Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Nody

sunbeam wrote: »

Wouldn't that essentially stop the UK from doing a trade deal with the US? I thought that EU food standards would be the first thing up for negotiation in any such deal?

Well UK always had two choices; either align with EU or align with US basically. This only means they are aligned with EU (temporary CU) until EU and UK agree a deal and obviously that deal in turn will greatly decide the shape of a potential future FTA with USA as well (and possibly bring in a blessing of a new president instead of the current one though I doubt the demands and pressure would be significantly different). If they do write a comprehensive FTA with EU it also gives them an good excuse on why they need to keep EU level protection but on the other hand they can have a Canada deal and write a deal with US on lower product standards etc. (all it means is more controls at UK/EU border).

dresden8

Sky news just now... "Now that parliament has its extension"
Nick Ferrari.

They still don't get it.

Capt'n Midnight

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

What's the best outcome for us here?

That the deal passes or does not pass?

What's May's ultimate agenda ?

Will she block all attempts at stopping the automatic Brexit ?
So far she has.


Will parliament be able to take back control from the government in such a case ?
Labour can't buy the DUP unless they win the next election and the ERG won't help so it's down to Tories going against the whip. In a country where nearly 60% of the seats are decided before the election.


Since there's already talk of a 4th vote some MP's will feel safe enough rejecting this one. So it won't pass.

Will the speaker go against the will of the house regarding a 4th vote ?
I'll let you decide if that means thwarting the mechanics of Parliament or the government or the MP's who want to vote for something that most have rejected.



News says there won't be a vote unless the DUP are on board , and so there will be a long delay. As if the EU will automatically grant an extension for more time wasting.

There was a part of me that hoped that May's initial remainer status meant a game plan of stalling until everyone realised that Brexit was a bad idea and cancelling it at the last minute. But that hope has almost died and I'm going with her remainer during the referendum as being mostly about being on the winning team.

unit 1

I'm really confused here as to why anyone would vote tor tm's deal.

If brexiteers vote for it, its brexit and remainers will vote against it to prevent brexit for a softer/remain deal, so it wont pass.
If remainers vote for it, its still not brexit and brexiteers will vote against it to prevent remain for a hard brexit, so it wont pass.

Surely the deadlock is that the remainers/brexiteers can cancel each other out in this game of chicken, as tm has lost control of her party.

The only sensible outcome is for the adults in the room (whoever they may be) to take over the asylum and have an indicative vote instructing the pm to revoke article 50.

Capt'n Midnight

Nody wrote: »

Well UK always had two choices; either align with EU or align with US basically. This only means they are aligned with EU (temporary CU) until EU and UK agree a deal and obviously that deal in turn will greatly decide the shape of a potential future FTA with USA as well (and possibly bring in a blessing of a new president instead of the current one though I doubt the demands and pressure would be significantly different). If they do write a comprehensive FTA with EU it also gives them an good excuse on why they need to keep EU level protection but on the other hand they can have a Canada deal and write a deal with US on lower product standards etc. (all it means is more controls at UK/EU border).

If you had one of those triangle graphs showing the percentages of who a country is run for,
and it's got Governments, Corporations and Citizens,
where you'd find China, US and the EU receptively near the corners,
where will the UK move to ?


BTW the UK should look at how the US is treating Mexico and Canada on the deals.
Also Trump's tariff way has only cost the US economy $8 Bn, a tenth of what Brexit has cost so far and in a much bigger economy. That's how bad Brexit is.

Nody

unit 1 wrote: »

I'm really confused here as to why anyone would vote tor tm's deal.

If brexiteers vote for it, its brexit and remainers will vote against it to prevent brexit for a softer/remain deal, so it wont pass.
If remainers vote for it, its still not brexit and brexiteers will vote against it to prevent remain for a hard brexit, so it wont pass.

Surely the deadlock is that the remainers/brexiteers can cancel each other out in this game of chicken, as tm has lost control of her party.

The only sensible outcome is for the adults in the room (whoever they may be) to take over the asylum and have an indicative vote instructing the pm to revoke article 50.

I'd argue she never had it; however TMs plan (which is to remain PM; nothing else) is that remainers will be to scared to vote against the deal at the last minute (as it's softer than a crash out) while the brexiteers will vote for it to ensure they do get a brexit even if not as hard as wanted. Between those two combinations she'll get enough votes with defecting Libs to get it through basically.

This is why you see the double talk from both sides of the mouth about Brexit being delayed "for a very long time" while talking about the dangers of crashing out without a deal.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If you had one of those triangle graphs showing the percentages of who a country is run for,
and it's got Governments, Corporations and Citizens,
where you'd find China, US and the EU receptively near the corners,
where will the UK move to ?


BTW the UK should look at how the US is treating Mexico and Canada on the deals.
Also Trump's tariff way has only cost the US economy $8 Bn, a tenth of what Brexit has cost so far and in a much bigger economy. That's how bad Brexit is.

Honestly and I'm not being satirical here but I think they think it would not happen to UK due to their long history and the "special relationship" etc. when in practice they are a useful pet nation at times as far as US is concerned for decades. But this is rose tinted glasses crowd over there and that's beyond those who'd profit from it in the first place.

briany

unit 1 wrote: »

The only sensible outcome is for the adults in the room (whoever they may be) to take over the asylum and have an indicative vote instructing the pm to revoke article 50.

If we're talking a parliamentary motion, here, do we have a good idea of voting intention in the advent of a Revoke Article 50 motion?

If we're talking a public referendum, there'd be fierce debate on what the question would be, i.e. revoke or no deal/ May's deal. Or, really, whether Revoke should even be on the ballot.

Igotadose

briany wrote: »

If we're talking a parliamentary motion, here, do we have a good idea of voting intention in the advent of a Revoke Article 50 motion?

If we're talking a public referendum, there'd be fierce debate on what the question would be, i.e. revoke or no deal/ May's deal. Or, really, whether Revoke should even be on the ballot.

Whatever the referendum is, the first choice should be "Yes: Remain." Getting people to vote No on something is harder (cf: recent referenda in Ireland)

Or "Yes: revoke article 50" "No: leave with <official title of withdrawal agreement> on <blah> date"

unit 1

Nody wrote: »

I'd argue she never had it; however TMs plan (which is to remain PM; nothing else) is that remainers will be to scared to vote against the deal at the last minute (as it's softer than a crash out) while the brexiteers will vote for it to ensure they do get a brexit even if not as hard as wanted. Between those two combinations she'll get enough votes with defecting Libs to get it through basically.

This is why you see the double talk from both sides of the mouth about Brexit being delayed "for a very long time" while talking about the dangers of crashing out without a deal.

So if both sides hold their noses and vote for it, does that mean both sides will try to undermine it afterwards to obtain their opposite goals. This would surely mean more sniping and turmoil in the negotiating period up to the fta outcome, which could be years.

As an aside if they go into the transition period, they have officially left and any ideas of reentering the eu would put sterling, non schengen membership in danger. The biggest obstacle to brexit, ie the threat to their beloved sterling would surely be at the back of their minds, particularly remainers.
If they leave rejoning will be nigh on impossilbe, if they remain the can always leave at a later date.

Seth Brundle

Imreoir2 wrote: »

From best to worst

1. No Brexit
2. WA Brexit
3. No-deal Brexit
4. No Backstop Brexit

Erm, numbers three and four are the same

An Ciarraioch

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Erm, numbers three and four are the same

Technically, a No Backstop Brexit could be one with a permanent Customs Union, but then that would jump to No. 2 on the list!

tuxy

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Erm, numbers three and four are the same

No. 4 would be a deal without a backstop.

Enzokk

tuxy wrote: »

No. 4 would be a deal without a backstop.

I am not sure what the poster meant, but I would think the best to worst outcome for Ireland is as follows:

• Withdraw article 50 notice
• Theresa May deal
• No-deal but with NI aligned with Ireland
• No-deal without a deal for NI and thus a border on the island

Sam Russell

Enzokk wrote: »

I am not sure what the poster meant, but I would think the best to worst outcome for Ireland is as follows:

• Withdraw article 50 notice
• Theresa May deal
• No-deal but with NI aligned with Ireland
• No-deal without a deal for NI and thus a border on the island

I think the order is the same for the UK.

Seth Brundle

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Technically, a No Backstop Brexit could be one with a permanent Customs Union, but then that would jump to No. 2 on the list!

tuxy wrote: »

No. 4 would be a deal without a backstop.

Neither are currently on the table so effectively 3 and 4 are the same.

Capt'n Midnight

Nody wrote: »

Honestly and I'm not being satirical here but I think they think it would not happen to UK due to their long history and the "special relationship" etc. when in practice they are a useful pet nation at times as far as US is concerned for decades. But this is rose tinted glasses crowd over there and that's beyond those who'd profit from it in the first place.

There was no special relationship.


The UK practically gave the US the technology that won the war, and kept them ahead during the opening phase of the cold war and got the cold shoulder once there was nothing to take ( leaks to the soviets didn't help )

High powered radar transmitters , took out the Japanese Navy in many night engagements in the same way the Royal Navy took out the Italian Navy a few years earlier. The German Navy had radar BTW.
Proximity fuses, took out the Japanese Army and the Luftwaffe and the flying bomb
The whole Enigma thing
Jet engines.

The UK and Canada could have developed the atomic bomb if they hadn't shared the research and scientists with the US. See Tube Alloys etc


It's interesting to think what the UK could have been had a peace deal been done with Hitler in 1940.


The Anglo American loan in July 1946 confirmed there was no special relationship. During the war they pegged the pound to $4.02
One of the conditions of the load was the convertibility of sterling. nett result was the pound went from $4.02 to $2.80 in 1949.

Other conditions on that loan.
http://www.miketodd.net/encyc/dollhist-graph.htm

During the war America had helped Britain by providing a wide variety of war-related goods with the intention of recovering the cost once the war was over. Through this "lease-lend" arrangement, the Americans held Britain in a tight grip. For instance, Britain was not permitted to export any of the goods that America had provided under the lease-lend arrangement, nor anything that resembled these goods even if they were British-made.

And on top of that Trump is going full "America First" and having a trade war with China.


The UK were kept out of the US nuclear circle until they developed their own thermonuclear weapons with some new tech for the US.

Look up the Skybolt crisis that collapsed the Macmillan government

Or cancelling the TRS-2 in favour of the F111

The UK is undoubtedly the US's best ally and it's most important one in Europe, but it's always gotten the wrong end of the stick.


When it comes to political independence I still wonder why the UK didn't get involved in Vietnam, even after being shafted by the US over Suez and ignored during the Malayan Emergency


Rose tinted glasses all right.

The oldest generation that were there in WWII and the rationing afterwards voted remain.

CelticRambler

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Two intriguing opinion polls today - one, for a general election, suggests the eurosceptic vote that had coalesced around the Tories is fracturing again

Tell me how wrote: »

There's no question but that there is a derth of talent at the top of both main parties in the UK.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

look at the potential alternatives. Johnson? Davis? Redmond? For all her flaws May seems to have at least one foot on the ground ...

unit 1 wrote: »

Surely the deadlock is that the remainers/brexiteers can cancel each other out in this game of chicken, as tm has lost control of her party.

The only sensible outcome is for the adults in the room (whoever they may be) to take over the asylum and have an indicative vote instructing the pm to revoke article 50.

If we can see it, you can be sure the strategists in the EU can see it too, and I think that will strongly influence the terms & conditions attached to any extension - if indeed the EU think it's worth keeping the UK inside the tent.

With a handful of "rickety" national governments already making a nuisance of themselves, there's a good argument to be made for cutting the UK loose for a decade while they re-think their undemocratic FPTP electoral process, sort out their disenfranchised regions and find themselves a prime minister worth the title.

Having seen the way the UK negotiates, starting with the DUP turning on their Tory masters to scupper the original WA, right up to Geoffrey Cox announcing his intention to weasel out of the latest agreement, there's a case to be made for letting the UK crash out - on the 29th - and for the EU to dictate exactly how Britain does business in the future (while picking the sweetest cherries as compensation for all the fecking about).

Water John

Cox thought he was a wide boy until he met Weyand and called her 'dear'.
One thing that can be said for Brussels is that they always employed the brightest.

Joe_ Public

I think one thing you can say for the FPP system is it makes it that much harder for right wing extremists to gain traction in the electoral process. The obvious downside, of course, is that extremism, of both hues, will then seek an outlet through the main parties and often to devastating effect, as we are currently witnessing.

astrofool

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Corbyn is betting everything on getting AND winning a general election as a hard left party. Any compromise on the hard left line and Labour would walk the next election and be stable enough to do a deal with the EU.

It brings everything back to the disaster that was Milliband and his desire to be "cool" that changed the leader voting that allowed Corbyn to get a foothold. Corbyn who then didn't run a remain campaign (as he wants out so he can set up semi-state behemoths, despite the fact that a Tory exit will be far worse for socialists than a generally socialist EU), which messed up Cameron's plans as any meaningful attempt by Labour during the campaign would have been enough to swing the vote and assuaged the no-EU part of his party.

However, seeing both JC and TM cling to power in their own unique ways is the tragicomedy of our times and we thought BIFFO was bad at it when he couldn't name his ministers anymore.

Water John

It does have all the ingredients for a Shakespearean drama. Have we anyone nowadays to write it?

astrofool

astrofool wrote: »

It brings everything back to the disaster that was Milliband and his desire to be "cool" that changed the leader voting that allowed Corbyn to get a foothold. Corbyn who then didn't run a remain campaign (as he wants out so he can set up semi-state behemoths, despite the fact that a Tory exit will be far worse for socialists than a generally socialist EU), which messed up Cameron's plans as any meaningful attempt by Labour during the campaign would have been enough to swing the vote and assuaged the no-EU part of his party.

However, seeing both JC and TM cling to power in their own unique ways is the tragicomedy of our times and we thought BIFFO was bad at it when he couldn't name his ministers anymore.

I'd say no one ever regrets a bacon sandwich like that man.

An Ciarraioch

http://twitter.com/BBCHelenaLee/status/1107402013162303489

The most interesting bit is tucked away in the article, in that Trimble now seems satisfied with the backstop.

Spanish Eyes

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

http://twitter.com/BBCHelenaLee/status/1107402013162303489

The most interesting bit is tucked away in the article, in that Trimble now seems satisfied with the backstop.

Often wondered who was paying for his court challenge on this.

I think I have my answer now.

tuxy

It seems even if a large number of the ERG decide to back May's deal they don't all vote as one so some will still reject it.
May will probably need at least 20 labour votes. The way Corbyn is talking he will be whipping MPs to reject the vote again. If May's deal does make it through there will be many labour resignations. If the vote fails he has promised another vote of no confidence in the government.

It's all over the place with neither leaders being able to control their MPs

Joe_ Public

Do we know how many ERG members there are? Have heard anything quoted from 60 to 70. Would bet that 10-15 of them would vote the deal down under any circumstances, possibly more.

Imreoir2

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Erm, numbers three and four are the same

Well, yes in practice, what I ment was the brexiter aim of having a deal that does not include a backstop. Worst possible outcome for us.

Headshot

May will have to promise something to Labour to get her deal across the line. If I was in her shoes I'd promise a government election because Corbyn won't win anyway which is real indicative of how bad Labour is when a Tory government is the worse is my living memory

briany

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd say no one ever regrets a bacon sandwich like that man.

To be honest, if a strategically-timed shot of you eating a bacon sandwich can affect your chances, if your bubble is that easily popped, if your image must be that carefully micromanaged, then it paints a pretty weak picture. Milliband, like Cameron, had not sensed the change in the political atmosphere. The public was rapidly going off politicians who tried to be relatable, ordinary and cool. These men were becoming increasingly seen as ideologically mediocre in a time when public appetite for strong ideology was increasing, and this has given rise to Brexit in the UK and a couple of big players within the movement who can do no wrong no matter who many gaffes they make, because their supporters fundamentally agree with the message they're promoting.

Water John

Yes I agree it possibly will need about 20 LB MPs. LB leaked 6 the last vote.
Unless Corbyn offers a credible route, LB will leak more. The chance of a vote plus Ref as the ultimate LB fallback position might achieve that. That's why he has been giving it credence as an option today.
He will go through the 3rd vote and a 2nd No confidence motion before he gets there.