Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Leroy42

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

To be completely fair to the woman, this would apply to most people in the UK. Just after the referendum you had people search for info on what the EU is and what happens after a Leave vote win (Source). This happened after the referendum.

Seriously? She was the PM not some cleaner from Hammersmith.

It is actually her job to know these things, even as an MP.

kuro68k

Leroy42 wrote: »

Seriously? She was the PM not some cleaner from Hammersmith.

It is actually her job to know these things, even as an MP.

She never understood the EU in all her time in the Home Office either, so why would it change when she became PM?

Her problem isn't the EU anyway, it's the Tory party.

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

Seriously? She was the PM not some cleaner from Hammersmith.

It is actually her job to know these things, even as an MP.

She wasn't PM until after the referendum.

And there is a perverse logic here. If Parliament is to represent people and the people don't have a clue about how the EU works or what is does then it does mean that Parliament is representative in that one regard at least.

Tell me how

Leroy42 wrote: »

Now, I get it. Politicians are going to say meaningless stuff rather than state facts, but with less than a month to go for the media in the UK to still be operating on the basis that they shouldn't ask too much or simply accept what they are told is incredible. That is even before you acknowledge that both prior to the campaign and ever since the government and ministers have been found to have been economical with the truth.

This lethargy with a month to go is baffling. The EU should point to it if the UK look for a short term extension and ask why didn't they use this time more wisely.

I'm sure someone will produce a synposis of the last 2 years at some point showing on how many days there was actual concrete work done on Brexit. The last 6 weeks seems to have been nothing but waffle.

First Up

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well since I never suggested that they would be better off, I'm at a loss as to why you would think I'd have to provide examples.

And I'm at a loss to know what point you are trying to make.

You said that the UK could follow Turkey in making independent trade deals while a member of the CU. It was pointed out that any such deals had to conform to the EU's external tariff and that they only applied to manufactured goods anyway. You replied that the UK could strike intependent trade deals for Services.

The above suggest to me that you see positives for the UK in its trading situation post Brexit but if I am misinterpreting your point you are welcome to correct me.

ambro25

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

She wasn't PM until after the referendum.

And there is a perverse logic here. If Parliament is to represent people and the people don't have a clue about how the EU works or what is does then it does mean that Parliament is representative in that one regard at least.

She was Home Secretary, and (expectedly) intimately familiar with the inner workings of the EU in matters of security and policing at least.

The fact that her biggest bug bear in that time, the ECtHR, has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU, is not the least bit ironical. No Sir.

That be the biggest one, in tandem with "reducing immigration to the tens of thousands". She'll get there yet.

VinLieger

prawnsambo wrote: »

I've never really looked into it in any depth, but my understanding of SIs (here) is that they are Ministerial orders that are given authority by primary legislation and don't have to be passed by the Dail. Is this different in Westminster?

Heres a good flowchart for how it all works over there

https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/SI_Affirmative_Procedure_flowchart_HoC.PDF

I cant see how they arent ****ed going off that though

prawnsambo

First Up wrote: »

And I'm at a loss to know what point you are trying to make.

You said that the UK could follow Turkey in making independent trade deals while a member of the CU. It was pointed out that any such deals had to conform to the EU's external tariff and that they only applied to manufactured goods anyway. You replied that the UK could strike intependent trade deals for Services.

The above suggest to me that you see positives for the UK in its trading situation post Brexit but if I am misinterpreting your point you are welcome to correct me.

It stemmed from somebody saying that they couldn't make trade deals at all whilst members of the CU. That goes back a good few pages ago, but that was the thrust of the point I was making. i.e. you can do this, albeit in a limited fashion. I never suggested for one minute that it would be better.

prawnsambo

VinLieger wrote: »

Heres a good flowchart for how it all works over there

https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/SI_Affirmative_Procedure_flowchart_HoC.PDF

I cant see how they arent ****ed going off that though

Thank you very much.

I know this will sound ungrateful, but I note that it refers to 'affirmative' SIs. That seems to suggest that there are other types or at least one other type. I'd imagine there must be something similar to the SIs that we produce, i.e. a ministerial order that's given by authority of primary legislation, since we derive our legislative system from the UK.

demfad

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This is an excellent point. I genuinely don't know what happens if there is a crash out on the 29th.



It seems to me that the only option that satisfies both a mandate for no deal and no WA is the withdrawal of Article 50. Ideally, we'd get an extension to allow for a referendum and with the EU Parliament elections there's literally no room for can kicking.

They are calling the shorter extension a 'Technical extension' as this extension would cover the remaining legislation that needs to be passed (assuming WA passes). If WA happens this type of extension is inevitable.

The longer extension is fraught with danger for the EU. If a 'Brexit party' were to take most UK MEP seats then EUsceptic MEPs could hold the balance of power in the EP and could cause massive disruption or drive the EP right by conditionally supporting Manfred Webber.

This would give the UK greater leverage from here on but that would be the least of their (the EUs) worries.

By allowing the UK participate in the EP elections are the EU inviting 21 months of instability? (it appears that it is too risky not to have ELECTED UK MEPs due to legal challenge)

First Up

prawnsambo wrote:

It stemmed from somebody saying that they couldn't make trade deals at all whilst members of the CU. That goes back a good few pages ago, but that was the thrust of the point I was making. i.e. you can do this, albeit in a limited fashion. I never suggested for one minute that it would be better.

Thanks for the clarification.

Kermit.de.frog

In relation to Theresa May, the Tory party thought they were getting a Thatcher when they put her in

How wrong they were. Even if it was Thatcher she'd be in the exact same bind.

:pac:

Inquitus

demfad wrote: »

By allowing the UK participate in the EP elections are the EU inviting 21 months of instability? (it appears that it is too risky not to have ELECTED UK MEPs due to legal challenge)

The EU have certainly taken all legal advice, and it is clear that the firm conclusion of that is if the UK remains in the EU past May then the UK must host European Elections, however unpalatable it may be.

murphaph

demfad wrote: »

They are calling the shorter extension a 'Technical extension' as this extension would cover the remaining legislation that needs to be passed (assuming WA passes). If WA happens this type of extension is inevitable.

The longer extension is fraught with danger for the EU. If a 'Brexit party' were to take most UK MEP seats then EUsceptic MEPs could hold the balance of power in the EP and could cause massive disruption or drive the EP right by conditionally supporting Manfred Webber.

This would give the UK greater leverage from here on but that would be the least of their (the EUs) worries.

By allowing the UK participate in the EP elections are the EU inviting 21 months of instability? (it appears that it is too risky not to have ELECTED UK MEPs due to legal challenge)

It would be time for remainers to get off their backsides and vote in numbers for pro-EU MEPs, to send a clear signal to the EU that there is something to fight for. If Farage could be removed it would be a triumph. They only get in there because historically nobody paid much attention to EU elections. That should change.

VinLieger

prawnsambo wrote: »

Thank you very much.

I know this will sound ungrateful, but I note that it refers to 'affirmative' SIs. That seems to suggest that there are other types or at least one other type. I'd imagine there must be something similar to the SIs that we produce, i.e. a ministerial order that's given by authority of primary legislation, since we derive our legislative system from the UK.

No your right, ive had to do a fair bit of digging through needlessly uninformative and obtuse government info to figure it out, there's affirmative and negative ones, negative ones are just signed by the minister, affirmative have to follow that procedure i linked.


So they can be laid as either affirmative or negative however negative ones must first go through a sifting committees first to decide if they get to stay negative or be upgraded to affirmative depending on how those committees rate their importance and therefore need for a HOC vote.

Theres a good tracking site here

I would suggest reading that tracking site for more complex breakdown but its says that of the current 405 around 180 have been laid as affirmative SI's and 52 upgraded from negative.


That site is a bit confusing in that it says 218 have "completed their passage through parliament" whether that means they've been passed or what im unsure.


The weekly targets for the SI's being laid before parliament really gives you an idea of how far behind they are in all of this though.

prawnsambo

VinLieger wrote: »

No your right, ive had to do a fair bit of digging through needlessly uninformative and obtuse government info to figure it out, there's affirmative and negative ones, negative ones are just signed by the minister, affirmative have to follow that procedure i linked.

So they can be laid as either affirmative or negative however negative ones must first go through a sifting committees first to decide if they get to stay negative or be upgraded to affirmative depending on how those committees rate their importance and therefore need for a HOC vote.

Theres a good tracking site here

I would suggest reading that tracking site for more complex breakdown but its says that of the current 405 around 180 have been laid as affirmative SI's and 52 upgraded from negative.

That site is a bit confusing in that it says 218 have "completed their passage through parliament" whether that means they've been passed or what im unsure.

The weekly targets for the SI's being laid before parliament really gives you an idea of how far behind they are in all of this though.

Very interesting. It appears that some are being introduced on foot of the EU Withdrawal Act and some other Acts. But the really interesting part is the size of them. They are averaging between 7 and 26 pages an SI depending on the month that they are introduced. The conclusion appears to be that they are being bundled together to reduce the quantity.

ancapailldorcha

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

In relation to Theresa May, the Tory party thought they were getting a Thatcher when they put her in

How wrong they were. Even if it was Thatcher she'd be in the exact same bind.

:pac:

They wouldn't. Thatcher would have withdrawn Article 50. She was about markets and business and, for all her flaws was a strong leader.

She'd have excised Rees-Mogg & Co. by now and binned them.

First Up

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

They wouldn't. Thatcher would have withdrawn Article 50. She was about markets and business and, for all her flaws was a strong leader.

She'd have excised Rees-Mogg & Co. by now and binned them.

She would never have called a referendum. She's have seen off the likes of Farage before breakfast.

ancapailldorcha

First Up wrote: »

She would never have called a referendum. She's have seen off the likes of Farage before breakfast.

I was putting her in May's position, ie post-referendum. Then again, she wouldn't have invoked Article 50.

Seth Brundle

Toyota this morning and now MINI (owned by BMW who will at some point be putting pressure on the EU according to the brexiteers!) have said that they will consider ending production in the UK should there be no-deal.

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1102908606297583616

ancapailldorcha

German car manufactures are and were always going to prioritise the single market's integrity over maintaining access to a capricious United Kingdom.

Water John

The three red lines were all TM's own doing. Rather than putting the ERG in it's box she gave them fuel.

Seth Brundle

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

German car manufactures are and were always going to prioritise the single market's integrity over maintaining access to a capricious United Kingdom.

Toyota, Nissan & Honda aren't German.
All of them are prioritising the single market over the UK (the residents of which will continue to buy the vehicles but with a significant price change)

ancapailldorcha

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Toyota, Nissan & Honda aren't German.
All of them are prioritising the single market over the UK (the residents of which will continue to buy the vehicles but with a significant price change)

Oops!

My point holds though. The trope of German car manufacturers riding to the UK's rescue by pressuring the Brussels elite to give the UK anything and everything it wants has been well and truly dispelled. This is just another nail in its coffin.

First Up

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Oops!

My point holds though. The trope of German car manufacturers riding to the UK's rescue by pressuring the Brussels elite to give the UK anything and everything it wants has been well and truly dispelled. This is just another nail in its coffin.

Its not just about selling the finished product. Car production is essentially the super efficient assembly of components from multiple sources. Any disruption to those supply chains spells delay and cost. That simply won't be acceptable.

Laois_Man

murphaph wrote: »

If Farage could be removed it would be a triumph.

I unusually heard him being called out on his bull**** last night by BBC Radio Kent - makes a change from all the agreeable calls he gets on LBC - Although they could have challenged him a bit harder. He was still a wee bit rattled by it! He's not used to it!

ToBeFrank123

A hard Brexit would not be ideal for European car manufacturers either.

I would imagine a lot of high end cars, especially German cars, like Mercs, Audis, BMWs are sold in the UK. A hard Brexit will hit sales if tariffs are applied.

The UK is a huge car market so I don't think the car makers can abandon manufacturing there fully.

Brexit really is a lose-lose for everyone, particularly the European car makers. However, if tariffs were not applied to electric vehicles it might encourage the car makers to prioritize these models so there might be a win there. Wishful thinking possibly.

First Up

ToBeFrank123 wrote:

The UK is a huge car market so I don't think the car makers can abandon manufacturing there fully.

They can manufacture within the Single Market and sell finished product in the UK.

ancapailldorcha

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

A hard Brexit would not be ideal for European car manufacturers either.

I would imagine a lot of high end cars, especially German cars, like Mercs, Audis, BMWs are sold in the UK. A hard Brexit will hit sales if tariffs are applied.

The UK is a huge car market so I don't think the car makers can abandon manufacturing there fully.

Brexit really is a lose-lose for everyone, particularly the European car makers. However, if tariffs were not applied to electric vehicles it might encourage the car makers to prioritize these models so there might be a win there. Wishful thinking possibly.

This point can be applied to the current EU28. Brexit is a loss for everyone. The EU has gotten on with it but has always emphasized that Brexit can be reversed. Rees-Mogg and co went from telling us that we'll be better off to adequate food and now we just wait for the next embarrassment to come along and dispel the memory of the previous one.

ToBeFrank123

First Up wrote: »

They can manufacture within the Single Market and sell finished product in the UK.

But that would mean a tariff which could be around 20% - I'm not sure of WTO rules around manufactured goods.

So a 50K car becomes a 60K car. 10K is a lot when buying a car.

Likewise they could manufacture within the UK and sell it within the UK for 10K less. It could in turn mean more new jobs in the UK for suppliers of car parts.

You'd wonder how countries survived before the SM!