Russman wrote: » Its the likes of this that I think makes a no-deal crash out pretty much nailed on at this point. The numbers for May just don't stack up, no matter which way she goes. Why, oh why she won't move on a different red line than the backstop, is beyond me. A bit like the old joke about a carrier group demanding a lighthouse change its course to get out of its way - its just not going to happen. I guess her only hope is to try wait them out until 28th March and hope her deal is a bit less worse than the alternative.
Enzokk wrote: » Wait, everybody from the leave side told voters not to believe Cameron and his fear mongering. That is when Project Fear was shouted by all and sundry, now you want to tell people that they should have believed the people you told them to ignore? This is probably one of the most ridiculous statements out there regarding Brexit. This is almost as ridiculous as telling the EU that there will be technology to easily negate the need for a border so there is no need for the backstop. Have I missed it that we have somehow ended up in the movie Idiocracy?
A no-deal Brexit threatens the UK's food security and will lead to higher prices and empty shelves, retailers are preparing to warn MPs. M&S, Sainsbury's and Waitrose are among those warning stockpiling fresh food is impossible and that the UK is very reliant on the EU for produce. The warning comes in a letter from the British Retail Consortium and is signed by many of the main food retailers. It comes ahead of crucial votes in Parliament tomorrow. The letter from the retailers, seen by the BBC, says there will be "significant risks" to maintaining the choice, quality and shelf life of food. "We are extremely concerned that our customers will be among the first to experience the realities of a no deal Brexit," the letter says.
Enzokk wrote: » Okay, seems like the UK Government plan is to tell the EU that they will have to reopen the negotiations again. Unsurprisingly the EU has ruled this out. So it seems that once again Theresa May has her plans ruled out before she even presents it to the EU. Just like Chequers where her plan was ruled out before she even had the chance to prepare for her meetings with the EU.Guardian Politics Live Update at 11h57: Then at 12h31,
funkey_monkey wrote: » WTO rules out need for Hard Border - Nov 2018 So, if the WTO states there is no need for a hard border (until someone else complains about it) how likely is it that another nation would lodge a complaint and how long would it take to resolve? I'm assuming that there would only be a financial penalty and not an 'order' to erect some type of border checks.
Folkstonian wrote: » [PHP][/PHP] Cut the melodrama. ‘Dangerous’ it is not. ‘Revision’ it is not. People were told in a thick booklet delivered by Cameron’s government to every household in the U.K. that leaving the EU would mean an inevitable loss of access to a wide range of European agencies, including agencies based in Britain. David Davies has always been regarded as a figure of comedy.
Folkstonian wrote: » Ineptitude amongst the current custodians of the great offices of state? I presume you are looking for disagreement from me on thst front, but you won’t get it. I’m fairly sure back home my parents will still have the government’s booklet delivered prior to the referendum filed away somewhere. Somewhat interestingly, that booklet actually stated (or warned, depending on perspective) that voting to leave would see Britain leave the single market, customs union, defence partnerships and a host of European agencies.
Folkstonian wrote: » Few people, on either side of the debate, believed Davies when he said EU agencies might stay in Britain should it vote to leave.
Folkstonian wrote: » British employees, I assume, will either move to continue working for the EU, or find work very swiftly in the Department of Health should they prefer not to leave London
downcow wrote: » Not that i want to defend the dupers. I think you’ll find that it’s because of Sinn Fein and their abstentionist policy
Itssoeasy wrote: » What has the Sinn Fein abstentionist in London have to do with the assembly in Belfast ? Nothing I think you'll find.
downcow wrote: » I was answering a point where dup were being blamed for not representing the remain position in Westminster
downcow wrote: » I find it ironic that were sf not abstaining from Stormont then Stormont would be able to make the remain case very strongly. And if they were not abstaining from WM then the dup power would be completely removed.
Folkstonian wrote: » Ineptitude amongst the current custodians of the great offices of state? I presume you are looking for disagreement from me on thst front, but you won’t get it. I’m fairly sure back home my parents will still have the government’s booklet delivered prior to the referendum filed away somewhere.Somewhat interestingly, that booklet actually stated (or warned, depending on perspective) that voting to leave would see Britain leave the single market, customs union, defence partnerships and a host of European agencies.
No other country has managed to secure significant access to the Single Market, without having to:follow EU rules over which they have no real say pay into the EU accept EU citizens living and working in their country
I find it ironic that were sf not abstaining from Stormont then Stormont would be able to make the remain case very strongly. And if they were not abstaining from WM then the dup power would be completely removed.
One expert warned that it would fall either to the UK or EU - not the WTO - to set up border checks in order to protect the integrity of their internal markets from illegal activity and divergent trade rules.
Folkstonian wrote: » It was reported before the referendum that in the event of a leave vote, EU agencies located in Britain would obviously move to a nation still in Europe. I’m not sure it’s even worth debate. It was an acknowledged and accepted consequence and people apparently saw it as one worth shouldering.
Folkstonian wrote: » Presumably Britain will need a similar regulatory body now, so the British staff members will be fast tracked into it, or will move into the Netherlands to stay working for the EU instead of us. Either way, good luck to them and hopefully the disruption to their day to day life isn’t too much.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Interesting that the British government sent "a figure of comedy" to negotiate its withdrawal from the EU. Why would they do such a thing?
10000maniacs wrote: » I kind of disagree here. It was the lack of adequate governmental macro-prudential policies which failed to mitigate the excessive credit growth and subsequent housing boom. It was Fianna Fail who were responsible for the inadequate policies relating to banking supervision, public finances and the loss of competitiveness. And it didn't help that the likes of Bertie telling everyone to commit suicide when cornered over the overheating economy. Or McCreevy saying "if I have it, Ill spend it, If I don't, I won't." They transferred the tax burden to assets, property in particular, and talked up the property market at every turn, encouraging people to buy, buy, buy. Fianna Fail generated an economy based on consumption and called it growth, and they dealt in macro-economic statistics to obscure the uneven and precarious nature of this ‘expansion’. Fianna Fail ensured we would have a very hard landing when the world crash happened.
Folkstonian wrote: » Cut the melodrama. ‘Dangerous’ it is not. ‘Revision’ it is not. People were told in a thick booklet delivered by Cameron’s government to every household in the U.K. that leaving the EU would mean an inevitable loss of access to a wide range of European agencies, including agencies based in Britain. David Davies has always been regarded as a figure of comedy.
Brexit withdrawal deal will have to be changed, No 10 tells EU I’m just back from the lobby briefing, and Number 10 is now explicitly saying that the EU will have to agree to changes to the Brexit deal. This is not much more than a statement of the obvious, and it was implicit in what Theresa May said in her Commons statement last week following the defeat of her deal, but on that occasion May was careful to avoid anything that sounded like an ultimatum to the EU. Now Number 10 is saying directly that the deal will have to be changed. Number 10 has said the withdrawal deal will have to change. In a message that makes an attempt to renegotiate the deal with the EU, at least to some extent, the prime minister’s spokesman told journalists: We reached an agreement with the European Union in relation to the withdrawal agreement and the future partnership. That was put to a vote of MPs, and MPs rejected that deal, including the withdrawal agreement, by 230 votes. The prime minister is absolutely committed to leaving the EU with a deal, but clearly if we are to obtain parliamentary support for that deal, some changes will have to be made.
EU says withdrawal agreement 'not open for renegotiation', as No 10 says deal must change The European commission hold a daily press briefing which takes place at the same time as Downing Street’s. And, just as Number 10 was saying that the withdrawal deal would have to change (although not necessarily the text of the withdrawal agreement - see 11.57am), Brussels said it was the withdrawal agreement would not be reopened. Margaritis Schinas, the commission’s spokesman, told journalists: We have a unanimous EU27 position on the withdrawal agreement which reflects the common EU position. This withdrawal agreement has been agreed with the UK government, it is endorsed by leaders and is not open for renegotiation. Asked if that position would change if MPs vote to demand changes to the Irish backstop, Schinas said: The only thing I have to say is that we shall wait for the result of the vote of the Commons tomorrow. Then we will wait for the government to tell us what are the next steps. That’s how it’s going to work.
LuckyLloyd wrote: » The easy ability of Brexiteers to rewrite history over what people voted for is extremely dangerous. The above is completely wrong - David Davis's previous comments on the matter were linked here last week. It was painted by Brexiteers as a matter of "negotiation".
ancapailldorcha wrote: » The crash of '08.... I mean, I'd be hesitant to apportion too much blame to the government given how global it was. Only countries without heavily service-based economies like Australia and Germany escaped relatively unscathed.
Calina wrote: » This...demonstrates a lack of informedness. The fact that EBA and EMA would have to leave was dismissed as Project Fear and the then Brexit secretary stated there was no reason for them to leave and of course they would be a subject for negotiation. The UK has an organisation known as the MHRA whose work load will have to be ramped up. But pharmas will be prioritising EU regulatory requirements ahead of UK ones.
Folkstonian wrote: » It was reported before the referendum that in the event of a leave vote, EU agencies located in Britain would obviously move to a nation still in Europe. I’m not sure it’s even worth debate. It was an acknowledged and accepted consequence and people apparently saw it as one worth shouldering. Presumably Britain will need a similar regulatory body now, so the British staff members will be fast tracked into it, or will move into the Netherlands to stay working for the EU instead of us. Either way, good luck to them and hopefully the disruption to their day to day life isn’t too much.
AtomicHorror wrote: » The European Medicines Agency closed up their Canary Wharf HQ on Friday after 24 years in London. That's 900 jobs to be relocated or re-staffed, not to mention knock-on effects as pharma companies re-allocate their regulatory-facing staff, some of whom will no longer be able to legally operate in the UK from April.https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/26/european-medicines-agency-closes-london-office-with-loss-of-900-jobs-brexit The Guardian seems to be the only UK paper to have covered it. Maybe the scale of it doesn't register over there. In Ireland, I'd expect those kinds of job losses would be widely reported.
otnomart wrote: » "May is now planning to seek legally enforceable commitments from Brussels resurrecting paragraph 50 of the original backstop agreement" "Paragraph 50 guarantees that the U.K. will ensure that no new regulatory barriers will develop between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, “unless, consistent with the 1998 [Good Friday] Agreement, [and] the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland.” Source: Politico https://www.politico.eu/article/mays-brexit-assault-will-target-backstops-threat-to-peace-dup-theresa-may-good-friday-agreement/
Folkstonian wrote: » Scotland voted in a nationalist government, which in turn requested a referendum on independence. Which was then freely, fairly, and peacefully contested. And lost.
