much goodwill has already been further squandered and how much respect has been lost.

LeinsterDub

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

What matters is the detail. If the UK has more control than today Brexit will be a success. I.E if it can remain outside the single market and customs union and align regulations in certain sectors.

If control of borders is regained, if control of trade policy is regained and the UK is no longer directly subject to ECJ rulings then Brexit will be a success even if there is regulatory alignment in some areas. That outcome would be much better than the status quo.

Let's see what is agreed.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Align with regulations they'll have no say in making == A lose of control.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

If the UK has more control than today Brexit will be a success.

It will be a success in the sense that it delivers what you now (after your conversion to Brexit post-referendum) want.

It will make the UK poorer, which is not what most people regard as success, but how much poorer depends on how much of a success it is in your terms. The more successful it is in your terms, the more it will cost the UK.

FrancieBrady

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Her response to a long question about if the EU/other 26 were completely behind Ireland's position on the border was a curt and steely "Yes". Another time she spoke about her irritation with Britain and was visibly angry. I don't think the UK realises how much they are annoying everyone else nor do they realise how much goodwill has already been further squandered and how much respect has been lost.

She was everything Theresa isn't, strong, decisive, fully briefed and formidable.

And you are correct the level of frustration and bewilderment is deepening in the EU.

Leroy42

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

What matters is the detail. If the UK has more control than today Brexit will be a success. I.E if it can remain outside the single market and customs union and align regulations in certain sectors.

If control of borders is regained, if control of trade policy is regained and the UK is no longer directly subject to ECJ rulings then Brexit will be a success even if there is regulatory alignment in some areas. That outcome would be much better than the status quo.

Let's see what is agreed.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

That is some climb down Solo. First it was take back control, British laws for the British, control out borders, they will beg for a trade deal, £350m pw to the NHS blah blah.

No its well we will get some control but give up lots of it. Its not border control but access to work that matters, sure it will cost £bn
but at least we are free, except for the stuff that remains the same except for now we don't even have a say.

Is this very limited difference really worth all the cost, both financial and in standing, that this is having?

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

That is some climb down Solo. First it was take back control, British laws for the British, control out borders, they will beg for a trade deal, £350m pw to the NHS blah blah.

No its well we will get some control but give up lots of it. Its not border control but access to work that matters, sure it will cost £bn
but at least we are free, except for the stuff that remains the same except for now we don't even have a say.

Is this very limited difference really worth all the cost, both financial and in standing, that this is having?

It is a possibility, however unlikely, that the UK could end paying 50 billion for a facile and meaningless Brexit. The worst of both worlds for the Brexiteers.

funkey_monkey

solodeogloria wrote: »

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Can you please stop doing this - I can't cope with it.

Zubeneschamali

Blowfish wrote: »

He's just admitted that they haven't done any impact assessments of Brexit as part of the 'Sectoral Analysis'. At all. They have no idea how Brexit will affect the economy.

He's lying, of course. They did the analysis, and can't release it because is so apocalyptic.

cml387

Apparently the detailed analysis that was supposed to be carried out to examine the impact of Brexit on sectors of the British economy, actually hasn't been done.

Impact assessment of Brexit on the UK 'don't exist'

It's rather like handing up a leaving cert paper with your name and the date written carefully on the top. And nothing else.


You really couldn't make it up.

Leroy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It is a possibility, however unlikely, that the UK could end paying 50 billion for a facile and meaningless Brexit. The worst of both worlds for the Brexiteers.

Plus the calculated £20bn in lost GDP since the vote, the cost of Brexit itself, the .4% reduction in GDP in each of the next at least 5 years (and that is based on a benign brexit).

The damage it has done to May and the Tory party. The reputational damage being done to the UK as a whole by the chaos of the UK over this. The increased likelihood of another call for Scotish independence.

That is even before we can consider the possible lost investments that never happened because of the uncertainty.

Leroy42

cml387 wrote: »

Apparently the detailed analysis that was supposed to be carried out to examine the impact of Brexit on sectors of the British economy, actually hasn't been done.

Impact assessment of Brexit on the UK 'don't exist'

It's rather like handing up a leaving cert paper with your name and the date written carefully on the top. And nothing else.


You really couldn't make it up.

Two questions come from Davies answer. 1st, if you believe him, then why has it not been undertaken. How can you enter into negotiations with no idea as to the effect of different strategies? One of the key lines from May and the rest, and one that Solo et al have been signing, has been that a No Deal is better than a bad deal. I have asked on many occasions what this means and now we hear from Davies that they have no idea what either a no deal or a bad deal actually means.

2nd, if you don't believe him, then why are they lying about it?

Both of them are really serious and should immediately mean that Davies is forced to resign

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

That is some climb down Solo. First it was take back control, British laws for the British, control out borders, they will beg for a trade deal, £350m pw to the NHS blah blah.

No its well we will get some control but give up lots of it. Its not border control but access to work that matters, sure it will cost £bn
but at least we are free, except for the stuff that remains the same except for now we don't even have a say.

Is this very limited difference really worth all the cost, both financial and in standing, that this is having?

My guess is if you are changing the definition of success you can spin it any way you want. In the beginning it was about taking back control of trade, the border and laws. I suspect the only place that the UK will succeed is in immigration but the irony will be it is the one area where they actually need to have open access.

This new definition means that any sort of control can be taken as a success. Yes we are still paying into the EU for access, but we are deciding not to pay for x so we have control and Brexit is a success.

FrancieBrady

Is a single line inserted, going to be enough for Arlene and the DUP?
The usual caveats with the Indo and 'sources said' apply.

Several sources confirmed Dublin is willing to facilitate a “clarification” within the text.

“We have concrete evidence of an agreement between the Taoiseach and Prime Minister, which was endorsed by the presidents of European Council and European Commission. We absolutely feel we can’t budge one inch,” said a source central to the Irish negotiation team.
But they added that so long as the meaning of the text didn’t change, “a line clarifying that the agreement does not undermine the integrity of the United Kingdom could be considered”.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/irish-government-willing-to-compromise-with-brexit-deal-to-get-theresa-may-off-the-hook-with-dup-36383573.html

Zubeneschamali

He earlier told Parliament that these analyses are so detailed that Theresa May couldn't read them all in detail:

In June, appearing on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show, Davis said: "We've got 50, nearly 60 sectoral analyses nearly done."

In October, appearing again before the Brexit committee, Davis spoke again about 57 impact assessments. "They are in excruciating detail," he told the committee.

Asked whether Theresa May had seen the studies, Davis said: "She will know the summary outcomes of them. She will not necessarily have read every single one."

cml387

and from the same committee meeting this morning:

Committee chairman Hilary Benn asked whether impact assessments had been carried into various parts of the economy, listing the automotive, aerospace and financial sectors.
"I think the answer's going to be no to all of them," Mr Davis responded.
When Mr Benn suggested this was "strange", the minister said formal assessments were not needed to know that "regulatory hurdles" would have an impact.
"I am not a fan of economic models because they have all proven wrong," he added.

In other words, "we know it's going to be bad so we'd prefer not to know how bad".

devnull

Perhaps they have such data and details but don't want to release them, bear in mind that last week in the House of Commons there was a row about publishing papers and they were fighting tooth and nail to prevent publishing things in full and in the public eye.

The fact is some of it may be damaging for the Tory party and that is probably deemed more important than something like the fate of the country.

In other news, just heard Arlene is now on the phone with May.

Leroy42

cml387 wrote: »

In other words, "we know it's going to be bad so we'd prefer not to know how bad".

I actually think that is not their thinking at all. I really believe that they think this will have only positive impacts, so not point even trying to work it out as it will just happen.

It is midboggling that Davies feels he can actually turn up and give evidence like this.

As was pointed out he previously said that detailed reports were carried out on many sectors - which is believable because any organisation would undertake that.
He then tried very hard to avoid having to give these reports to parliament on the basis that they needed to be secret during the negotiations.
Now he turns up and says that actually we haven't done anything and have been winging it the whole time.

TBF all of this should have been done well before the vote itself, but since they won the vote the first thing that should have been done is to understand the potential outcomes of the different options.

Why has May gone with the position of leaving SM/CU and ECJ without any knowledge of what that entails? Why are they even negotiating with the EU if they have no idea what any of the different outcomes may mean. how can you value £50bn is you have no idea what future outcomes may come from it?

If I was a UK citizen, hell even as an Irish one, this is really troubling.

Un1corn

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

He earlier told Parliament that these analyses are so detailed that Theresa May couldn't read them all in detail:

In June, appearing on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show, Davis said: "We've got 50, nearly 60 sectoral analyses nearly done."

In October, appearing again before the Brexit committee, Davis spoke again about 57 impact assessments. "They are in excruciating detail," he told the committee.

Asked whether Theresa May had seen the studies, Davis said: "She will know the summary outcomes of them. She will not necessarily have read every single one."

I can understand she doesn't have time to read them all to be honest. I imagine she is quite a busy woman. That's why she has secretaries and advisers to do this sort of work on her behalf. Of course if such reports in fact don't exist then it would be even harder for her to read them.

J Mysterio

Davis should resign now too, totally incompetent. No wonder he didn't have any papers in Brussels, they have just been lounging around making ridiculous pronouncements.

Zubeneschamali

Un1corn wrote: »

I can understand she doesn't have time to read them all to be honest. I imagine she is quite a busy woman.

That's how you can tell he is lying now, and was telling the truth back then. It is perfectly reasonable to suppose that May would read the summaries only. It is ridiculous to suppose they did all that work and produced no analysis.

And we know they did the work - at least one Boardsie was on the phone to them helping with it.

Zubeneschamali

...and in a few years, when the truth gets out, they will say of course they had the analysis done, but they could not release the results because it would undermine the negotiators position, so they had to keep it secret.

Water John

If some Minister responsible turned up at a Parliamentary/Senate Subcommittee in Ireland , USA or any European Country with the answers David gave, they would be sacked.

It is now truly plain to everyone, that the emperor/former empire has no clothes.

murphaph

cml387 wrote: »

and from the same committee meeting this morning:


In other words, "we know it's going to be bad so we'd prefer not to know how bad".

It's much worse than that. Davis has clearly misled parliament on this key issue. He should resign immediately.

Enzokk

David Davis seems to be playing games with words here. There are no impact assessments but there seems to be analysis of the impacts Brexit will have. This way he seems to think he doesn't have to release them as he has to release impact assessments but he may think he can keep the analysis to himself for negotiations. They are one and the same I think.

This is worrying for the negotiations. For whom I don't know, but I would be concerned either way. It is clear though that Davis will use language to obfuscate and for a positive for the EU he will probably accept CU and SM membership and try to sell it as control through some language tricks.

Edited to add: Entry at 10h14

Jacob Rees-Mogg, a Conservative, says is is concerned about the government honouring parliament. If these impact assessments did not exist, the government did not have to publish anything, did it?

Davis agrees.

Q: So the government has generously gone beyond what was required?

Davis accepts that.

Rees-Mogg says the government looked at the wording of “an incompetent motion” and did its best to comply.

Davis accepts that.

David Davis says government has not assessed impact of Brexit for different sections of economy - Politics live


Seems clear to me there are impact assessments but they are not being called that to ensure they don't have to be released.

Panrich

"I am not a fan of economic models because they have all proven wrong," he added.

He's just not fond of experts.

This latest episode has scuppered any chance that the EU/Ireland will concede any ground to accommodate May in my view. She is now terminally weakened as her Brexit minister has been shown to have misled parliament and is at best incompetent. The Government cannot survive this weeks disasters.

The next phase of worthwhile negotiations will include Corbyn/Starmer and the SM/CU will be back on the table.

Arlene has sidelined the DUP

Jayop

Just came across this on Twitter. Had completely forgotten about this letter signed by Arlene and it completely contravenes the current DUP situation. No surprise there given how they cherry pick their stance with no consistency based on whatever nonsense they decide at the time.

https://twitter.com/StrabaneJohn/status/938183218276249600

Utter **** show.

Enzokk

It is shocking how unprepared the UK is for Brexit. If you see the preparation that Ireland did before the vote then it is a little disconcerting what is happening.

https://twitter.com/flashboy/status/938342685869527040

Peregrinus

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It is a possibility, however unlikely, that the UK could end paying 50 billion for a facile and meaningless Brexit. The worst of both worlds for the Brexiteers.

And not just for Brexiters. The whole of the UK will suffer.

Tropheus

Are the DUP prepared to pull the trigger of that gun that's pointed to their head?

devnull

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/938358719892676608
The Lib Dems are also hitting out at Davis for misleading Parliament.

12pm is Prime Ministers Question's in the Commons which should be pretty lively, will be streamed live on Sky News and the BBC and I would expect that she'll be getting a huge amount of flack from the opposition benches.

Arlene also has no plans to come to London just yet.

Blowfish

Enzokk wrote: »

Seems clear to me there are impact assessments but they are not being called that to ensure they don't have to be released.

I think you are misreading what he was saying. Impact Assessments necessitate looking at it quantitatively, i.e. how the economics of it will work in the future in different scenarios. This hasn't been done, so they have no idea what the economy will look like in the different scenarios of Brexit.

What they did do with their 'Sectoral Analysis', i.e. what particular sectors of the economy looked like and how influential each sector is to the overall economy.

All they did was produce reports describing what their current economy looks like. They didn't even attempt to look at how Brexit will impact it in the future.

In fact one of the other questions was about the decision to leave the CU. Davis admitted that no quantitative analysis was done then either. In other words, they made the decision to leave the CU without actually bothering to stop for a second and take a look to see if it would be disastrous to the economy or not.

Patser

Panrich wrote: »

"I am not a fan of economic models because they have all proven wrong," he added.

He's just not fond of experts.

All I can hear is Gove saying 'People are tired of experts'. It's pathetic. We don't like the news that we're hearing so we'll just dismiss or ignore it and carry on blindly. Fecking 18 months since the vote and still nothing concrete about what they want.

Not 1 single, signed for and complete agreement yet. Not 1!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw276pOBgSU

Enzokk

Blowfish wrote: »

I think you are misreading what he was saying. Impact Assessments necessitate looking at it quantitatively, i.e. how the economics of it will work in the future in different scenarios. This hasn't been done, so they have no idea what the economy will look like in the different scenarios of Brexit.

What they did do with their 'Sectoral Analysis', i.e. what particular sectors of the economy looked like and how influential each sector is to the overall economy.

All they did was produce reports describing what their current economy looks like. They didn't even attempt to look at how Brexit will impact it in the future.

In fact one of the other questions was about the decision to leave the CU. Davis admitted that no quantitative analysis was done then either. In other words, they made the decision to leave the CU without actually bothering to stop for a second and take a look to see if it would be disastrous to the economy or not.

But the Department of Exiting the EU confirmed there was impact assessments.

https://twitter.com/SeemaMalhotra1/status/938348797331214337

So either they were lying before or he is lying now. He will have to decide when he lied, but that he did and he should rightly be fired for misleading parliament.

cml387

devnull wrote: »

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/938358719892676608

12pm is Prime Ministers Question's in the Commons which should be pretty lively, will be streamed live on Sky News and the BBC and I would expect that she'll be getting a huge amount of flack from the opposition benches.

I wouldn't be too sure. Corbyn might take the opportunity to raise the plight of the Rohingya, or North Korea. Anything but Brexit.

Infini

Honestly should May fall then so will Brexit. Labour may be lukewarm but if they had Lib Dem and Scottish National Party support they could easily cancel the Article 50 process and get away with it should they get in as all they would have to do is hammer home the message that the torys risked economic and national integrity without any coherent plan or preperation and that to proceed any further would jepardise the nations well being at that time.

They could then put brexit on the backburner long enough to either sort enough issues or convince enough people to back a 2nd referendum on the basis that the first was won on lies and deception. Seeing that weasel Farage implode with impotent rage in that scenatio would be the icing on the cake.