Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

robinph

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Brexit will cost the EU a lot of money if it ever happens. Extensions are cheap and keep the door open to the whole thing being called off.


An extension is a no-brainer from the EU side.

All an extension requires from the EU is an extra security person on the door to any committee rooms to tell the UK they can't come in for this session because they are leaving, someone else to staff the mail room waiting for the A50 revoke letter and otherwise say No to any new suggestions that the UK come up with.

Meanwhile various business can relocate in a bit less of a rush.

Professor Moriarty

Akrasia wrote: »

They wouldn't. But would they actually enforce their own whip when inevitably the vote fails because some of their own MPs abstain or vote against the No confidence vote.

I can't see very many Labour MPs not voting for a no confidence vote to bring down an elitist, populist Tory PM who is about to crash Britain out of the EU. If that happened I would love to be at their next constituency meeting. Maybe a few would leave the party to keep the Tories in power and to facilitate a crash out, but I can't see it.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Brexit will cost the EU a lot of money if it ever happens. Extensions are cheap and keep the door open to the whole thing being called off.

An extension is a no-brainer from the EU side.

Not necessarily. Continuing uncertainty over the future has economic impacts with the EU as well as within the UK. They are, of course, smaller impacts for the EU but that's not the point; the EU's willingness to bear them indefinitely is not assured simply by the fact that the UK is suffering worse impacts.

And that's before we look at the political consequences of an unfinished brexit as running sore for the EU.

I think there comes a point where the EU seens no point to an extension simply for the sake of an extension, and they'll be more and more inclined to the view that an extension is only to be granted to faciliate some specific, imminent step which is is highly likely change the UK's continuing paralysis. Everybody talks about a general election or a second referendum in this context; I wouldn't necessarily say the menu of option is strictly limited to those two items, but it really has to be something which offers a similar chance of opening up some progress.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not necessarily. Continuing uncertainty over the future has economic impacts with the EU as well as within the UK.

Refusing an extension and causing an immediate disaster in order to eliminate uncertainty about whether the disaster might or might not happen at some future date makes no sense.

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not necessarily. Continuing uncertainty over the future has economic impacts with the EU as well as within the UK. They are, of course, smaller impacts for the EU but that's not the point; the EU's willingness to bear them indefinitely is not assured simply by the fact that the UK is suffering worse impacts.

And that's before we look at the political consequences of an unfinished brexit as running sore for the EU.

I think there comes a point where the EU seens no point to an extension simply for the sake of an extension, and they'll be more and more inclined to the view that an extension is only to be granted to faciliate some specific, imminent step which is is highly likely change the UK's continuing paralysis. Everybody talks about a general election or a second referendum in this context; I wouldn't necessarily say the menu of option is strictly limited to those two items, but it really has to be something which offers a similar chance of opening up some progress.

They won't offer an extension to Johnson on the basis that he needs to keep the Tory party intact - which is impossible anyway. It will have to be signing the WA, a GE or second referendum. That's what makes the next few months so interesting. Interesting in that whatever he does his government will be in chaos. Couldn't happen to a nicer person.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think there comes a point where the EU seens no point to an extension simply for the sake of an extension, and they'll be more and more inclined to the view that an extension is only to be granted to faciliate some specific, imminent step which is is highly likely change the UK's continuing paralysis. Everybody talks about a general election or a second referendum in this context; I wouldn't necessarily say the menu of option is strictly limited to those two items, but it really has to be something which offers a similar chance of opening up some progress.

No, I don't see it. Why should the EU care that Westminster is paralyzed? As long as they stay that way, trade continues on today's terms, freedom of movement continues, the Courts continue as is, everything is pretty normal.


There is no reason why the EU can't keep that up for 25 years, 50 years.

Tell me how

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Refusing an extension and causing an immediate disaster in order to eliminate uncertainty about whether the disaster might or might not happen at some future date makes no sense.

It wouldn't be an immediate disaster. It would be the predicted, warned about disaster which has now come about after 3 leave dates have been missed.

EU have to get back to focussing on EU. UK have gotten sufficient attention to this point.

lawred2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Brexit will cost the EU a lot of money if it ever happens. Extensions are cheap and keep the door open to the whole thing being called off.


An extension is a no-brainer from the EU side.

A never ending Brexit doesn't come without its costs... It is far too much a distraction for the EU and the uncertainty does nothing for the Eurozone economies.

Shelga

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, I don't see it. Why should the EU care that Westminster is paralyzed? As long as they stay that way, trade continues on today's terms, freedom of movement continues, the Courts continue as is, everything is pretty normal.


There is no reason why the EU can't keep that up for 25 years, 50 years.

When is the next 7 year budget due to be negotiated? The UK will cause a world of pain for the EU if they’re forced to contribute to it.

robinph

Tell me how wrote: »

It wouldn't be an immediate disaster. It would be the predicted, warned about disaster which has now come about after 3 leave dates have been missed.

EU have to get back to focussing on EU. UK have gotten sufficient attention to this point.

Other than the UK press saying that the EU is scared and about to cave into the unspecified demands the EU is now free to get on with what they need to do. They just need to keep saying no to any renegotiation requests and otherwise carry on as they want.

There isn't really any problems for the EU now other than the toddler screaming in the corner who can otherwise be ignored.

Professor Moriarty

lawred2 wrote: »

A never ending Brexit doesn't come without its costs... It is far too much a distraction for the EU and the uncertainty does nothing for the Eurozone economies.

A Britain that continues to be a basket case while the EU continues to engage with Britain under FOM and a CU is in the EU's interest in many ways. Investment continues to flow out of Britain and into the EU. The EU has more time to prepare. Britain stands as a stark example of what happens when you try to leave the EU.

Zubeneschamali

Tell me how wrote: »

EU have to get back to focussing on EU. UK have gotten sufficient attention to this point.

I agree that the EU should focus on the EU, but for all the noise, the UK are not actually taking much EU time now. The WA negotiations have been over for months, the team have moved on to other things.


All the EU has to do is extend an extension if asked (let's say 1 year at a time) and in the meanwhile ignore the antics in Westminster, and wait for the UK to Revoke A50, ratify the WA, or leave with No Deal.

trellheim

I can't see very many Labour MPs not voting for a no confidence vote to bring down an elitist, populist Tory PM who is about to crash Britain out of the EU. If that happened I would love to be at their next constituency meeting. Maybe a few would leave the party to keep the Tories in power and to facilitate a crash out, but I can't see it.

Its Labour's stated policy to go for a GE and let the people decide (on the next Govt, sadly not yet on a 2nd Ref ) at the earliest opportunity. No Confidence in the Govt looks like the easiest way

Nody

Shelga wrote: »

When is the next 7 year budget due to be negotiated? The UK will cause a world of pain for the EU if they’re forced to contribute to it.

The negotiations have already started and it is for 2020 to 2027 time period. EU has already stated any extension beyond 2020 will force them to pay into it accordingly but I can't see even remainers selling in the idea of paying into the EU 2020/27 budget without having had any say in how the money will be spent.

First Up

Zubeneschamali wrote:

All the EU has to do is extend an extension if asked (let's say 1 year at a time) and in the meanwhile ignore the antics in Westminster, and wait for the UK to Revoke A50, ratify the WA, or leave with No Deal.

That is a complete misreading of the situation.

European business will not tolerate indefinite uncertainty about customers, suppliers, intermediaries, logistics and the legal framework around their dealings with the UK.

The UK will be out in October, either in a crash or if parliament comes to its senses and agrees the WA.

The EU is preparing for both of those eventualities and nothing else.

jem

looking like Borris wins, bounces along making we can do it type speaches, messing about pretending to negociate until October and then calls an election or is forced into election. so no house of commons until after the Oct 31 deadline so they crash out. Very little HOC can do.
It has to be Pm that requests an extension and with general election going on no way for remainers to stop him.
Remember in March/April the reason they didnt crashout was that May wouldnt allow that mad situation. Borris is a whole different kettle of fish.
I think the only way that a no-deal can be stopped at this stage is the HOC to
1. vote through leglislation to change the default from crash out to- on conclusion of a deal or on as a result of a further referendum
2. vote to have a second referendum with the either a remain or nodeal basis or preferable on a remain/ nodeal / TM deal with PR . ( i cant see the letter but it would make most sense.

robinph

First Up wrote: »

That is a complete misreading of the situation.

European business will not tolerate indefinite uncertainty about customers, suppliers, intermediaries, logistics and the legal framework around their dealings with the UK.

But there isn't any uncertainty if there are rolling extensions happening as things just carry on as they are now, just more time to figure out the finer details in the event of a no-deal happening and otherwise just file those plans away for a rainy day. The planning has already been done and the money spent, if they now happen to not need to do anything about it for X amount of time then it really doesn't matter.

Any uncertainly is just really a problem for the UK and businesses based in the UK looking to trade with the rest of Europe.

Stop moaning ffs

How does Johnson or hunt who have both been saying they’re taking Britain out on October 31st, then turn around on the day and ask for an extension? And expect to not be torn apart at home for it?

Genuine question

robinph

jem wrote: »

looking like Borris wins, bounces along making we can do it type speaches, messing about pretending to negociate until October and then calls an election or is forced into election. so no house of commons until after the Oct 31 deadline so they crash out. Very little HOC can do.
It has to be Pm that requests an extension and with general election going on no way for remainers to stop him.
Remember in March/April the reason they didnt crashout was that May wouldnt allow that mad situation. Borris is a whole different kettle of fish.
I think the only way that a no-deal can be stopped at this stage is the HOC to
1. vote through leglislation to change the default from crash out to- on conclusion of a deal or on as a result of a further referendum
2. vote to have a second referendum with the either a remain or nodeal basis or preferable on a remain/ nodeal / TM deal with PR . ( i cant see the letter but it would make most sense.

He won't be able to use that trickery to sneak a general election through in order to force a no-deal. The election would either be forced on him by parliament vote of no-confidence, which he can't call in himself, or he'll need 2/3rds of MP's to vote for a GE and they are not that stupid.

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 provides for general elections to be held on the first Thursday in May every five years. There are two provisions that trigger an election other than at five-year intervals:

A motion of no confidence is passed in Her Majesty's Government by a simple majority and 14 days elapses without the House passing a confidence motion in any new Government formed
A motion for a general election is agreed by two thirds of the total number of seats in the Commons including vacant seats (currently 434 out of 650)

Professor Moriarty

robinph wrote: »

But there isn't any uncertainty if there are rolling extensions happening as things just carry on as they are now, just more time to figure out the finer details in the event of a no-deal happening and otherwise just file those plans away for a rainy day. The planning has already been done and the money spent, if they now happen to not need to do anything about it for X amount of time then it really doesn't matter.

Any uncertainly is just really a problem for the UK and businesses based in the UK looking to trade with the rest of Europe.

If the alternative is a crash out then just keep rolling over the extensions until they come to their senses. Doesn't really cost the EU anything.

Shelga

How does the UK currently trade with the USA? Or any other countries not covered by EU trade agreements?

Professor Moriarty

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

How does Johnson or hunt who have both been saying they’re taking Britain out on October 31st, then turn around on the day and ask for an extension? And expect to not be torn apart at home for it?

Genuine question

They can't. They painted themselves into a corner. It looks very much like Johnson and I'm guessing that his only strategy, having lied his way to being leader, is to say "I wanted to take us out but the HoC wouldn't let me". It's a stupid position to take but there are stupid people who will believe in him. Kind of Trumpian strategy.

ArmaniJeanss

robinph wrote: »

He won't be able to use that trickery to sneak a general election through in order to force a no-deal. The election would either be forced on him by parliament vote of no-confidence, which he can't call in himself, or he'll need 2/3rds of MP's to vote for a GE and they are not that stupid.

Tory MPs will vote with their leader (majority of them anyway).
Labour can hardly vote against an election, having spent two years using their demand for an election to cover up their failure to have a unified position on Brexit. Opposition parties are supposed to always want an election anyway.

2/3 majority would be easily achieved.

trellheim

I think the only way that a no-deal can be stopped at this stage is the HOC to
1. vote through leglislation to change the default from crash out to- on conclusion of a deal or on as a result of a further referendum
2. vote to have a second referendum with the either a remain or nodeal basis or preferable on a remain/ nodeal / TM deal with PR . ( i cant see the letter but it would make most sense.

As I mention up-thread , positive action is required to stop no-deal.

Options

1. Revoke A50 - he can do this all by himself just by sending a letter, no EU27 agreement is required.
2. Extend A50 - ask nicely
3. Force parliament to vote through the existing WA
4. Get a new deal between now and Oct 31 AND get parliament to ratify it

Thats the four unicorns of the Apocalypse right there, they are pinning all their hopes on option 4 and hoping the EU will blink

Zubeneschamali

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

How does Johnson or hunt who have both been saying they’re taking Britain out on October 31st, then turn around on the day and ask for an extension? And expect to not be torn apart at home for it?

The question is how they do anything - leave with or without a deal, remain, extend, anything at all, without getting tossed out of #10 and possibly Parliament.

There is talk of Boris losing a confidence vote within hours of taking office.

I have no idea, and I am not at all sure Boris or Hunt has one either.

But none of that Westminster drama is the EU's problem.

robinph

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Tory MPs will vote with their leader (majority of them anyway).
Labour can hardly vote against an election, having spent two years using their demand for an election to cover up their failure to have a unified position on Brexit. Opposition parties are supposed to always want an election anyway.

2/3 majority would be easily achieved.

Not the week before October 31st when it would result in a no deal brexit.

Nody

Shelga wrote: »

How does the UK currently trade with the USA? Or any other countries not covered by EU trade agreements?

USA is covered in FTAs but they are more limited in scope; similar to China not having a FTA but multiple TAs in various areas but that's only a side note. The way it happens is what you'd expect, WTO terms which means they export items that has to have certain requirements met depending on location (i.e. one country may ask for certification by authority X, another may ask for document Y, a third specification of Z etc.) and pay what ever is the required tariff on the import. FTAs simply reduce the paperwork and tariffs but the basis of the trade would be similar it's simply that due to tariffs it may not be profitable compared to a local / closer company (i.e. if you need to pay 70% import tariffs for let's say Irish lamb it may be cheaper to buy NZ lamb as they got an agreement for only 20% tariffs for example). FTAs are simply there to reduce the tariffs and in some cases paperwork (i.e. EU may recognize that a country has high enough standards that they will lower their spot check rate from 70% to 5% for example).

First Up

robinph wrote:

Any uncertainly is just really a problem for the UK and businesses based in the UK looking to trade with the rest of Europe.

Its a problem for anyone that has the UK as part of its supply chain either buying or selling.

Stop moaning ffs

Confusion and uncertainty. No kidding.

https://twitter.com/simoncoveney/status/1148138490393178112

dfx-

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

There are 30 plus Tory MPs who are meeting regularly to form an anti No Deal group . They are already talking about various strategies. One is a bill on Northern Ireland. Another is an emergency debate. How many Tories would put country before party? In this case, quite a few if it stopped No Deal. Here's the thing. Many One Nation Tory MPs are feeling increasingly alienated from their own party and no longer see it as their natural home now that the ERG run it. A looming No Deal will be the final straw. Some will lose their seats, some may return with increased majorities as Remain voters switch to them. In fact, I think 30 is, ahem, a conservative estimate.

How many Labour MPs like Hoey and Skinner and abstainers in the front bench are there...