Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Kermit.de.frog

murphaph wrote: »

Link please.

https://storify.com/services/proxy/2/xMr5MyJ8F1w4AVkWtx3gZQ/https/media.fyre.co/3B4isroShCM2gL21Ymw0_indy.JPG

McGiver

sondagefaux wrote: »

McGiver wrote: »

World gdp:
USA 24%
China 15%
EU 13%
Japan 5%
India 3%
UK 3%
The rest 37%

As the developing world grows the developed countries' share of the world's GDP will decrease. Again, this is not a rocket science. Developed countries grow less, developing countries grow faster (from lower base).

The key point which alludes the Brexiter lunatics is this:
1. The UK's share of world gdp decreases too

2. UK in the EU having the same share of world gdp as China or 75% of that of the USA is much better than UK out of EU having only 20% of China gdp or 12% of USA gdp.

The 'growing faster' trope is nonsense.

If per capita GDP in France is $50,000 per year, and is growing at 1.0% per year, next year it will be $50,500.

If per capita GDP in Ethiopia is $1,500 per year and is growing at 10% per year, next year it will be $1,650.

Even if Ethiopia were to sustain a 10% growth rate for many years, it would take decades for it to catch up with France, even if French growth rates remained at only 1% for many years.

Yes and that somewhat.

But there are many rising Ethiopias and Vietnams and it all aggregates into higher proportion of % of world's gdp in the "Rest of the world" category (i.e. not US, EU, Japan, China).

An Ciarraioch

Farage offers Johnson a "non-aggression pact" :

https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1170434968859881472

fr336

listermint wrote: »

They're not getting a majority.


Just simply not happening.

I think you're right. I think the polls are going to be even more wrong than 2017. It just doesn't make any sense. If the Tories were losing seats they'd held since the early 20th century and tons of their seats turning marginal with May's more moderate approach in 2017, how can they do better than her this time? Logic would assume that if going for no deal they will do much, much worse.


Brexit wasn't a landslide - how many of those 52% regret their decision, or even if they were hardened Brexiteers be willing to risk no deal? How many are Labour voters who would rather die in a ditch than vote Tory? How many may be fully behind Brexit but are typical "moderate" wealthy Tory voters who quite like the money rolling in thanks very much? What about Scotland who voted remain - complete Tory bloodbath there? The south west? London? BJ's own seat? The list goes on. If Cummings and Downing Street are betting the house on Labour's leave seats (like May did!), they really are desperate.

Strazdas

murphaph wrote: »

Link please.

https://twitter.com/ToryVote_/status/1170451045820043272

Headshot

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Farage offers Johnson a "non-aggression pact" :

https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1170434968859881472

The first reply with the picture is quite apt

Nody

McGiver wrote: »

Yes and that somewhat.

But there are many rising Ethiopias and Vietnams and it all aggregates into higher proportion of % of world's gdp in the "Rest of the world" category (i.e. not US, EU, Japan, China).

You are aware that the total GDP of every African country combined is less than France, right?

Water John

Wakefield is one of those constituencies, it voted leave but has been Lb since 1932, I think. That's where there hoping to take.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wakefield_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

PropJoe10

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Farage offers Johnson a "non-aggression pact" :

https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1170434968859881472

They might as well just create a combined party at this point because there's little difference between Boris's Tories and Farage's rabble.

J Mysterio

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Wow, thought Johnson might at least have an easy time of it over the weekend!

No rest for the wicked!

Enzokk

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I think the EU would certainly be willing to work with a Labour delegation on the basis that it is in everybodys interest to work out a bill that can get through parliament. Labours biggest problem wasnt necessarily the text of the WA itself, but with the fact they would then be handing over total control of the future relationship process to the tories with no safety mechanisms and their only hope to subsequently win an election. Nor do i see how you can put the same WAB to a referendum that isn't binding and then has to go back to a parliament that has rejected it 3 times. I would be fairly confident the EU would view that situation with enough flexibility as is required. Maybe not substantial changes, but enough to satisfy both sides and give it every chance of getting through.

I have been giving this some thought today. I am sure others can help me but I cannot see how the deal for Labour would be any different than the deal May got. Maybe the negotiations are done in a friendlier spirit as Labour would not see the EU as the enemy so there is less friction from the negotiations, but I don't see the substance of the deal changing much at all.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Brexit hard man Steve Barclay has written an Op ed for the Telegraph tomorrow.

It's pay walled. Anyone have the gist of it?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/07/eu-setting-test-impossible-meet/

It is a lot of guff to be honest. Some quotes from the article,

We are doing everything we can to ditch the anti-democratic backstop and reach a deal. We started this negotiation with both sides committed to finding flexible and creative solutions.

...

The EU also insists that the backstop remains in place unless we identify all of the legally operative solutions to replace it before October 31. Of course, we are ready to put forward legal text by that date.

But operational details can, and should be, developed and shaped during the transition period after we have left. This kind of molecular detail does not have to be set out in totality by October 31.

...

But the backstop is not the only solution compatible with the Good Friday Agreement. We are proposing perfectly reasonable alternative solutions. For example, we have suggested a creative way of solving the problems of trade in food and animals across the island of Ireland, with the consent of all parties and institutions with an interest.

Yet sometimes it seems that nothing we suggest goes far enough and no matter how creative our solutions, the response is a statement of openness which masks a closed position.

...

Too many in the EU still seem to hope the issue can be resolved by the UK remaining in its Single Market. Or indeed even the EU itself.

The simple fact is that with imagination, compromise and goodwill we can solve this issue by October 31.

And we can solve it in a way that gives confidence to the EU that we can have a good relationship for the future. That is what we all want and that is what we can achieve.

We are told again and again that it is for London to come to Brussels and provide the solutions.

What matters is not where we solve this – but how.

With a spirit of genuine compromise and flexibility, I am confident we can reach a deal. It requires both sides to step up to the challenge.

That is the gist of it, lots of talk but little solutions from the UK side. He keeps talking the same tripe that May was talking about, creative and flexible solutions and this can be solved by the end of the transition period. If he was that confident, why so upset about the backstop if it will not be needed?

We are back to unicorns and cherry picking. After 3 freaking years we have moved backwards in the negotiations.

McGiver

Nody wrote: »

McGiver wrote: »

Yes and that somewhat.

But there are many rising Ethiopias and Vietnams and it all aggregates into higher proportion of % of world's gdp in the "Rest of the world" category (i.e. not US, EU, Japan, China).

You are aware that the total GDP of every African country combined is less than France, right?

Yep but that's nominal, PPP it's $2.8t vs $6.4t, so African gdp is 2.3 times that of France. That's why mentioned "Ethiopias and Vietnams" and by that meant all emerging economies.

Anyway UK world's gdp share is some 3% and it's very likely stay at best or decrease whilst China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Vietnam etc going to increase their share of global GDP.

Kermit.de.frog

This article in the Sunday Business Post says govt wants "checks" - not "checkpoints".

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ED4UHyrWwAAacp0?format=jpg&name=large

Is that a climb down? Can't read the article so I dunno.

Water John

Quite simply Lb if looking for a Brexit Deal with the EU as per Corbyn, then SM and CU come into play. Lb have no issue with immigration also. Total change to goalposts from a EU POV.

devnull

The Tories are looking for reinforcements it seems:
https://twitter.com/DKShrewsbury/status/1170439183208472578

From one right wing party to another.

What was it that Farage said about British people collaborating with people outside the UK?

Capt'n Midnight

McGiver wrote: »

Yes and that somewhat.

But there are many rising Ethiopias and Vietnams and it all aggregates into higher proportion of % of world's gdp in the "Rest of the world" category (i.e. not US, EU, Japan, China).

80% of the rest of the world growth will be in China and India.

India wants visas and more visas, for starters.


The UK had already caved in to China over steel. Tens of of thousands of UK jobs put at risk for the sake of £130 million saving on cheap shoes. And the played their EU veto which put tens of thousands of EU jobs at risk too.


May had an immigration "target" of 100,000. Impossible to achieve when you are letting in more than that from those two countries. And now that trade deals with them will be needed it will be harder.



The rest of the rest of the world is only 20%.

The deal with South Africa happened at the same time as billions in aid was promised.

devnull

Former Labour MP Angela Smith has now joined the Lib Dems according to the Sunday Times.

Wonder if there are more to follow.

Capt'n Midnight

Tell me how wrote: »

Would Farage be happy to sacrifice his new party and the supposed 600 candidates entirely, just to deliver Brexit?

Does Farage have enough money to abandon the gravy train ?

Capt'n Midnight

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Being reported tomorrow that No 10 is going to refuse to appoint new EU commissioner and thus the EU will have no choice but to kick the UK out.

Not new news as Boris said it back in July.
Barnier commented back in May


Not even an issue unless the UK gets a extension longer than a few moths.



https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/brexit/the-eu/pm-says-uk-will-not-nominate-an-eu-commissioner-how-might-the-eu-respond/

On 25 July, in his first statement to Parliament as UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson said the Government would not nominate a UK candidate for EU Commissioner.
...
The College of Commissioners is not always at full complement (one Commissioner per Member State).
...
The Bulgarian Commission Vice-President Kristalina Georgieva resigned in October 2016. Bulgaria nominated a replacement four months later. In both these cases, subject portfolios were covered by other Commissioners in the interim.
...
Under Article 246 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Council of the EU may decide by unanimity on a proposal from the Commission that a vacancy caused by resignation, compulsory retirement or death “need not be filled, in particular when the remainder of the Member’s term of office is short.” ‘Short’ is not defined, but it would appear from the May 2019 precedent that five months is too long.

Article 246.


And it's totally moot as the commissioner isn't a UK rep. So unlikely to stop the EU working as normal.
Article 17(7) of the Treaty on European Union

3. The Commission's term of office shall be five years.

The members of the Commission shall be chosen on the ground of their general competence and European commitment from persons whose independence is beyond doubt.

In carrying out its responsibilities, the Commission shall be completely independent. Without prejudice to Article 18(2), the members of the Commission shall neither seek nor take instructions from any Government or other institution, body, office or entity. They shall refrain from any action incompatible with their duties or the performance of their tasks.

Westernyelp

This looks dangerously like a serious crash and burn for the UK. it is remarkable to see them throw themselves under the bus like this.
Once the schadenfreude wears off it is quite disturbing to see the political class of a country collectively lose their minds and push their constituents in to this madness.

Imreoir2

Westernyelp wrote: »

This looks dangerously like a serious crash and burn for the UK. it is remarkable to see them throw themselves under the bus like this.
Once the schadenfreude wears off it is quite disturbing to see the political class of a country collectively lose their minds and push their constituents in to this madness.

Their Government seems ready to crash and burn, but the last week suggests that parliament are willing and able to stop them.

careless sherpa

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Their Government seems ready to crash and burn, but the last week suggests that parliament are willing and able to stop them.

Parliament needs to vote for the withdrawal agreement to prevent it then. No point in voting to prevent no deal exit and then continually voting to prevent the means of ensuring it. They have to face up to that eventually

Rain Ascending

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Not new news as Boris said it back in July.
Barnier commented back in May

Not even an issue unless the UK gets a extension longer than a few moths.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/brexit/the-eu/pm-says-uk-will-not-nominate-an-eu-commissioner-how-might-the-eu-respond/

Article 246.

And it's totally moot as the commissioner isn't a UK rep. So unlikely to stop the EU working as normal.
Article 17(7) of the Treaty on European Union

Thanks for debunking this idea that both the Sunday Express and Newsnight (Friday) have floated.

A few observations:

• The No 10 office will be desperate to show that Johnson can take the initiative on some front next week. Not least because Johnson is under pressure to remove Cummings, who is the lead advisor.
• From the the various ideas, like this one, that are doing the rounds, I get the sense that that team is not very high-powered. Nikki Da Costa is a known expert in parliamentary procedure and the legal success of the proroguement of Parliament using the Queen's Speech is testament to that expertise. But as for the rest? I've heard it said that quite a few from the Vote Leave campaign are there. This makes them a strong campaigning team -- with Cummings a master of messaging -- but I guess a weak team for Westminster politics (see the disastrous withdrawal of the whip from 21 Tories), EU politics or (critically) legal issues.
• Therefore, take a lot of the ideas that are floated by "No 10" over the next few days and weeks with a large pinch of salt. In many cases they won't stand up to scrutiny, but "only" serve to keep hard core supporters convinced of the Johnson's determination.

On this assessment, Johnson's regime will either grind into paralysis or continue to make stupid mistakes ... unless Johnson sacks Cummings.

Strazdas

Westernyelp wrote: »

This looks dangerously like a serious crash and burn for the UK. it is remarkable to see them throw themselves under the bus like this.
Once the schadenfreude wears off it is quite disturbing to see the political class of a country collectively lose their minds and push their constituents in to this madness.

It's fascinating to see a supposedly centre right party reinvent itself as a hard right / far right one and even expel dozens of MPs who don't agree with the radical shift.

I'm struggling to think of any other example in modern European history.

Personally, I reckon this is all just a show before either the current WA or more likely a NI-only WA is voted for my parliament.

Cummings et al. know that a crash out won't last
long and that's his dream of leaving the EU gone. Create utter political chaos so going back to the backstop to save the country from madness will be welcomed.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

Personally, I reckon this is all just a show before either the current WA or more likely a NI-only WA is voted for my parliament.

Cummings et al. know that a crash out won't last
long and that's his dream of leaving the EU gone. Create utter political chaos so going back to the backstop to save the country from madness will be welcomed.

Not so sure about this.

If that had been the plan, they wouldn't have jettisoned party members as they did. It was Johnson's (under Cummings direction) decision to remove whips from rebel MP's. He could have taken their protest under consideration but kept them on board if he ultimately was going to do an about turn as part of a strategy.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Not so sure about this.

If that had been the plan, they wouldn't have jettisoned party members as they did. It was Johnson's (under Cummings direction) decision to remove whips from rebel MP's. He could have taken their protest under consideration but kept them on board if he ultimately was going to do an about turn as part of a strategy.

I don't think it was plan A all along. And I'm not trying to convince anyone I'm right. I just think this was the plan B if he didn't win those votes.

Zubeneschamali

briany wrote: »

At this point, I think the cadre of those in the Cons who want no-deal would be happy with no-deal in perpetuity

They couldn't even keep No Deal going til Christmas, never mind in perpetuity.

Zubeneschamali

careless sherpa wrote: »

Parliament needs to vote for the withdrawal agreement to prevent it then.

The WA is a terrible deal for the UK. They can secure a far, far better deal - better than France or Germany gets - by simply revoking A50.

Roger_007

I think that the No 1 objective of Johnson/Cummings is to get to a GE where they reckon that they will win a majority.
They look at the Trump example and can see that it doesn't matter what trouble they get into or what chaos they cause or what the mainstream media say, the British public, (or enough of them anyway), will respond in a jingoistic way to a sort of 'Make Britain Great Again' type of campaign. All the shenanigans that are going on at the moment are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
The Tories could win a handsome majority with as little as 40% of the vote. The Brexit party will wither on the vine and pose no threat now that the Tories have stolen their clothes. Labour are hamstrung by Corbyn. As long as he is the leader Labour will never win an election.
The Johnson/Cummings project is still well on course.