Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

lawred2

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I don't see how a commitment to appt the Euro would be a condition.

Sweden and Denmark will be two of the twenty seven without the Euro and they are not looking to get out.

The Euro has had its problems and will probably have more and to be honest is a very different and more complicated conversation to one of customs unions, free trade etc.

I doubt it would be a condition.

You can't join the EU without adopting it.

Denmark and Sweden both got exemptions like the UK because they were current members at the time of adoption.

Fr Tod Umptious

lawred2 wrote: »

You can't join the EU without adopting it.

Denmark and Sweden both got exemptions like the UK because they were current members at the time of adoption.

Ok I did not know it was a requirement for membership

Obviously Sweden and Denmark are legacy issues.

prawnsambo

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Ok I did not know it was a requirement for membership

Obviously Sweden and Denmark are legacy issues.

Open to correction, but I think Schengen is a requirement too.

Water John

Endacl, you're very brave to make a 10/15 year prediction. Perhaps you could also have a go at predicting what will happen in the HOC next week. At this point, nobody knows.

CelticRambler

It's a long read, but this Guardian article about farming gives a good description of what farming and food production in the UK could look like post Brexit.
How America’s food giants swallowed the family farms

I don't think British version would be quite as cataclysmic, because some aspects of this are peculiarly American (the huge tracts of land, the straight-line roads and county boundaries, the superficiality of "tradition") - but the spectre of politics being infected by corporate interests is already on show in the HoC.

A few paragraphs that strike a chord:

And while the Kalbachs have hung on to their farm, they long ago abandoned livestock and mixed arable farming for the only thing they can make money at any more – growing corn and soya beans to sell to corporate buyers as feed for animals crammed by the thousands into the huge semi-automated sheds that now dominate farming, and the landscape, in large parts of Iowa.

“The thing that is really pervasive about it is that they control the rules of the game because they control the democratic process. It’s a blueprint. We’re paying for our own demise.

“It would be a different argument if it was just based upon inevitability or based on competition. But it’s not based upon competition: it’s based upon squelching competition.”

“Investors buy the land, and they have tractors and combines that you can run by computer,” she said. “They’ll hire somebody to sit in a little office somewhere and run that stuff off the computer and farm the land that way. Now what you’ve done is you have lost the innate knowledge of how to grow food and raise animals. You’ve lost a whole generation of it, probably two. Now we are going to rely on a few corporations to decide who is going to eat and who isn’t. We’re one generation away from that picture right now.”

Another Brexit irony: voting Leave to take back control from the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels who coordinate the CAP only to hand control of the UK's farming to the unelected, unidentified, unaccountable shareholders of some American corporate investor.

Zubeneschamali

Water John wrote: »

Endacl, you're very brave to make a 10/15 year prediction. Perhaps you could also have a go at predicting what will happen in the HOC next week. At this point, nobody knows.

The HoC next week is mad stuff, anything can happen.

But reality will dawn over time and what's left of the UK will rejoin when a generation of older voters dies off.

Shelga

David Davis on Andrew Marr now. The BBC is a disgrace.

prawnsambo

CelticRambler wrote: »

It's a long read, but this Guardian article about farming gives a good description of what farming and food production in the UK could look like post Brexit.
How America’s food giants swallowed the family farms

I don't think British version would be quite as cataclysmic, because some aspects of this are peculiarly American (the huge tracts of land, the straight-line roads and county boundaries, the superficiality of "tradition") - but the spectre of politics being infected by corporate interests is already on show in the HoC.

The animal feed thing is massive in the US. Something like half the available land is given over to producing animal feed. And it's a hugely inefficient way to use land. Because pound for pound, it's vastly inferior to using that land to produce crops for human consumption. Grazing land as we understand it, is almost completely non-existent. The climate doesn't support it, so if you want meat, you have to grow feed crops.

Sam Russell

CelticRambler wrote: »

It's a long read, but this Guardian article about farming gives a good description of what farming and food production in the UK could look like post Brexit.
How America’s food giants swallowed the family farms

I don't think British version would be quite as cataclysmic, because some aspects of this are peculiarly American (the huge tracts of land, the straight-line roads and county boundaries, the superficiality of "tradition") - but the spectre of politics being infected by corporate interests is already on show in the HoC.


Another Brexit irony: voting Leave to take back control from the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels who coordinate the CAP only to hand control of the UK's farming to the unelected, unidentified, unaccountable shareholders of some American corporate investor.

The original purpose of the CAP was to guaranty the production of enough food to feed the population while guarantying the income of farmers so they could live a decent life. The mistake was not to limit the maximum payout to individual farmers, so that large land owners gained hugely, and larger land owners gained even more. Most countries brought in upper limits, but not the UK. Another thing UK farming has seen is the rise of hobby farming.

This will not end well for farming in the UK or Ireland. However we can seek other markets for our hormone free beef and non-GMO crops.

Igotadose

What form must an extension request take? Must the UK it's invocation of Article 50? Or is there some furlough that can be invoked? I'm wondering what mischief the UK (and the EU) can come up with if indeed the WA is voted down again.

FrancieBrady

Sam Russell wrote: »

The original purpose of the CAP was to guaranty the production of enough food to feed the population while guarantying the income of farmers so they could live a decent life. The mistake was not to limit the maximum payout to individual farmers, so that large land owners gained hugely, and larger land owners gained even more. Most countries brought in upper limits, but not the UK. Another thing UK farming has seen is the rise of hobby farming.

This will not end well for farming in the UK or Ireland. However we can seek other markets for our hormone free beef and non-GMO crops.

The British resisted the reform of CAP and then accuse the EU of being wasteful.
The Queen's farms receives 500,000 from CAP and I think James Dyson's farming enterprise is the biggest beneficiary.

prawnsambo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The British resisted the reform of CAP and then accuse the EU of being wasteful.
The Queen's farms receives 500,000 from CAP and I think James Dyson's farming enterprise is the biggest beneficiary.

Correct. And in typical brexiter fashion he was warning the government that they'd better continue the subsidies after the great brexodus. Dyson is pretty much the definition of brexit. It's good for me because I have the money to make sure it only positively affaects me and I have the political clout to make sure of that. It's brazen corruption, but nobody blinks an eye.

gooch2k9

What is the point of the potential extension request vote? If they reject the current deal and reject no deal then it's a foregone conclusion that an extension will be required is it not?

Will these votes be binding on the government? I've seen some saying it's unknown what happens if all three votes get rejected, but surely if parliament rejects no deal then they can't just allow no deal to occur on the 29th. If the EU won't give, and I'd hope they won't, then May would have to revoke Art. 50.

gooch2k9

CBI in NI have written basically advocating revocation if no deal is agreed.

Sammy Wilson doesn't need to reach far into his bucket of retorts; "scare tactics". Absolutely disgusting carry on from the DUP.

Pretty disappointed that my own employer hasn't signed it.

prawnsambo

gooch2k9 wrote: »

What is the point of the potential extension request vote? If they reject the current deal and reject no deal then it's a foregone conclusion that an extension will be required is it not?

Will these votes be binding on the government? I've seen some saying it's unknown what happens if all three votes get rejected, but surely if parliament rejects no deal then they can't just allow no deal to occur on the 29th. If the EU won't give, and I'd hope they won't, then May would have to revoke Art. 50.

The 'no hard brexit' vote is meaningless. It has no teeth. A hard brexit will happen by default. The only things that will stop it are a vote to revoke A50 or to pass May's deal. Even a vote to hold a second referendum, is only going to halt it if the EU 27 allow an extension to give a referendum time to be run. Now, it's unlikely that the EU 27 will block such an extension, but it would want to be an ironclad eventuality that there'd be a referendum. And there's precious little time to make that so.

ancapailldorcha

gooch2k9 wrote: »

What is the point of the potential extension request vote? If they reject the current deal and reject no deal then it's a foregone conclusion that an extension will be required is it not?

Will these votes be binding on the government? I've seen some saying it's unknown what happens if all three votes get rejected, but surely if parliament rejects no deal then they can't just allow no deal to occur on the 29th. If the EU won't give, and I'd hope they won't, then May would have to revoke Art. 50.

I'm clinging to the hope that this will demonstrate to enough people (Remainers who are fed up and moderates of both sides) that the UK is not remotely fit to leave the EU, at least now. It would take years to get trade deals in place and all the signs point to significant economic damage while we haven't even left yet.

I think the votes are binding. Otherwise, there'd be no point. Parliament is sovereign in the United Kingdom. Not the government or the people. Parliament. The chap I know in DoIT reckons that the deal will fail on the 12th, the motion to avoid no deal on the subsequent day will pass followed by Parliamentary approval of a mandate for May to go and request an extension of Article 50 on the 14th.

John McDonnell was just on Andrew Marr. He stated that only about 200 of the requisite 600 Statutory Instruments have been passed in Parliament. Then there's the other legislation that needs to be scrutinized and passed.

The UK just doesn't seem ready to leave. I've just booked a few days of work for next month and I've no idea whether any flights I book will even go.

CelticRambler

Sam Russell wrote: »

The original purpose of the CAP was to guaranty the production of enough food to feed the population while guarantying the income of farmers so they could live a decent life. The mistake was not to limit the maximum payout to individual farmers, so that large land owners gained hugely, and larger land owners gained even more. Most countries brought in upper limits, but not the UK.

Agreed. For more than a thousand years, since the birth of the "service industry" there has always been a degree of tension between those who work the land and produce what the other half eats. The mechanisation of farming shifted that balance drastically, and the EEC/EU has constantly experimented with different ways of matching the benefits of free-ish trade to those of keeping local economies healthy. That experimentation (= reform) continues to this day, even if frequently opposed by those who have become addicted to the no-longer-effective status quo.

CelticRambler

gooch2k9 wrote: »

What is the point of the potential extension request vote? If they reject the current deal and reject no deal then it's a foregone conclusion that an extension will be required is it not?

Will these votes be binding on the government? I've seen some saying it's unknown what happens if all three votes get rejected, but surely if parliament rejects no deal then they can't just allow no deal to occur on the 29th. If the EU won't give, and I'd hope they won't, then May would have to revoke Art. 50.

There are reports today that the Kyle-Wilson ammendment might be coming back into the Westminster conversation. That's the one that allows MPs to vote for the WA now on condition that it's ratified by a people's vote. This is probably the only to avoid a chaotic exit: it gives TM a win (of sorts) and makes a good case for an extension, without anyone having to admit defeat.

I'm not convinced that Westminster can agree on a "meaningful wording" to go on the ballot paper in less than three months, but I suspect they could count on a few unelected Brussels bureaucrats to come up with a suitably phrased question! It'd suit me to have them kick the can out to the end of June, as I need to make a quick trip under the Channel in the first week of April.

gooch2k9

CelticRambler wrote: »

There are reports today that the Kyle-Wilson ammendment might be coming back into the Westminster conversation. That's the one that allows MPs to vote for the WA now on condition that it's ratified by a people's vote. This is probably the only to avoid a chaotic exit: it gives TM a win (of sorts) and makes a good case for an extension, without anyone having to admit defeat.

I'm not convinced that Westminster can agree on a "meaningful wording" to go on the ballot paper in less than three months, but I suspect they could count on a few unelected Brussels bureaucrats to come up with a suitably phrased question! It'd suit me to have them kick the can out to the end of June, as I need to make a quick trip under the Channel in the first week of April.

I'd assume that won't be this week. So we'll have to go through another week or two of faffing about.

CelticRambler

gooch2k9 wrote: »

I'd assume that won't be this week. So we'll have to go through another week or two of faffing about.

I understand it to be an amendment to the WA that'll be put to a vote on the 12th.

i.e. vote on the amendment first, to get it added to TM's motion "this house ratifies the WA on condition that it is put to a people's vote within [time frame] ...". They wouldn't be modifying the WA itself, so that'd be OK by the EU.

gooch2k9

Jeremy Hunt has been on Andrew Marr and explicitly said the consequences for the party would be devastating if they don't deliver Brexit. At least they're being honest for once.

ancapailldorcha

gooch2k9 wrote: »

Jeremy Hunt has been on Andrew Marr and explicitly said the consequences for the party would be devastating if they don't deliver Brexit. At least they're being honest for once.

They will also be devastating if the party does deliver Brexit. The axiom of Labour overspending causing a global financial crash will be as nothing compared to this.

josip

prawnsambo wrote: »

The 'no hard brexit' vote is meaningless. It has no teeth. A hard brexit will happen by default. The only things that will stop it are a vote to revoke A50 or to pass May's deal. Even a vote to hold a second referendum, is only going to halt it if the EU 27 allow an extension to give a referendum time to be run. Now, it's unlikely that the EU 27 will block such an extension, but it would want to be an ironclad eventuality that there'd be a referendum. And there's precious little time to make that so.

I don't want them to have another referendum with remain wining 55-45 and then we face into decades of the UK bringing their toxic domestic politics and media into the European sphere.
I'd much prefer them to get out, stay out, sort themselves out, and leave the rest of us to get on with it.

Havockk

josip wrote: »

I don't want them to have another referendum with remain wining 55-45 and then we face into decades of the UK bringing their toxic domestic politics and media into the European sphere.
I'd much prefer them to get out, stay out, sort themselves out, and leave the rest of us to get on with it.

What if Leave wins again?

Charles Babbage

Havockk wrote: »

What if Leave wins again?

It depends on what the referendum asks. It might offer a choice like withdrawal deal or no brexit. If leave wins then Brexit would proceed on the withdrawal agreement.



A referendum on leave without any plan would repeat the whole mess again.

endacl

Water John wrote: »

Endacl, you're very brave to make a 10/15 year prediction. Perhaps you could also have a go at predicting what will happen in the HOC next week. At this point, nobody knows.

A temporary bowling lane will be set up in the centre aisle, and the whole thing will be decided over a few frames.

Why not?

CelticRambler

josip wrote: »

I don't want them to have another referendum with remain wining 55-45 and then we face into decades of the UK bringing their toxic domestic politics and media into the European sphere.

Well, first of all, 48% -> 55% represents quite a significant swing to a pro-EU attitude by the British electorate, so that'd be some kind of progress (from our perspective).

And secondly, you'd have to hope that in those circumstances, the electorate would return a better quality representative to the European Parliament than the likes of Farage, i.e. someone who would be seen to be actively representing an EU-Britain over the coming years, not just a Brit ranting against the EU as whole.

An Claidheamh

So it looks like David Trimble and his goon squad have had their challenge screwed up by a "Great British" Court.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-northern-ireland-47491914

Wonder if their donator will get their money back?


Furthermore, himself and Hate Hoey have written some bizarre grovelling letter to TM with something about Dissidents and Catholics and Protestants and how successful and content the 6 counties are compared to the rest of Ireland.

There was me thinking they were a basket case.

https://brexitcentral.com/dont-believe-claims-brexit-threatens-peace-northern-ireland/

(couldn't find another link to it)

lawred2

An Claidheamh wrote: »

So it looks like David Trimble and his goon squad have had their challenge screwed up by a "Great British" Court.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-northern-ireland-47491914

Wonder if their donator will get their money back?


Furthermore, himself and Hate Hoey have written some bizarre grovelling letter to TM with something about Dissidents and Catholics and Protestants and how successful and content the 6 counties are compared to the rest of Ireland.

There was me thinking they were a basket case.

https://brexitcentral.com/dont-believe-claims-brexit-threatens-peace-northern-ireland/

(couldn't find another link to it)

Alternate universe

RobMc59

CelticRambler wrote: »

Well, first of all, 48% -> 55% represents quite a significant swing to a pro-EU attitude by the British electorate, so that'd be some kind of progress (from our perspective).

And secondly, you'd have to hope that in those circumstances, the electorate would return a better quality representative to the European Parliament than the likes of Farage, i.e. someone who would be seen to be actively representing an EU-Britain over the coming years, not just a Brit ranting against the EU as whole.

Once again your balanced view is the voice of reason.I think posters who live outside Ireland have a more realistic view of brexit/Britain which although the whole concept of Brexit is a total car crash can see not all Brits are crazed brexiteers.