Brexit discussion thread IV

joeysoap

Anyone see this from Maria Caulfield’s letter of resignation.

For me the backstop agreement for Northern Ireland was neither necessary or constructive for the future prosperity of the UK. Having strong links to the Republic of Ireland I feel the backstop position is not appropriate and should have been rejected. It has been used by the EU as a way of blocking a mutually beneficial deal.

Odd from someone ‘having strong links’ to ROI.


Good reporting (IMO)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/america-should-support-theresa-mays-soft-brexit/2018/07/10/e2d399fc-8458-11e8-8553-a3ce89036c78_story.html??noredirect=on

flatty

BonnieSituation wrote: »

judeboy101 wrote: »

Isn't the church of England, technically, the national religion? The UK has freedom of religion but the CoE is the national religion, its peppered in all its law, heck, the head of state and the PM have to belong to it.

There's a whoosh right there.

---

@flatty, I'm surprised at your positive feedback re Hunt. His reputation from my pov isn't that great and that he's involved in the dismantling of the NHS as it stands through chronic underfunding.

Am I missing something?

I was out in a pub last night in Crystal Palace as the news came through of his appointment. Both of us exhaled exasperationally. So I'm defo missing something it seems.

Underfunding had nothing to do with hunt. He, rightly or wrongly, faced down the junior doctors, a stance which made him highly unpopular, and highly likely to be removed, but one he felt was right, and took nonetheless, and actually came to an uneasy compromise. He then offered his resignation if NHS funding wasn't increased, and it was (rightly or wrongly)
I have heard quite positive things from people who have met him. He certainly cared about his role, and was prepared to make a stand.

Dymo

Strazdas wrote: »

I've a feeling Varadkar's comments (or the tone of what he was saying) were completely misinterpreted here. The implication was that he was suggesting that the EU needed to be much more flexible with the UK and perhaps even meet them halfway but I don't think he was getting at that at all. It's more like he was just talking in very general terms about flexibility from the EU.

The way the BBC reported it on their news was, that the EU was ready now to relax their stance and come to an agreement with the UK (according to the Irish Prime minister)

Zubeneschamali

Imreoir2 wrote: »

If it happens, they will adapt, by rioting.

Short term yes, but long term, I think they will adapt by voting for someone that will undo this disastrous mistake.

But it'll take a few years for the full consequences to play out.

Akrasia

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Short term yes, but long term, I think they will adapt by voting for someone that will undo this disastrous mistake.

But it'll take a few years for the full consequences to play out.

Its nuts really. Is this the first time in history a country is going into trade negotiations looking to deliberately worsen their existing trade position with a vital trading partner?

If they win, they lose, if they lose, they definitely lose. The only way they benefit is if they think the EU is about to break up, and by jumping first they'll have a headstart on everyone else, and this is the rhetoric I've seen the likes of Farage hinting at recently.

kunst nugget

Akrasia wrote: »

Its nuts really. Is this the first time in history a country is going into trade negotiations looking to deliberately worsen their existing trade position with a vital trading partner?

If they win, they lose, if they lose, they definitely lose. The only way they benefit is if they think the EU is about to break up, and by jumping first they'll have a headstart on everyone else, and this is the rhetoric I've seen the likes of Farage hinting at recently.

And for the EU to capitulate to any of the UK's red lines would surely spell the beginning of the end for the union. Other countries would start bailing if they thought they could get a deal on trade of goods without having to allow free movement or any of the other four freedoms.

lawred2

kunst nugget wrote: »

And for the EU to capitulate to any of the UK's red lines would surely spell the beginning of the end for the union. Other countries would start bailing if they thought they could get a deal on trade of goods without having to allow free movement or any of the other four freedoms.

well if the UK has achieved anything it's to seemingly change the narrative that these four freedoms are actually not freedoms at all - but shackles imprisoning all these unfortunate EU member nations...

everyone now wants to break free from these freedoms...

bizarro world

Leroy42

And this is it in a nutshell. For all the talk of wanting a FTA, that our economies are so interlinked etc, the real issue that the EU faces is how to protect itself.

NI, 4 pillars etc, these are all just excuses (albeit very strong and correct ones). But in reality, whilst the EU can give leeway to countries looking to join, to be seen to give in to UK would be akin to agreeing that membership is not that important.

What is to stop the likes of Germany then deciding to push for ever greater things in their favour with the threat they could leave with no consequence? How could the other countries not give in to their demands?

And that is precisely the way the EU is not supposed to work. The whole point is that every country should see the benefits of being within the EU, rather than outside. Why would any country stay in once they reach the net contributor level, if they can get all the benefits, but without the costs, outside. The whole thing would fall apart.

So, sure, in isolation I am sure that each country in the EU would be more than happy to give a FTA deal et al, to the UK. But the EU has to consider that this isn't in isolation. This is very much part of the ploy by Russia,US, China etc to destablise the EU as it is one of the major players in the world. Breaking it up would only increase their relative power.

UK love going on about WWII (and IMO have every right to) but even they must surely see that it wasn't them alone that defeated Germany. It was countries coming together to help. Sure in that case it was the US, and of course Russia to the east, but in terms of the UK it was mainly the US, but the EU played that role for the last 40+ years in terms of trade.

Water John

Barnier also was positive saying, 80% had been agreed. Glass more than half full type of encouragement.
Both sides know further compromise is now necessary. Anyone in the UK who believes that Chequers deal is the end, is a fool and not a realist.
UK will end up staying in CU until technology is developed and proven.

Zubeneschamali

Water John wrote: »

UK will end up staying in CU until technology is developed and proven.

i.e. forever

LeinsterDub

Water John wrote: »

Barnier also was positive saying, 80% had been agreed. Glass more than half full type of encouragement.
Both sides know further compromise is now necessary. Anyone in the UK who believes that Chequers deal is the end, is a fool and not a realist.
UK will end up staying in CU until technology is developed and proven.

I think this is a classic example of the Pareto Principle or the 80/20 rule .

80% of the work takes 20% of the time.
20% of the work takes 80% of the time.

trellheim

Barnier also was positive saying, 80% had been agreed. Glass more than half full type of encouragement.
Both sides know further compromise is now necessary. Anyone in the UK who believes that Chequers deal is the end, is a fool and not a realist.
UK will end up staying in CU until technology is developed and proven.

Barnier is correct . Additionally, the transition deal is more or less done as well. However - nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

The 20% that is left to be agreed is the hard parts like NI and FOM ; everyone knows this.

What's the UK lowest price here - lower than this we will not go ? With May I think its FOM given her history.

Unless UKGOV burn it down to the wire then the negotiations need to be rolling now. I reckon a leadership challenge soon so

Leroy42

Surely the ECJ is the real sticking point. May has already (last weekend) alluded that there might well be preferential treatment of EU citizens coming to the UK.

May has had an issue with the ECJ for years, and FOM was then trotted out as the excuse for her doing nothing material about immigration.

Reports are coming out today that the UK is stepping up its preparations for a no deal. The reports, at least, seem to be focused on the stockpiling of food and medicines ahead of any potential chaos at the ports.

So in the middle of one of the longest peace-times in history, the UK is coming up with plans on stockpiling, and thus rationing, food and medicines!

Sam Russell

trellheim wrote: »

Barnier is correct . Additionally, the transition deal is more or less done as well. However - nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

The 20% that is left to be agreed is the hard parts like NI and FOM ; everyone knows this.

What's the UK lowest price here - lower than this we will not go ? With May I think its FOM given her history.

Unless UKGOV burn it down to the wire then the negotiations need to be rolling now. I reckon a leadership challenge soon so

I think the ECJ and the ECHR are two majors with her as well. The ECHR is not part of Barniers bag, but ECJ is probably more important the FOM from the EU pov.

FOM is overplayed by the UK Gov - because they never used all the tools in the box. Also, they never fully charged back on the EHIC because the NHS has (had) no normal mechanism for charging back. They are correcting that now.

Of course, if the UK had been more pro-EU they would know all this and applied the rules to their benefit, but their disdain for the EU led to contempt for all things EU, so missed out on many good features.

I am sure Corbyn could do his nationalisation projects within the rules - if only he knew them. For example, UK National Rail is already nationalised with no complaint from the EU. Many banks were nationalised without dissent. The French Gov can print the UK blue passports without complaint.

It is still my hope that they see sense and remain, but already much damage has been done.

Akrasia

Leroy42 wrote: »

Surely the ECJ is the real sticking point. May has already (last weekend) alluded that there might well be preferential treatment of EU citizens coming to the UK.

May has had an issue with the ECJ for years, and FOM was then trotted out as the excuse for her doing nothing material about immigration.

Reports are coming out today that the UK is stepping up its preparations for a no deal. The reports, at least, seem to be focused on the stockpiling of food and medicines ahead of any potential chaos at the ports.

So in the middle of one of the longest peace-times in history, the UK is coming up with plans on stockpiling, and thus rationing, food and medicines!

Meanwhile cancer patients reliant on radioactive isotopes for diagnosis and radiotherapy are left without life saving treatment

trellheim

I think the ECJ and the ECHR are two majors with her as well. The ECHR is not part of Barniers bag, but ECJ is probably more important the FOM from the EU pov.

FOM is overplayed by the UK Gov - because they never used all the tools in the box. Also, they never fully charged back on the EHIC because the NHS has (had) no normal mechanism for charging back. They are correcting that now.

Of course, if the UK had been more pro-EU they would know all this and applied the rules to their benefit, but their disdain for the EU led to contempt for all things EU, so missed out on many good features.

I am sure Corbyn could do his nationalisation projects within the rules - if only he knew them. For example, UK National Rail is already nationalised with no complaint from the EU. Many banks were nationalised without dissent. The French Gov can print the UK blue passports without complaint.

It is still my hope that they see sense and remain, but already much damage has been done.

No matter what happens except a no-deal I believe the ECJ will remain in oversight - this will be agreed in a negotiation ; a big move was made apparently on Friday to this. The EU will never accept a court above the ECJ .

As you say ECHR not part of TF50

Not sure about the UK nat rail - Railtrack is the infra operator sure, but the TOCs and ROSCOs are all private ( bar of course LNER - operator of last resort because VTEC could not do what they saidthey would , and TFL).

FOM will be the red line , they will take ECJ oversight ( a form of words will be found to save face ).

( next question is how do you police the irish border so , and you end up at a hard choice or two for Ireland ... it will be on the table in a few weeks but at least its talking )

Alternatives

1) TF50 reject in entirety
2) fullblown crisis , GE in UK - although see from twitter where people are saying the fixed term parliaments act is making this a difficult option..

unicorn stuff

3) 3rd political party forms in UK ... unlikely

Sam Russell

:pac:

trellheim wrote: »

No matter what happens except a no-deal I believe the ECJ will remain in oversight - this will be agreed in a negotiation ; a big move was made apparently on Friday to this. The EU will never accept a court above the ECJ .

As you say ECHR not part of TF50

Not sure about the UK nat rail - Railtrack is the infra operator sure, but the TOCs and ROSCOs are all private ( bar of course LNER - operator of last resort because VTEC could not do what they saidthey would , and TFL).

FOM will be the red line , they will take ECJ oversight ( a form of words will be found to save face ).

( next question is how do you police the irish border so , and you end up at a hard choice or two for Ireland ... it will be on the table in a few weeks but at least its talking )

Alternatives

1) TF50 reject in entirety
2) fullblown crisis , GE in UK - although see from twitter where people are saying the fixed term parliaments act is making this a difficult option..

unicorn stuff

3) 3rd political party forms in UK ... unlikely

They managed to have a GE last year despite Corbyn facing total wipe out, but he voted for it anyway, and got 40% of the popular vote.

Will Brexit be fought by Labour looking for a soft outcome or a withdrawal of At 50?

I think Norway is most likely at this stage, but anything is likely.

Professor Moriarty

trellheim wrote: »

No matter what happens except a no-deal I believe the ECJ will remain in oversight - this will be agreed in a negotiation ; a big move was made apparently on Friday to this. The EU will never accept a court above the ECJ .

As you say ECHR not part of TF50

Not sure about the UK nat rail - Railtrack is the infra operator sure, but the TOCs and ROSCOs are all private ( bar of course LNER - operator of last resort because VTEC could not do what they saidthey would , and TFL).

FOM will be the red line , they will take ECJ oversight ( a form of words will be found to save face ).

( next question is how do you police the irish border so , and you end up at a hard choice or two for Ireland ... it will be on the table in a few weeks but at least its talking )

Alternatives

1) TF50 reject in entirety
2) fullblown crisis , GE in UK - although see from twitter where people are saying the fixed term parliaments act is making this a difficult option..

unicorn stuff

3) 3rd political party forms in UK ... unlikely

The Liberals are a middle of the road and Europhilic party. Look where that's got them. The British electorate are stuck in a very binary system perpetuated by FPP and the two major parties.

Leroy42

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think Norway is most likely at this stage, but anything is likely.

But what actual difference will moving to a Norway model mean in terms of what the voters can see?

Payments to the EU would continue, freedom of movement would continue (but would the EU expect the UK to enter Schengen Area in return?).

Is there enough a a difference for May to sell it as Brexit? She has promised Red Lines and No deal for so long that it almost must be otherwise it will be seen as capitulation

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

But what actual difference will moving to a Norway model mean in terms of what the voters can see?

Compared to today? Not much.

Compared to the Mad Max wasteland of a crashout Brexit in March? Quite a lot.

And they will sell it as an extended transition to the land of cake and unicorns which will come about when the technology is rolled out (along with the beam-me-up-scotty transporters).

briany

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Compared to today? Not much.

Compared to the Mad Max wasteland of a crashout Brexit in March? Quite a lot.

And they will sell it as an extended transition to the land of cake and unicorns which will come about when the technology is rolled out (along with the beam-me-up-scotty transporters).

It would be interesting to see May attempt to turn Brexit patriotism on itself by insisting that the extended Norway+ transition period was intended to protect the integrity of 'our precious union'. You could see that really splitting the Brexit camp into factions that either believe it's the right move, would rather cleave off the north, or do what Mogg suggested and flout WTO rules by erecting no border into NI.

An Ciarraioch

briany wrote: »

It would be interesting to see May attempt to turn Brexit patriotism on itself by insisting that the extended Norway+ transition period was intended to protect the integrity of 'our precious union'. You could see that really splitting the Brexit camp into factions that either believe it's the right move, would rather cleave off the north, or do what Mogg suggested and flout WTO rules by erecting no border into NI.

In many respects, the Brexit debate is merely part of a broader global debate between internationalism and isolationism, and the Commons debate will encapsulate that - is Corbyn truly committed to free trade and open markets in the sense that Keir Starmer certainly appears to be, and will an eventual Chequers vote see ideologically similar MPs from across the House defying party whips?

An Ciarraioch

An interesting piece on UK political party memberships - the Labour rise is well documented, but the Lib Dems have bounced back considerably from their 2015 nadir, and the Tories are surprisingly low:

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN05125#fullreport

Water John

Yeah would really like to see a Lab/LD Govt. It could be well balanced. Even if LB had a small majority they would be better off with the Lib Dems on board.

WomanSkirtFan8

Water John wrote: »

Yeah would really like to see a Lab/LD Govt. It could be well balanced. Even if LB had a small majority they would be better off with the Lib Dems on board.

you know something? that was my exact thought last night. I agree with that assessment.

An Ciarraioch

https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1017034789835198464?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fforums.digitalspy.com%2Fdiscussion%2F2288998%2Ftheresa-may-allegedly-out-of-the-woods-for-now%2Fp9

trellheim

Better it happen sooner rather than later

Leroy42

I have to say, if I was May I let them at it. Let JRM take over. If they table any motions I would call their bluff. If you table any motion it will be taken as a direct vote of no confidence and you had better have a leader willing to take this on.

Then walk off into the pension lined sunset. Like Ray Petterson in the Simpsons

briany

Leroy42 wrote: »

I have to say, if I was May I let them at it. Let JRM take over. If they table any motions I would call their bluff. If you table any motion it will be taken as a direct vote of no confidence and you had better have a leader willing to take this on.

Then walk off into the pension lined sunset. Like Ray Petterson in the Simpsons

You do wonder why, at some point, May doesn't just say 'sod this!', write a conciliatory about being unable to unite the party, but God save the Queen and all that and head back into private life, laying low for a few years.

Mogg has even less of a chance of uniting the party. He's more of an ideologue than May, so I fail to see how his hard line won't prompt a rebellion in the other direction. He does have the dead man's switch of simply missing the deadline and allowing the country to slide into no deal - a situation he maintains is more agreeable than some other alternatives. However, having the preside over the potential ensuing chaos will soon take much of the shine off of the smooth-talking 'Moggster'.

Where's Spitting Image when you need it?

Tropheus

I don't think ERG have the numbers for a VOC never mind anything else. They get far more air time than they deserve.

I think May knew that and it's why she moved in the direction she did. If May gets her way, this will end in a Norway/Canada type deal. Chequers was just a step in that direction.