Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Kermit.de.frog

J Mysterio wrote: »

Rudd explicitly said that she was resigning because of (a) treatment of the 21 dissenters and (b) because the government are not spending time on trying to negotiate a deal.

The competent ones are getting out because this is a dumpster fire and everyone associated with it at the end is going to get burned.

They are not doing it on principle.

They are openly briefing about breaking the law.

It's getting more bizarre by the day.

lawred2

J Mysterio wrote: »

For all the Brexiteer bluster, things are going from bad to worse for them. Varadkar brilliant here.

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1170699558248157191

Put up or shut up time. 'We want to negotiate with you, we're just not sure you enjoy sufficient support in your parliament'.

Not sure that that's Leo's business really. Until the HOC dumps BJ and his merry band of fools by a VONC or an election they are still the UK government.

I understand his reasoning but I think he's best not engaging in such talk.

ElectronVolt

lawred2 wrote: »

Not sure that that's Leo's business really. Until the HOC dumps BJ and his merry band of fools by a VONC or an election they are still the UK government.

I understand his reasoning but I think he's best not engaging in such talk.

It is in the sense that this is exactly why the previous negotiation with May amounted to nothing. She effectively had no mandate to negotiate.

Igotadose

ElectronVolt wrote: »

It is in the sense that this is exactly why the previous negotiation with May amounted to nothing. She effectively had no mandate to negotiate.

+1. Leo's pointing out that BoJo's got to be wearing his big-boy pants when he comes to talk. Talk is cheap at this late date - what can he deliver.

Personally, I believe he can't deliver anything. He never has. And the sooner the election (once BoJo can't force the no-deal), the sooner the back of these chancers is seen.

Strazdas

lawred2 wrote: »

Not sure that that's Leo's business really. Until the HOC dumps BJ and his merry band of fools by a VONC or an election they are still the UK government.

I understand his reasoning but I think he's best not engaging in such talk.

The backstop and the border are 100% Irish issues. The Taoiseach is not commenting on internal British politics

LeinsterDub

Under the proposal, Stewart would stand as an independent MP at the next general election but agree to accept a soft Lib Dem whip in exchange for the party not fielding a candidate against him. It is understood that the Green Party would also stand aside in Stewart’s Penrith seat.

Interesting development here. The Lib Dems plus semi lib dems and SNP would hold the balance of power

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lib-dems-to-stand-aside-for-rory-stewart-and-other-tory-rebels-in-general-election-m0cvdjlr8

lawred2

Strazdas wrote: »

The backstop and the border are 100% Irish issues. The Taoiseach is not commenting on internal British politics

Indeed they are. The makeup of the British government is not though.

Headshot

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Interesting development here. The Lib Dems plus semi lib dems and SNP would hold the balance of power

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lib-dems-to-stand-aside-for-rory-stewart-and-other-tory-rebels-in-general-election-m0cvdjlr8

oh very interesting, anyone got a full article?

Imreoir2

lawred2 wrote: »

Indeed they are. The makeup of the British government is not though.

The ability of the British government to deliver is very much of interest to the Irish government. Why bother talking to a leader that can deliver nothing because their own parliament is against them?

lawred2

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The ability of the British government to deliver is very much of interest to the Irish government. Why bother talking to a leader that can deliver nothing because their own parliament is against them?

Because ultimately that's what you have to do.

Imreoir2

lawred2 wrote: »

Because ultimately that's what you have to do.

You really don't have to waste your time talking to someone who can't deliver a deal even if they agree one with you. It is entirely legitimate to question how Johnson proposes to get the deal he wants to agree with the EU through Parliament when he has no majority and a section of the remainder of his party are talking about opposing any deal. If he has no credible answer to that question, what is the point of further negiotations?

lawred2

lawred2 wrote: »

Because ultimately that's what you have to do.

He's right to question it. Johnson can strike whatever nonsense awful deal he likes with the EU if he knows he could never get it to pass anyway, as a means to just run down the clock.

At least we knew May really wanted her Deal and could possibly get it. BJ is an unknown with even less chance.

An Ciarraioch

At least in this country, RedC, MRBI and B&A may vary in terms of their poll figures for individual parties, but are generally consistent when it comes to the range and trends of data. The last 24 hours of tracking the various British surveys on Britain Elects, on the other hand, suggests that UK pollsters have learnt nothing from either 2015 or 2017 - where the Tories had 10 and 14% leads yesterday, that has been reduced to 3 and 4% in further polls today, so are they wildly at odds in relation to weightings and/or methodologies?

A Dub in Glasgo

Headshot wrote: »

oh very interesting, anyone got a full article?

'Rebel Tories expelled from the party are in talks with the Liberal Democrats about a non-aggression pact.

The former Lib Dem leader Tim Farron is helping to broker a deal between Rory Stewart, an expelled Conservative and neighbouring Cumbrian MP, and the new leader, Jo Swinson, insiders say.

Under the proposal, Stewart would stand as an independent MP at the next general election but agree to accept a soft Lib Dem whip in exchange for the party not fielding a candidate against him. It is understood that the Green Party would also stand aside in Stewart’s Penrith seat.

At least three other expelled Tory rebels, including the former universities minister Sam Gyimah, former business minister Margot James and former attorney-general Dominic Grieve, have had similar talks with the Lib Dems about a “loose remain alliance”, sources say.

Although Stewart supports leaving the EU with a deal, insiders say Swinson, whose party wants to stay in the bloc, is prepared to consider an electoral pact with candidates who oppose no-deal, rather than just those who are explicitly anti-Brexit.

A senior Lib Dem source said: “There have been all sorts of conversations going on around what happens in an election.”

Last week Boris Johnson removed the party whip from 21 Tory MPs who backed emergency legislation to block a no-deal Brexit. Despite a growing backlash against the decision, Downing Street insists that there is “no way back” for the rebels. At least six of those expelled have announced their intention to stand down at the next general election but others have declared their intention to fight for their seats.

Philip Hammond, the former chancellor, fought back yesterday, saying he was not going to be pushed out by “unelected Downing Street advisers who are not Conservative and who care not a jot whether the party has a future”.

In an article for the Surrey Advertiser, he added: “Nor will I have my party taken from me by entryists and usurpers who have infiltrated the party ranks, in an attempt to turn it from a centre-right broad church into an extreme right-wing faction.”

The Tory rebels are considering forming a new group. The “Independent Conservatives” and “Liberal Conservatives” are among names that have been floated. The manoeuvring comes as the former Conservative deputy prime minister Michael Heseltine urged the expelled rebels to stand as independents at the next election.

In an article for The Sunday Times, he writes: “If sanity does not prevail and the prime minister refuses to reinstate them, I believe these MPs should stand under an independent Conservative banner.”

Sian Berry, co-leader of the Green Party, raised the prospect of an electoral pact with remain-supporting parties. She said: “We are thinking very hard about whether we focus our fire on each other or on the Conservatives, and they do need to be very worried about that.”

Capt'n Midnight

prawnsambo wrote: »

Just to put this one to bed. Here's an actual expert in EU law on the subject.

If it was as easy as violating an EU treaty then couldn't the executive have done that already without needing a majority in parliament ?

And there is the minor issue of HMG becoming an oathbreaker, which may affect credit rating and will undermine their negotiators in any future trade deals.

10000maniacs

LiamoSail wrote: »

Given 52% were racist/foolish enough to vote for Brexit, it’s hardly surprising that a racist fool’s party can command such apparent support.

I think there is a general lack of empathy with the people who fall into the leave camp.
A lot of the leavers have no moral compass. Or no compass whatsoever if they are flat earthers too.
Don't laugh, its true in a lot of cases.:)

Harry Palmr

Phil Hogan will be the next Trade commissioner it seems

https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1170686774785585154

is_that_so

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

At least in this country, RedC, MRBI and B&A may vary in terms of their poll figures for individual parties, but are generally consistent when it comes to the range and trends of data. The last 24 hours of tracking the various British surveys on Britain Elects, on the other hand, suggests that UK pollsters have learnt nothing from either 2015 or 2017 - where the Tories had 10 and 14% leads yesterday, that has been reduced to 3 and 4% in further polls today, so are they wildly at odds in relation to weightings and/or methodologies?

Quite a few , pollsters and others, have said the outcome is going to be very difficult to call accurately and these polls clearly agree. The 12% from a few days back was based on data from 23 August.

is_that_so

lawred2 wrote: »

Not sure that that's Leo's business really. Until the HOC dumps BJ and his merry band of fools by a VONC or an election they are still the UK government.

I understand his reasoning but I think he's best not engaging in such talk.

He's always done that type of talking, usually quite loose. Been curtailed since he became Taoiseach but it is still there just below the surface! No issue with it here with a spoofer like Boris. It is actually the right call in that context.

Joe_ Public

The most egregious polling errors in 2017 were in the failure to account for the major upsurge in young and first time voters that largely turned out for labour. First time or rare voters also helped to trigger the leave vote a year earlier too.

According to the guardian last week, there were 100,000 fresh registers on the electoral list in the space of 2 days last week and i wonder if the polls will catch up on it this time round, assuming they already havent.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/04/more-than-100000-people-apply-register-vote-youth-uk-general-election

Labour are going to push this even harder than 2017 i suspect. Interestingly, there is a student population in Boris Johnsons own constituency of nearly 15,000 students and because 2017 election was held outside term time, it would not have yielded a huge number of votes. This time, they are mobilising that vote and it could yield to an interesting election for the UK's glorious leader. Here's hoping at least!

Call me Al

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Problem solved for Ireland but the EU don't want britain free and it will kill the EU with trade

You are completely wrong.
Completely.
Teresa May had agreed a NI-only backstop with the EU. Once agreed back in Westminster the UK would have been free to proceed as it wanted and trade with whosoever they wanted.
But Arlene came calling and pulled those £1,000,000,000 reins leading to the UK asking to extend the backstop UK-wide. That it wasn't agreed in parliament in the first place is not the fault of the EU, Barnier, or any of the 27 other EU members. The Downing St's mess and the Tory party woes are not their fault either.

BorneTobyWilde

Politics are all about disagreeing with the opposition, not about what's best. May's deal was a good compromise, and it did enough to please enough of the people, but Labour did not vote for it, yet now they are crying out for it.

10000maniacs

Most of Labours front bench want to remain. If Labour win the GE and go for a second referendum, Europe is going to refuse to negotiate a new deal with them. What's the point if you are going to campaign to remain anyway? they will say. I think it is Corbyn who is insisting on this idiotic mixed message.

beggars_bush

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

At least in this country, RedC, MRBI and B&A may vary in terms of their poll figures for individual parties, but are generally consistent when it comes to the range and trends of data. The last 24 hours of tracking the various British surveys on Britain Elects, on the other hand, suggests that UK pollsters have learnt nothing from either 2015 or 2017 - where the Tories had 10 and 14% leads yesterday, that has been reduced to 3 and 4% in further polls today, so are they wildly at odds in relation to weightings and/or methodologies?

They still ring landlines during the day
Older people mainly have landlines and would be at home
The methodologies are completely skewed towards the party in power

moon2

There's been a lot of talk about how the UK will, once they're free of the EU, create trade deals superior to what the EU have negotiated. In all these discussions I haven't seen much mention of Most Favoured Nation clauses. I did a bit of searching and the most concise rundown I've found so far is http://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/uktpo/publications/most-favoured-nation-clauses-in-eu-trade-agreements-one-more-hurdle-for-uk-negotiators/ .

The summary for a UK-EU trade agreement is:

If the EU granted the UK significantly better access to its services markets, this would mean that the same treatment would need to be extended to Canada, South Korea, all CARIFORUM countries, Japan, Vietnam and Mexico ‘for free’ (assuming that Vietnam and Mexico’s agreements enter into force before a potential UK-EU deal). Although these countries may not be large enough to make such concessions to the UK impossible, they will surely be a discouragement.

and for UK-Anyone else

Should the UK wish to re-negotiate the terms of the existing EU agreements post-Brexit, the MFN obligations discussed above appear to virtually prohibit the parties to these agreements from granting any better treatment, with respect to services and investment, to the UK than has already been granted to the EU. If they did, they would be required to extend the same concessions to the EU, an economy six times the size of the UK, ‘for free’. This seems like a price too high to pay.

The get-out clause to avoid falling under these clauses is, broadly speaking, a soft Brexit with regulatory alignment. So, if these are as relevant as they sound to 'Global Britain', why aren't they being spoken about? If there's a hard Brexit i sincerely doubt the electorate will be told "The amazing deals we will be creating will be equal to, or worse, than what we used to enjoy, and they'll take years to finalise".

Enzokk

gooch2k9 wrote: »

I'd say them lads aren't too fussed about the Brexit situation. Just a handy opportunity to kick off. I can't think of one possible impact of the EU on my life that would make me want to attack the police.

I think they have been whipped up, but Brexit like you say may not be the real reason. I think it plays about 1/3 of a role in trying to get a fight.

Ronan|Raven wrote: »

I am convinced I am in a coma and this nonsense is not reality.

https://twitter.com/TheRedRoar/status/1170610941383385088

Raab rabbiting on about how they have solutions but dont want to give them to the EU.. for fear of getting ridiculed.
How can you actually negoitiate with this level of amateurism?

The plan seems to be to not tell the EU of the solution until the last minute and hope that will scare them into conceding to the UK. Its the Theresa May plan, and we remember how successful that was. I wonder if the Foreign Secretary has gotten to read the GFA yet.

lawred2 wrote: »

Not sure that that's Leo's business really. Until the HOC dumps BJ and his merry band of fools by a VONC or an election they are still the UK government.

I understand his reasoning but I think he's best not engaging in such talk.

It is his business if Johnson cannot get a deal through. Why waste precious time negotiating with him when he it will be futile. The time will be better spent on no-deal preparations and testing him his plans if he wins a majority than trying to negotiate a deal now when he has no control over parliament.

lawred2

Enzokk wrote: »

It is his business if Johnson cannot get a deal through. Why waste precious time negotiating with him when he it will be futile. The time will be better spent on no-deal preparations and testing him his plans if he wins a majority than trying to negotiate a deal now when he has no control over parliament.

100%

But does it need saying publicly?

Irish Praetorian

moon2 wrote: »

There's been a lot of talk about how the UK will, once they're free of the EU, create trade deals superior to what the EU have negotiated. In all these discussions I haven't seen much mention of Most Favoured Nation clauses. I did a bit of searching and the most concise rundown I've found so far is http://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/uktpo/publications/most-favoured-nation-clauses-in-eu-trade-agreements-one-more-hurdle-for-uk-negotiators/ .

The summary for a UK-EU trade agreement is:


and for UK-Anyone else


The get-out clause to avoid falling under these clauses is, broadly speaking, a soft Brexit with regulatory alignment. So, if these are as relevant as they sound to 'Global Britain', why aren't they being spoken about? If there's a hard Brexit i sincerely doubt the electorate will be told "The amazing deals we will be creating will be equal to, or worse, than what we used to enjoy, and they'll take years to finalise".

There is actually one exception to the MFN rule which is if two countries decide to create a 'Free Trade Area' which is what a lot of people mean nowadays when they say two countries have signed a 'Trade Agreement'. However there are two problems the UK faces in going down this route;

Firstly they cannot start treating countries they are already trading with worse, simply because they now have a trade agreement with someone else. So the UK cannot for example, make a trade area with the US to allow the free import and export of cars whilst at the same time putting tariffs of say 20% on EU made cars.

Secondly, there is no 'sector picking', so the big canard of 'phoahh we'll lift tariffs on NZ lamb and they'll lift tariffs on our financial products' simply does not fly in reality - if you are going to create a 'Free Trade Area' under WTO rules, those agreements need to cover the entirety of the economy, not just bits and pieces.

In addition to these, the idea that the UK can start levying tariffs willy nilly is also a bit of a slap in the face to the WTO and I suspect would not get very far.

Leroy42

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Politics are all about disagreeing with the opposition, not about what's best. May's deal was a good compromise, and it did enough to please enough of the people, but Labour did not vote for it, yet now they are crying out for it.

TM deal was indeed a good compromise based on the red lines created by TM. There was no need to create those red lines.

Labour voted against in part because of the red lines that led to the WA being as good as i could get, but knowing that removing those red lines could enable a far better deal.

Joe_ Public

Labour could not support the WAB because it gave them absolutely no guarantees about any of the things relating to workers' protections, environmental regulations and so on that they cared about. They could not simply let it through and then trust that the government would look after those things when negotiating the future relationship, what they called a "blind brexit."