Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Fuzzar

OT - EU straw poll...

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Creative Midfielder said:

@VW Thanks, interesting stuff albeit seems a very optimistic take on things but who knows how it will all pan out!

Seems to me that much of what is being talked about there might have been effective a year or (better still) two ago but that TM's conduct over that time in refusing to involve anyone else and in twice agreeing deals with the EU which she then won't honour means that in addition to all her other problems no one actually trusts her any more. Tinkering with the political declaration is all very well but I think in reality both the EU and many of her own MPs are now only interested in things that have legal certainty and aren't going to be won over by statements of intent.

You may be right, but the longer she can keep this going, in the absence of anything else, her withdrawal deal with promises of more involvement in the future relationship may begin to look more attractive. Billy BS will be along soon to tell us that Parliament will take this process over, he may be right, but he knows no more than the rest of us about how this will end.😉

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Van wink said:

Billy BS will be along soon to tell us that Parliament will take this process over, he may be right, but he knows no more than the rest of us about how this will end.😉

 

 

My forecast is that Dominic Grieve's coup d’état will come after we've been offered a choice between two versions of Remain, Van Winkerton 😡 So, Major Billock and I may well proved to be right.

Although, obviously, I desire to be proved completely wrong for all the right reasons -- And Major Billock doesn't for all the wrong reasons.

 

 

Edited by Jools
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Van wink said:

You may be right, but the longer she can keep this going, in the absence of anything else, her withdrawal deal with promises of more involvement in the future relationship may begin to look more attractive. Billy BS will be along soon to tell us that Parliament will take this process over, he may be right, but he knows no more than the rest of us about how this will end.😉

 

I cannot envisage Labour voting for her deal as they want no confidence votes and an election, and I can only see the ERG voting for it if it radically changes or there is a chance of Article 50 being deferred. The fact that she wants to pay 39 Billion for nothing and that WTO is actually a better deal is also another reason many will continue to vote it down.

So the odds are on No Deal....... 😊

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, paul moy said:

I cannot envisage Labour voting for her deal as they want no confidence votes and an election, and I can only see the ERG voting for it if it radically changes or there is a chance of Article 50 being deferred. The fact that she wants to pay 39 Billion for nothing and that WTO is actually a better deal is also another reason many will continue to vote it down.

So the odds are on No Deal....... 😊

Of course, we should go for 'No Deal', which is Brexit, Paul.

As us Brexiteers have emphasised throughout this thread, leaving the failing EU will render us better off.

Peter Lilley, who helped establish the World Trade Organization and who obviously knows a tad more than the likes of KiO, Purple & Billock etc, states the following:

Peter Lilley has hit back at Project Fear stories that Britain will be worse off if it leaves the EU without a deal, saying the country will spend less on EU tariffs and goods would not be held up at ports.

Lord Lilley, who helped establish the World Trade Organization (WTO), hit back at claims by industry minister Richard Harrington MP that WTO terms are “a last resort position” and not meant for trading with complex economies.

“It is meant to provide the basic safe framework for countries where you can’t face retaliation. The European Union couldn’t retaliate against us. You have to receive most favoured nation terms and so on,” Lord Lilley explained on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Monday, adding that once the United Kingdom leaves the EU, the bloc would want a Free Trade Agreement “and it should be relatively straightforward to sort out.”

The Conservative peer also clarified that any tariffs resulting from a No Deal exit would still work out at half the cost of Britain’s current net contribution to the EU budget.

‘No Delays’ to Freight Transport in No Deal Brexit, Says Calais Port Chief https://t.co/h9xUAufZrC

— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) January 9, 2019

 

“The average tariff is four percent,” Lord Lilley pointed out.

“The total cost of all the tariffs we would face from the EU is £5 billion. We currently pay £10 billion or more into the EU coffers — so we’re paying £10 billion to save £5 billion,” he observed.

He also debunked scare stories that trade from Calais would be held up by customs checks, noting that Britain’s own customs and excise office has said it would not impose any more checks on goods coming into Dover than they do at present — i.e. only where there is suspicion or risk of people-trafficking or drugs, alcohol, or tobacco smuggling.

He reminded listeners that the French port of Calais has prepared for increased administration in the event of a WTO exit with three additional lorry lanes and extra scanners for trains, for example.

Earlier this month, the former trade secretary accused Prime Minister Theresa May of stoking “apocalyptic fears about leaving the EU without a Withdrawal Agreement,” likening it to the Millennium Bug hysteria 2o years ago.

Govt Criticised for Stoking ‘Apocalyptic Fears’ over Clean Break from EU https://t.co/y2IGzVJzPH

— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) January 7, 2019

 

Lord Lilley outlined 30 positive benefits of leaving the EU on WTO terms, debunking several myths perpetuated by Remainers — including that planes will still be able to fly to the EU and U.S., manufacturers will still be able to export parts, and British car manufacturers have obtained approvals to sell their models to the EU.

Mrs May’s Withdrawal Agreement was rejected by a historic margin in the House of Commons in January, with the Prime Minister set to present her Brexit ‘Plan B’ in an attempt to win parliamentary support.

While pressure from Remainers to delay or derail Brexit — or even hold a second referendum — continues to mount, an ICM poll seen by the left-liberal Guardian found that the most popular option with voters was a WTO Brexit while establishment-progressive news network Sky News found in their own polling that 56 percent oppose a second referendum.

Govt Whistleblower: UK Prepared for ‘No Deal’ Brexit, Scare Stories ‘Absolutely Untrue’ https://t.co/FHVSSJBnua

 

Why on Earth would any right-minded person believe Project Fear, scaremongering by politicians and civil servants with vested interests in remaining over a person who wrote the book on trade & deal making 'twixt nations?

Edited by Jools
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What utter right wing authoritarian rubbish. If she had any honor she should resign immediately. 

Teresa May.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Van wink said:

From what Mrs May has been saying today, I see a likely movement towards a softer Brexit.

Nothing in what she said to suggest that. Still, please carry on hoping, VW...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Herman said:

Is it worth mentioning that the money we are paying the EU has been agreed to be what we owe, and has no relevance to future trade deals? Or will it fall on deaf ears. Again?

Yes, yes it will. 

Project Fear = Project Fact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To destroy the lie that the EU makes all our rules, Jim Grace, @mac_puck, has done a lot of research on the matter.

Out of 34105 UK laws, 4514 have been EU influenced. 

And out of those 4514 laws, we voted against only 72. 

Worth reading his list of the 72, if you have some spare time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to make WTO simple for people, think of world trade as a ladder. 

On the top rung is THE EU single market/customs union. 

A few rungs down is EEA and EFTA. 

Then ASEAN, NAFTA, TPP etc. 

Near the bottom are small countries like Mauritania, which have a couple of trade agreements. 

Bottom rung is WTO. 

We'll be swapping top position for bottom if the lunatics get their way. Is that what you want? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Van wink said:

You may be right, but the longer she can keep this going, in the absence of anything else, her withdrawal deal with promises of more involvement in the future relationship may begin to look more attractive. Billy BS will be along soon to tell us that Parliament will take this process over, he may be right, but he knows no more than the rest of us about how this will end.😉

poor hand crank, as clueless as ever

'may be right' ........................on the basis that every other time he has been

the problem for you hand crank is you don't appear to grasp the difference between means and intent

you still seem to iagine that this 'deal' was arrived at by May in some solitary act, whereby there was there no prior knowledge, where there is no knowledge of what the EU's response will be now ofhow this would pan out numbers (MP) wise

it rather all comes down to which interpretation of Canute sat by the water's edge you choose to believe

 

Edited by Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jools said:

My forecast is that Dominic Grieve's coup d’état will come after we've been offered a choice between two versions of Remain, Van Winkerton 😡So, Major Billock and I may well proved to be right.

Although, obviously, I desire to be proved completely wrong for all the right reasons -- And Major Billock doesn't for all the wrong reasons.

is that you hand crank ?

rather sounds like you

not so much the obsession with me, but your total lack of understanding of Parliamentary procedure

so if you have a moment then cast your mind back a few months when I was stating that there would be such an unacceptable deal that the government would be obliged to return with a neutral motion

one that could be amended, were the speaker minded to - my thought was that he would be.....and guess what ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Bill said:

poor hand crank, as clueless as ever

'may be right' ........................on the basis that every other time he has been

the problem for you hand crank is you don't appear to grasp the difference between means and intent

you still seem to iagine that this 'deal' was arrived at by May in some solitary act, whereby there was there no prior knowledge, where there is no knowledge of what the EU's response will be now ofhow this would pan out numbers (MP) wise

it rather all comes down to which interpretation of Canute sat by the water's each you choose to believe

 

"may be right" on the basis that a stopped clock is right twice a day Billy BS

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, paul moy said:

May mentioned in her address to parliament that the UK is in negotiations to join the CPTPP which constitutes around 14% of world GDP and 500 million customers  :

 

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP)

Member countries are:

  • Australia
  • Brunei
  • Canada
  • Chile
  • Japan
  • Malaysia
  • Mexico
  • New Zealand
  • Peru
  • Singapore
  • Vietnam

 

https://www.edc.ca/en/article/canada-and-tpp.html

I thought WTO rules are better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Van wink said:

"may be right" on the basis that a stopped clock is right twice a day Billy BS

feel free to point out anytime I have been wrong

as whatever guff you churn out the evidence of what we have both posted is out there for all to read

even your ' composite motion'  🤣

'

ps sure you didn't mean campsite motion ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Badger said:

I thought WTO rules are better?

even WTO rules require the UK to have it's own set of schedules

unfortunately the UK will have to carry on using those of the EU, which would mean that the UK having to accept any changes made, but having no say in those changes

brexiteers ........................thicker than you would think

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Jools said:

Of course, we should go for 'No Deal', which is Brexit, Paul.

As us Brexiteers have emphasised throughout this thread, leaving the failing EU will render us better off.

Peter Lilley, who helped establish the World Trade Organization and who obviously knows a tad more than the likes of KiO, Purple & Billock etc, states the following:

Peter Lilley has hit back at Project Fear stories that Britain will be worse off if it leaves the EU without a deal, saying the country will spend less on EU tariffs and goods would not be held up at ports.

Lord Lilley, who helped establish the World Trade Organization (WTO), hit back at claims by industry minister Richard Harrington MP that WTO terms are “a last resort position” and not meant for trading with complex economies.

“It is meant to provide the basic safe framework for countries where you can’t face retaliation. The European Union couldn’t retaliate against us. You have to receive most favoured nation terms and so on,” Lord Lilley explained on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Monday, adding that once the United Kingdom leaves the EU, the bloc would want a Free Trade Agreement “and it should be relatively straightforward to sort out.”

The Conservative peer also clarified that any tariffs resulting from a No Deal exit would still work out at half the cost of Britain’s current net contribution to the EU budget.

‘No Delays’ to Freight Transport in No Deal Brexit, Says Calais Port Chief https://t.co/h9xUAufZrC

— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) January 9, 2019

 

“The average tariff is four percent,” Lord Lilley pointed out.

“The total cost of all the tariffs we would face from the EU is £5 billion. We currently pay £10 billion or more into the EU coffers — so we’re paying £10 billion to save £5 billion,” he observed.

He also debunked scare stories that trade from Calais would be held up by customs checks, noting that Britain’s own customs and excise office has said it would not impose any more checks on goods coming into Dover than they do at present — i.e. only where there is suspicion or risk of people-trafficking or drugs, alcohol, or tobacco smuggling.

He reminded listeners that the French port of Calais has prepared for increased administration in the event of a WTO exit with three additional lorry lanes and extra scanners for trains, for example.

Earlier this month, the former trade secretary accused Prime Minister Theresa May of stoking “apocalyptic fears about leaving the EU without a Withdrawal Agreement,” likening it to the Millennium Bug hysteria 2o years ago.

Govt Criticised for Stoking ‘Apocalyptic Fears’ over Clean Break from EU https://t.co/y2IGzVJzPH

— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) January 7, 2019

 

Lord Lilley outlined 30 positive benefits of leaving the EU on WTO terms, debunking several myths perpetuated by Remainers — including that planes will still be able to fly to the EU and U.S., manufacturers will still be able to export parts, and British car manufacturers have obtained approvals to sell their models to the EU.

Mrs May’s Withdrawal Agreement was rejected by a historic margin in the House of Commons in January, with the Prime Minister set to present her Brexit ‘Plan B’ in an attempt to win parliamentary support.

While pressure from Remainers to delay or derail Brexit — or even hold a second referendum — continues to mount, an ICM poll seen by the left-liberal Guardian found that the most popular option with voters was a WTO Brexit while establishment-progressive news network Sky News found in their own polling that 56 percent oppose a second referendum.

Govt Whistleblower: UK Prepared for ‘No Deal’ Brexit, Scare Stories ‘Absolutely Untrue’ https://t.co/FHVSSJBnua

 

Why on Earth would any right-minded person believe Project Fear, scaremongering by politicians and civil servants with vested interests in remaining over a person who wrote the book on trade & deal making 'twixt nations?

This is nothing more than a LIE Jools  @Jools  

Lilley wrote:

"WTO terms are designed to provide a safety net ensuring all members can trade without discrimination. The EU will have to offer us the Most Favoured Nation terms its other major trading partners enjoy."

The WTO's Most Favoured Nation obligation does indeed avoid the worst discrimination, but in fact most EU trading partners receive better than that. Nearly 70 countries avoid almost all tariffs because they have free trade agreements (FTAs) with the EU. Low and lower-middle income countries avoid most of them via EU development-oriented preferences. Some of the FTAs go a bit further than tariffs to cover areas like services trade and mutual recognition of testing procedures.

The EU is close to completing several further trade deals – for instance with Japan and Vietnam – and the European Commission states that following these, only 24 countries will trade face 'WTO terms'. Even among these, some are trying to negotiate better terms, including Australia.

Since the WTO came into being, 243 new Free Trade Agreements have come into operation. Every country has at least one. None of this suggests that 'WTO terms' are viewed generally as a satisfactory option.

"Non-tariff border costs add just 0.1%, according to the Swiss."

The trouble with this argument is that the Swiss align almost perfectly with the EU. Every other estimate of EU non-tariff barriers is far higher, often exceeding 20%. And even though the UK is likely to be able to avoid some barriers, others – for example, having to submit documents and get certification that you meet EU regulations - will certainly apply.

"[Non-tariff barriers] are dwarfed by the 15% boost to our exporters' competitiveness from movement of the pound since the referendum."

Devaluation may help exporters be more competitive abroad, but it reinforces the price-increasing effects of tariffs and other barriers that the UK will have to levy on imports from the EU. So in reality it further reduces ordinary people's real incomes and increases British costs of production. Devaluation is no antidote to 'WTO terms'.

"Applying EU tariffs to our imports from Europe would yield £13 billion."

Tariffs may help the government's coffers, but they are taxes on those people and firms in the UK who consume imports. They are our money already. Tariffs distort the economy and reduce welfare, not the opposite. Lilley, who negotiated the Uruguay Round tariff cuts for the UK, used to believe this. It is unclear what has changed.

"We will be free to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership".

The trouble with this idea is that the partnership does not exist. The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership does. It accounts for about 14% of world income compared to the EU's 22%, is thousands of miles away, does not remove all tariffs and would still require the UK to adhere to certain rules, for example on digital trade.

"Without a trade deal, parliament will reject any withdrawal agreement offering the EU £40 billion. …. That leaves Britain £40 billion better off."

Not better off – just less badly off. Trading on WTO terms will reduce the UK's income in the long run by far more than avoiding a one-off payment of £40 billion will increase it. Moreover, having conceded, at least implicitly, that the £40 billion is a reflection of our future obligations to the EU, walking away from them will undermine any hope of cooperation in other dimensions. Security, flying rights and UK citizens' status in the EU, for instance, would all be vulnerable to worsening conditions without a withdrawal agreement.

"The unjustified Irish border 'backstop' commitment disappears. HMRC says Britain will not 'require any infrastructure at the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland under any circumstances' – tariffs can be collected alongside VAT returns."

Of course the backstop disappears – but so, too, might peace in Northern Ireland. Plenty of people - including implicitly the UK government, given they've pledged to maintain open borders - accept free commerce is part of the peace process.

"How we control imports is in our hands. Lorries laden with fresh food will not be queuing for hours at Dover since Dover sees no need for new physical checks …. HMRC will avoid delays by waving lorries through."

Lilley's plan entails that we'd have no checks on meat imports for food safety. Currently the EU inspects about 50% of poultry from non-EU sources. What about checks for chemicals safety? It is as if he thinks the EU is such a fine place that we do not need to inspect what they send to us. Waving lorries through hardly seems like taking back control.

"If the French slow down Calais, the Dutch and Belgian ports want the business and will offer speedier service."

This proposal seems to involve moving the Channel Tunnel. This should not need saying, but no other port can supply the UK at the same speed and cost.

"The hostile non-cooperation envisaged by Remainers would be not only impractical but triply illegal. It contravenes the EU's constitution, which requires it 'to establish an area of good neighbourliness' with neighbouring countries; the WTO treaty which forbids discrimination against trading partners; and the new trade facilitation treaty which commits members to facilitate trade not obstruct it."

This paragraph is nonsensical. Neighbourliness is perfectly compatible with having tariffs and inspections at the border. It certainly does not entail the EU abdicating responsibility for its own safety and customs duties. Non-discrimination works the opposite way from what Lilley suggests: the EU is obliged by the WTO to treat the UK as it treats other third countries. That is, with many more frictions than the UK faces at present as a member of the EU.

The Trade Facilitation Agreement is often cited by other advocates of WTO Terms – for example, Owen Patterson. However, as Patrick Minford of the Brexit-backing Economists for Free Trade and I have agreed in private correspondence, developed countries' current practices are already compatible with it, so the EU will treat imports from the UK as it currently treats those from Canada. The Canadian government's view of this treatment is as follows: "You will need to deal with a lot of documents when exporting goods to the EU market. To make exporting easier, you may wish to use freight forwarders and customs brokers."

From here, Lilley just gets carried away.

"Portray[ing] leaving the EU as costly….  demonstrates that membership has no significant benefits… Doing so parallels the Berlin Wall… The British people …  will [never] cave in before such threats."

This is a bit of a Catch22. If we don't point out the costs, there are none. But if we do point them out, there are none.

The WTO is not useless. Its rules are an essential part of the architecture for a peaceful and prosperous world. But they are lowest common denominator rules for trade between 164 separate and sometimes mutually hostile states, not the rules for deeply integrated, highly cooperative, sophisticated allies. 

No-deal will not destroy all UK-EU trade or sink the UK economy beneath the waves. But it will involve a serious and permanent loss of income. Those who believe that the sacrifice is worth it do so for political reasons .

Edited by BigFish
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" "[Non-tariff barriers] are dwarfed by the 15% boost to our exporters' competitiveness from movement of the pound since the referendum."  "

conveniently avoiding the most obvious ie raw materials and imports such as food will cost more

which would mean that exports that rely upon imported raw materials would have to face a price increase - as would the cost of labour to produce them (dearer food)

what effect would a 15% decrease in the value os sterling have on the price of petrol ?

unfortunately this kind of nonsense has been swallowed by the gormless... to the point you will still here clueless idiots like Jools regurgitating it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jools said:

 

"....Why on Earth would any right-minded person believe Project Fear, scaremongering by politicians and civil servants with vested interests in remaining over a person who wrote the book on trade & deal making 'twixt nations?  ....." .

Peter Lilley ?  Like most civilised people i thought and hoped he was dead . 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOx8q3eGq3g&t=11s

Edited by MooreMarriot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically to summarize Peter Lilley's argument, if we leave the EU and default to WTO terms because we can't agree a deal, it'll actually be easy to agree a deal. No contradiction at all.

Lord Lilley explained on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Monday, adding that once the United Kingdom leaves the EU, the bloc would want a Free Trade Agreement “and it should be relatively straightforward to sort out.”

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Icecream Snow said:

So basically to summarize Peter Lilley's argument, if we leave the EU and default to WTO terms because we can't agree a deal, it'll actually be easy to agree a deal. No contradiction at all.

Lord Lilley explained on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Monday, adding that once the United Kingdom leaves the EU, the bloc would want a Free Trade Agreement “and it should be relatively straightforward to sort out.”

You miss the point that when you say 'we can't agree a deal' it's because Parliament can't agree a deal. I haven't heard anything from the EU on whether they would accept or reject May's deal. Have you heard differently? 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh dear

I would suggest that the 'we' is the UK, not the EU and the UK

as to the misleading bollox that Lilley spouts I would suggest that those with an open mind read this analysis from the FT

https://www.ft.com/content/6d00353c-2616-11e8-b27e-cc62a39d57a0

you don't need to be too bright either to understand why so many oppose this idiocy, and why that small minority defending it have to mislead

cranks might want unsafe and untraceable food and having it as open season on wages, conditions and protection - those working do not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

You miss the point that when you say 'we can't agree a deal' it's because Parliament can't agree a deal. I haven't heard anything from the EU on whether they would accept or reject May's deal. Have you heard differently? 

Doh - The May "deal" was negotiated and agreed with the EU - de-facto they accept it. So everyone apart from you have heard differently. Please try and keep up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Doh - The May "deal" was negotiated and agreed with the EU - de-facto they accept it. So everyone apart from you have heard differently. Please try and keep up

I was merely pointing out that Icecream Snow's post was a load of b*ll*x, but in a polite way. That it goes over your and City 1st's head isn't very surprising.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rock The Boat said:

I was merely pointing out that Icecream Snow's post was a load of b*ll*x, but in a polite way. That it goes over your and City 1st's head isn't very surprising.

Your post was just wrong, 100% nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steptoe edging towards a second referendum, having failled in his VONC, listening to his party or just caught between a rock and a hard place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

I was merely pointing out that Icecream Snow's post was a load of b*ll*x, but in a polite way. That it goes over your and City 1st's head isn't very surprising.

Really?

If we end up with a no deal because parliament can't agree, and since parliament will force a vote on any trade agreement , none of the circumstances that stopped diverse factions from coming to a consensus are going to change overnight.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Icecream Snow said:

Really?

If we end up with a no deal because parliament can't agree, and since parliament will force a vote on any trade agreement , none of the circumstances that stopped diverse factions from coming to a consensus are going to change overnight.

I can't help thinking that reality will prevail, & the reality is trade.

Whatever the legality of the situation, the fact is the goods & services on the 30th March will be exactly the same as on the 29th.

There are not lorry loads of hookey goods lined up on either side of the channel just waiting for the moment to pounce . The factory producing widgets required on the other side of the Channel is not going to suddenly retool to produce rubbish goods for the UK market (unless they do that already ...) or vice-versa , so there will be lots of temporary deals & arrangements to keep stuff moving.

That's when the proper negotiations for a trade deal will begin. And don't forget we start with everything compliant & running smoothly, so finding a long term way to continue should not be difficult. Well, at least not in practical terms; politically the EU will have problems, but I'm pretty sure their usual hypocrisy will come to the rescue & some sort of face-saving compromise will be made.

 

Edited by ron obvious
wrong date
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case you don't read Guido, like Herman who thinks Paul Staines is Hitler and anybody who visits the site is a **** 😀 The following is how they believe MPs are plotting to stop Brexit:

image.png.5d3b3ccb8cc3578601b10dc99dac8cc4.png

Despite the second ‘meaningful vote’ not being for another week, scheming MPs have been getting their anti-Brexit amendments in early. The following amendments are all already tabled, although they may change between now and next week:

  • Corbyn: “all options on the table” amendment. Corbyn continues his vague policy towards Brexit with an amendment calling for the Government to give time for Parliament to vote on options aimed at preventing no deal, including a Labour-style “strong single market” deal or “legislating to hold a public vote on a deal or a proposition that has commanded the support of the majority of the House of Commons”. Heavily-qualified support for a second referendum that likely wouldn’t be binding on the Government in any case…
  • Cooper, Boles, Morgan, Grieve: “coup” amendment. Seeks to give an entirely arbitrary grouping of backbench MPs the power to take over the Parliamentary timetable and bring in a Bill that would force the Government to extend Article 50 if a deal is not agreed by the end of February. Literally a coup…
  • Benn: “indicative votes” amendment. Commits the Government to holding a series of so-called “indicative votes” – MPs would hold non-binding votes on a range of different Brexit scenarios. Likely generating more heat than light…
  • Grieve: “endless debates” amendment. Somewhat similar but more tedious, this attempts to create a slot for weekly six-and-a-half hour debates for MPs to debate a meaningless motion while adding their own amendments to it. The most pernicious aspects allowing a minority of 300 MPs to take over Parliamentary business have been removed. Grieve claims the debates won’t be used to try to force primary legislation through…
  • Reeves, Benn, Grieve: “two-year extension” amendment. Attempts to force the Government to seek a two-year extension to Article 50 if no deal is agreed by 26th February. Not going to happen, not least because the EU won’t agree…
  • Creasy, Nandy: “citizens’ assembly” amendment. Extends Article 50 and creates a “citizens’ assembly” of 250 people along with an “expert committee” appointed by Sarah Wollaston’s Liaison Committee to advise the Government how to proceed. Very Green Party…

The one amendment which hasn’t yet been tabled but could also be highly significant is some variation of Andrew Murrison’s from last week which Bercow refused to call. This is looking like the most likely route for the Government to try to get its own MPs and the DUP back onside by voting through the Withdrawal Agreement but only on the condition that the backstop is time limited. Would give the EU some tough choices to make…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×