Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

prawnsambo · 02-09-2019 10:53PM

McGiver wrote: »

CU membership actually doesn't make sense from a departing member's point of view as it restricts trade policy. Whereas SM membership does not restrict it (see EFTA's FTAs).

I was really surprised that the Norway route option was less popular in the HoC than the Turkey option, as the indicative votes confirmed. The Turkey option is far inferior and restrictive.

It's not that surprising. It's the whole rule-taking issue that curdles their blood. I'm not sure if it's still on her feed, but Nadine Dorries famously said the Norway option was always her preferred option. Someone replied and said it would mean rule-taking and she went right off the idea. Couldn't get away from it fast enough.

10000maniacs · 02-09-2019 10:53PM

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

You’re bang on the money there. Leave has morphed onto we always wanted to leave with no deal.

That’s the level of delusion and manipulation they’ve reached.

Remain and a single purpose by comparison is just nowhere to be found. When it should be the simplest message imaginable.

Yes you are right, but Johnson will be run out of Downing Street by the pressures of a no deal Brexit in short order. He will win the election albeit with another hung Parliament and I will give him 6 months after that.

McGiver · 02-09-2019 10:54PM

sondagefaux wrote: »

McGiver wrote: »

Tech note - neither CH nor NO are in the CU. That's why EFTA have somewhat independent trade policy and their own FTAs.
NI Backstop would be needed even if they went the Norway route.

Staying in CU and SM is a nonsense, it would make zero sense for UK (no independent trade policy, limited regulatory power, no representation in EU legislative, SM access payments, adherence to 4 freedoms).

Switzerland isn't in the Single Market either, it has a set of bilateral agreements with the EU that largely contain much of the same rules as the Single Market, but financial services, for example, are excluded from these agreements.

Switzerland has been granted equivalency for many of its financial services, but the EU can withdraw this with just 30 days notice.

Equivalency confers nowhere near the benefits of being in the Single Market, which fully covers services, and which allows the City of London to act as the primary place of business for financial services sector companies (and related services such as legal businesses, insurance etc) to serve the entire Single Market from, due to the passporting rights granted under the Single Market.

The loss of these rights, and the loss of the right to legally transfer data from the EU to the UK, will have a hugely negative impact on the UK's services sector which makes up 80% of its economy.

I don't know why the majority of the UK's population thinks that losing the treaty rights which form the basis for much of the UK's economy and jobs is going to be good for the UK.

Perhaps they're unaware just how much of their services sector relies on the Single Market and are far too focused on trying to secure free trade in goods.

I simplified it as I didn't want to go into details. For the purpose of our discussion CH are in the SM (EEA). CH is de facto in EEA, replicating the EEA membership with set of 10 bilateral treaties with the exception of the services as you pointed out.

By the way, this is how the CH federal government got around the rejected EEA membership referendum (50.3 vs 49.7%) - by creating bilateral treaties instead largely replicating it. If only UK government could come with compromise like that - this is real politics!

ToBeFrank123 · 02-09-2019 11:00PM

devnull wrote: »

What illustrated this for me today was that there are a number of people who are now saying that they want to have an option of revoking article 50 put in any legislation as a back-up option should the other ones fail. This is making No Deal more likely.

As we've seen in the indicative votes where fairly decent sized groups voted to revoke and a peoples vote but abstained on soft Brexit options, some people are so pro-remain that they are willing to risk a No Deal Brexit to get it. There is just no willing to compromise in the remain side.

If they had compromised a bit more this would have been put to bed and No Deal would have been put to bed for good. But already we're seeing the likes of Chuka making the same mistake again, being more concerned about supporting the minor minor minor chance of revoke than stopping No Deal.

Well said.

Stop moaning ffs · 02-09-2019 11:06PM

10000maniacs wrote: »

Yes you are right, but Johnson will be run out of Downing Street by the pressures of a no deal Brexit in short order. He will win the election albeit with another hung Parliament and I will give him 6 months after that.

Total irrelevant point in about to make but he looks as if he’s aged years in a few short weeks.

He’s visibly aged and even the speech today seemed to be completely lacking any of his usual oomph, to use his own word.

ToBeFrank123 · 02-09-2019 11:08PM

Corbyn ruling out election until after 31st October according to Newsnight.

Good move. He didn't fall into Johnson's trap.

ArmaniJeanss · 02-09-2019 11:10PM

devnull wrote: »

What illustrated this for me today was that there are a number of people who are now saying that they want to have an option of revoking article 50 put in any legislation as a back-up option should the other ones fail. This is making No Deal more likely.

As we've seen in the indicative votes where fairly decent sized groups voted to revoke and a peoples vote but abstained on soft Brexit options, some people are so pro-remain that they are willing to risk a No Deal Brexit to bank on the very very long odds get it. There is just no willing to compromise in the remain side.

If they had compromised a bit more this would have been put to bed and No Deal would have been put to bed for good. But already we're seeing the likes of Chuka making the same mistake again, being more concerned about supporting the minor minor minor chance of revoke than stopping No Deal.

I'm no fan of Chuka and he's made a lot of wrong steps.
But sticking to his belief that Remaining is best and that's all he'll try to achieve seems a principled position to take.
And is surely representative of at the very least around 30% of the population, so it seems right that some MPs should represent that viewpoint.

prawnsambo · 02-09-2019 11:19PM

devnull wrote: »

What illustrated this for me today was that there are a number of people who are now saying that they want to have an option of revoking article 50 put in any legislation as a back-up option should the other ones fail. This is making No Deal more likely.

As we've seen in the indicative votes where fairly decent sized groups voted to revoke and a peoples vote but abstained on soft Brexit options, some people are so pro-remain that they are willing to risk a No Deal Brexit to bank on the very very long odds get it. There is just no willing to compromise in the remain side.

If they had compromised a bit more this would have been put to bed and No Deal would have been put to bed for good. But already we're seeing the likes of Chuka making the same mistake again, being more concerned about supporting the minor minor minor chance of revoke than stopping No Deal.

Whatever about the chances of revoke, the WA as agreed by May was pretty much as hard a brexit as you'd get with just a stay of execution. From our point of view it was fine, but for the UK, it might as well be a hard brexit from the pov of industry and investment there. Once agreed, there'd be no going back. No JIT manufacturing and all the car and aeroplane industry would just wind down over time.

devnull · 02-09-2019 11:22PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

Whatever about the chances of revoke, the WA as agreed by May was pretty much as hard a brexit as you'd get with just a stay of execution. From our point of view it was fine, but for the UK, it might as well be a hard brexit from the pov of industry and investment there. Once agreed, there'd be no going back. No JIT manufacturing and all the car and aeroplane industry would just wind down over time.

I wasn't talking about the WA, I was talking about the indicative votes, like the ones for single market membership, customs union etc.

prawnsambo · 02-09-2019 11:26PM

devnull wrote: »

I wasn't talking about the WA, I was talking about the indicative votes, like the ones for single market membership, customs union etc.

My bad. The "we don't know what we want" votes. Iirc, people got so confused that one or two reportedly ended up in the wrong lobbies.

ThePanjandrum · 02-09-2019 11:34PM

Headshot wrote: »

afaik legally he'll have to do it or go to jail

I'm afraid that the remedy for the refusal is a vote of no confidence. The last time an MP was detained in the tower of Big Ben was in the 1890s I believe, for Bradlaugh. It is a sanction that has never ben used against a Prime Minister and is unconstitutional.

ThePanjandrum · 02-09-2019 11:39PM

sondagefaux wrote: »

Parliament can fire him and the entire government by holding a Vote of No Confidence in the government. There doesn't have to be a general election to fire Johnson.

A Vote of No Confidence in the government doesn't automatically lead to a general election.

Under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, MPs have 14 days after the government loses a Vote of No Confidence to propose a new prime minister .

If they can do so before the 14 day deadline expires, the FTPA says that a general election does not have to be held.

Actually, the FTPA does not say that another Prime Minister can be put forward in the fourteen day period although some people say that it is allowable. During the debates on the bill an amendment was put forward to allow this to happen but it was rejected.

The FTPA assumes that there is a Prime Minister throughout the period

Enzokk · 02-09-2019 11:48PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Corbyn ruling out election until after 31st October according to Newsnight.

Good move. He didn't fall into Johnson's trap.

The way for Corbyn to win this round is to ensure they enact legislation first to avoid no-deal, then go for the election. He gets to have his cake and eat it, avoids no-deal and gets an election.

trellheim · 02-09-2019 11:50PM

Superb reporting from Peter Foster

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster

Repeating and adding new context to what everyone's saying, essentially all a sham ( and incidentally highly worrying )

Strazdas · 02-09-2019 11:53PM

trellheim wrote: »

Superb reporting from Peter Foster

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster

Repeating and adding new context to what everyone's saying, essentially all a sham ( and incidentally highly worrying )

Explosive stuff : Johnson and Cummings are a pair of spivs / shysters (as we might have anticipated)

Enzokk · 03-09-2019 12:15AM

trellheim wrote: »

Superb reporting from Peter Foster

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster

Repeating and adding new context to what everyone's saying, essentially all a sham ( and incidentally highly worrying )

I still don't see this plan that Johnson and Cummings has where they really don't want to leave without a deal. Everything so far points to them wanting to leave without a deal. There is no other plans afoot to try and get the WA through or even a different deal.

As for the next steps,

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1168589781703544833?s=20

That says the PM will call for an election on the 14th October. But he cannot make that call himself, he has to get 2/3 of the HoC to vote for it or lose a VONC and not see another government command the majority of the house within 14 days. Those are the rules, so unless Corbyn actually calls for a VONC or Johnson ties one of the votes to one effectively, he is left with very few options.

That is his problems, he may have a lot of plans (or Cummings may have lots of plans) but his avenues to succeed are very narrow to non-existing. He cannot go for a soft Brexit as he would lose votes to the Brexit Party and he cannot go for a hard Brexit because it will mobilize the vote against him in marginal Tory seats.

He will have to convince a lot of people that the last 9 years of Tory austerity didn't happen or that he didn't support it when he tries to win their votes as this is where the election will be won. He is boxed in and unless Corbyn implodes I see only trouble for Johnson ahead.

Jizique · 03-09-2019 12:18AM

Strazdas wrote: »

Explosive stuff : Johnson and Cummings are a pair of spivs / shysters (as we might have anticipated)

How Foster manages to keep his job in that rag is amazing

trellheim · 03-09-2019 12:21AM

Tom McTague does top reporting in of all places, the Sun

McGiver · 03-09-2019 12:24AM

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

sondagefaux wrote: »

Parliament can fire him and the entire government by holding a Vote of No Confidence in the government. There doesn't have to be a general election to fire Johnson.

A Vote of No Confidence in the government doesn't automatically lead to a general election.

Under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, MPs have 14 days after the government loses a Vote of No Confidence to propose a new prime minister .

If they can do so before the 14 day deadline expires, the FTPA says that a general election does not have to be held.

Actually, the FTPA does not say that another Prime Minister can be put forward in the fourteen day period although some people say that it is allowable. During the debates on the bill an amendment was put forward to allow this to happen but it was rejected.

The FTPA assumes that there is a Prime Minister throughout the period

Wrong. FTPA doesn't assume anything. FTPA clearly says that if following a no confidence motion a confidence motion is passed there is no GE.

HoC own library mentions that a new HMG with a new PM can ask the HoC for confidence.

The second, ‘no confidence’, trigger is pulled if a motion of no confidence is passed and no alternative Government is confirmed by the Commons within 14 days by means of a positive motion of confidence.
Section 2 of the Act specifies the form of the motion: “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
If this motion is carried, there is a 14 calendar-day period in which a
Government may be confirmed in office by a resolution in the form:
“That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
If a new Government cannot be formed within this time period, then a general election is triggered. There is no provision for an extension of the 14-day period. Dissolution need not follow immediately on a triggering event, as section 2(7) allows for the Prime Minister to recommend a suitable polling day to the Crown. A proclamation for a new Parliament can then be issued.

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN02873/SN02873.pdf

ninebeanrows · 03-09-2019 12:24AM

I have finally had a clear moment and know what the outcome of this will be

Boris will win a solid majority in election, 20-30MPs

He will airbrush a few minor adjustments to the withdrawal agreement, change the name of the backstop to something more palatable and claim a great victory for Britain

Brexit party and idiot supporter base will buy it and Boris will be king of england

May not be worst outcome for Ireland, once DUP lose that power --majority tory government will happily sell NI down the river

Naggdefy · 03-09-2019 12:29AM

In a hierarchy of blame for the Brexit fiasco I think I'd apportion blame to 1. Cameron for such poor judgement. 2. Corbyn for such ineffectual opposition. May did as best she could and Johnson is just the fopish clown we all knew he was with delusions of being a renegade statesman like Churchill.

PropJoe10 · 03-09-2019 12:30AM

Naggdefy wrote: »

In a hierarchy of blame for the Brexit fiasco I think I'd apportion blame to 1. Cameron for such poor judgement. 2. Corbyn for such ineffectual opposition. May did as best she could and Johnson is just the fopish clown we all knew he was with delusions of being a renegade Statesman like Churchill.

Labour need to ditch Corbyn ASAP and get someone with an actual fixed position and some principled structured arguments in. Keir Starmer would be a decent choice. I've no idea how Corbyn hasn't been under pressure for his job in all this.

johnnyskeleton · 03-09-2019 12:31AM

Sleety_Rain wrote: »

I have finally had a clear moment and know what the outcome of this will be

Boris will win a solid majority in election, 20-30MPs

He will airbrush a few minor adjustments to the withdrawal agreement, change the name of the backstop to something more palatable and claim a great victory for Britain

Brexit party and idiot supporter base will buy it and Boris will be king of england

May not be worst outcome for Ireland, once DUP lose that power --majority tory government will happily sell NI down the river

I find it hard to see how an election will result in anything other than losses for both major parties, requring a coalition in a country that has an intense dislike for coalitions. The real question is whether Brexit party taking votes from Consrvatives will outweigh Lib Dems/Greens etc taking from Labour

Naggdefy · 03-09-2019 12:32AM

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Labour need to ditch Corbyn ASAP and get someone with an actual fixed position and some principled structured arguments in. Keir Starmer would be a decent choice. I've no idea how Corbyn hasn't been under pressure for his job in all this.

I never remember as poor a party leader in a large county like the UK.

Naggdefy · 03-09-2019 12:34AM

Is there anyway UK candidates can campaign as one of 3.

1. Brexit no Deal.
2. Brexit WA or some negotiation.
3. No Brexit...

PropJoe10 · 03-09-2019 12:37AM

Naggdefy wrote: »

I never remember as poor a party leader in a large county like the UK.

Nope, he's absolutely dreadful. Shows how important that proper, targeted and focused opposition is in politics. Yvette Cooper, Hillary Benn or Keir Starmer would all do a far better job.

It would be a disaster for Labour to go into another election with Corbyn in charge.

Strazdas · 03-09-2019 12:39AM

Naggdefy wrote: »

In a hierarchy of blame for the Brexit fiasco I think I'd apportion blame to 1. Cameron for such poor judgement. 2. Corbyn for such ineffectual opposition. May did as best she could and Johnson is just the fopish clown we all knew he was with delusions of being a renegade statesman like Churchill.

Cameron's guilt is off the scale. Nobody was even looking for a referendum in 2015 : UKIP for example didn't want one (campaigning for one would have meant being bound by the result if it had gone to Remain)

reslfj · 03-09-2019 12:45AM

McGiver wrote: »

Tech note - neither CH nor NO are in the CU. ...
...NI Backstop would be needed even if they went the Norway route.

Edit - forgot to mention that staying in the SM and the CU basically equals the EU membership, hence no country outside the EU is in the SM as well as the CU.

The CU+SM does necessitate a very large part of EU rules to be de facto automatically passed as laws in the UK.
But it only trade related rules and directives (although the word 'trade' in a very extended sense) need be adapted in the UK.

Membership of both the SM and the CU is needed for the UK to obtain the friction free (and inexpensive) transport across the borders. This includes an absolute need for the EU as region/country of origin for many products made for export. A car with only 25% UK added value (fairly typical) can not be included in any trade deal with the UK as country of origin.

The UK currently has a number of opt-outs. But the UK also seems happy having opt-ins to a lot of other mutually beneficial EU areas - e.g. EURATOM, Europol, border and security databases, Open-sky, long haul lorry permits, electricity market etc. etc.

A SM+CU type relation will eliminate some EU laws from the UK compared to membership, but I'm not very sure, it will be more or less laws than under the current UK opt-out rules or will be the laws the UK wants to avoid.

Lars

MrMusician18 · 03-09-2019 12:50AM

Naggdefy wrote: »

In a hierarchy of blame for the Brexit fiasco I think I'd apportion blame to 1. Cameron for such poor judgement. 2. Corbyn for such ineffectual opposition. May did as best she could and Johnson is just the fopish clown we all knew he was with delusions of being a renegade statesman like Churchill.

Wat?

This crisis has been entirely manufactured by the Tories. They own it.

J Mysterio · 03-09-2019 12:55AM

Naggdefy wrote: »

In a hierarchy of blame for the Brexit fiasco I think I'd apportion blame to 1. Cameron for such poor judgement. 2. Corbyn for such ineffectual opposition. May did as best she could and Johnson is just the fopish clown we all knew he was with delusions of being a renegade statesman like Churchill.

1. May
2. Cameron
3. Corbyn

Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Comments