Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 07:40 AM

Pay nothing? Wasn't it just last week that just about every economic prediction was saying that we'd pay an extremely heavy price for every possible brexit scenario except for remaining? That 39 billion is going to look like pocket money a few years down the line after our economy has shrunk by seven or eight percent...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 07:51 AM

Any deal that gives us the unilateral right to leave the backstop would be absurd. The backstop involves the Republic and the North. Some brexiteers seem to have forgotten that the Republic is an EU country, so any decision to exit the backstop must clearly be bilateral.

The so-called Norway option is not going to happen. We would dwarf the other EFTA nations and they can (and will) refuse to admit us. Apart from that, it keeps us in the single market, maintains free movement and keeps us paying in. And the "Norway-plus" notion does all that AND keeps us in the customs union. A bit like now except we'll have no say. Whoop-de-do!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 08:05 AM

"There can be no march to federalism while the UK is a member of the EU. Do you ever listen?"

Are you trying to convince me or yourself, by endless repetition?

What others think

One version of reality:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/01/five-facts-you-need-to-understand-the-new-global-order/

What better way to destroy the nation state by flooding countries with immigrants? Do you really think multiculturalism arose with no underlying agenda? Was the destruction of Libya, Iraq, and attempts in Syria really to onward the path of democracy?or an extremist destruction of the nation state? The grandplan seem to have hit a roadblock in Afganistan though! Even the gruniard accepts the reality
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/apr/05/demise-of-the-nation-state-rana-dasgupta

Do you seriously believe the globalists give a second's thought to the views of a lefty exteacher? The bankers and multinationals do not like nations- they tend to frustrate their plans of enriching themselves while they pauperize the rest. The establishment of progressively larger political blocks is merely a step in the road towards total control, and if you think this is to your benefit I feel sorry for you.(or perhaps you have been common puposed?)

I wonder what really lies behind this?
https://reliefweb.int/report/world/world-leaders-adopt-first-ever-global-compact-migration-outlining-framework-protect

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 08:14 AM

"If May loses the vote of confidence convention has it that she stays until she can find somebody who can get a majority in the House of Commons."
Not an option being discussed at present - like Tesco, "when she's gone, she's gone"
Britain will have to crash our of Brexit leaderless with a divided party and country - a real 'Brave New World'
The economic predictions that a hard Brexit will damage Britain's economy for decades to come means that it is our kids who will have to pick up the tab, not us
A truly great legacy
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 08:36 AM

Not sure this 'when she's gone, she's gone' is quite right, Jim. Or at least not the whole story. I think it is the monarch who invites somebody to become Prime Minister. And gets rid of them. What the Tories are voting following the 'no confidence' letters on is not who should be Prime Minister, but who should be leader of their party.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 08:37 AM

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/16/how-conservative-leadership-challenges-work

This was the source for my remark.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 09:22 AM

"Not sure this 'when she's gone, she's gone' is quite right, Jim."
Neither am I Karen, but this is the situation being outlined by Maggie May and the news commentators at present - it is one of her main arguments for staying in office.
Maybe its political bluff - anything seems possible nowadays.

Whatever happens, if Brexit is forced through it will leave behind a deeply divided Government and a deeply divided people - not a situation in which to plan to 'go it alone' - (good basis for a good, 'marooned on a Desert Island or lost in the desert/space/at sea/in the jungle thriller which I have spent many happy hours watching or reading)
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 09:52 AM

There is a vast gulf between an opposition vote of no confidence in the government and a party vote of no confidence in the PM. Only in the former case does the monarchy have involvement. The leader that can demonstrate a majority is automatically rubber stamped by the monarchy.
"The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 sets the interval between general elections at five years. At the end of this time a new House of Commons must be elected.

However, 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)"

"The economic predictions that a hard Brexit will damage Britain's economy for decades"

Operative word PREDICTION!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 09:56 AM

Smoking ruins if she remains! Analysis by guido's gurus.

https://order-order.com/2018/12/12/tory-mps-worry-keeping-may-lead-party-electoral-disaster/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 10:45 AM

Trouble is there is a lack of evidenced predictions for the alternative hypothesis that a hard brexit won't cause any damage. The point is if we wait and see if the damage will happen, then that damage can't be undone immediately if it does happen. Similar to predicting that kicking a ball at the front of a house could break a window. Would anyone say - lets wait for proof that a window will break before taking measures to prevent the window breaking?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 11:11 AM

All politics and economics is based on Predictions - society would have ground to a halt centuries ago without them
When asked what are the benefits of leaving Europe, the only thing we are given is a list of E.U. 'flaws' that equally apply to British Parliamentary politics
Leaving Europe would be a totally unplanned leap in the dark
Jim Carroll
I have to say that Guido's Little Helper is working very hard for his fee

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 03:59 PM

At a time of National Crisis, it's interesting and revealing to see that the party of greed and selfishness is continuing to put its own interests above those of the nation...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/12/national-crisis-pointless-tory-feud-brexit?CMP=fb_gu

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 04:13 PM

If Treason May survives I will be very disappointed.

I am sure you will cope with the disappointment.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 04:21 PM

It is also revealing that some Brexiteers have only VERY recently started to refer to Teresa May as Treason May.

What price loyalty?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 04:34 PM

She LIVES !

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 04:40 PM

There's far too much of this 'treason' shite from Brexiteers. I've lost count of the times Brexiteers have told me I should be 'arrested, marched out, and shot for treason'. Clearly, their intellect doesn't extend to an understanding of what the offence of treason actually consists of.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 04:49 PM

When (not "if") Labour puts a motion of no confidence, it will all be down to the UDP. If they abstain the motion should pass. And with Theresa May still intent on her deal, with the non-exit backstop, the DUP can be expected to abstain.

And there is no prospect of the EU (especially Ireland) giving way on that part of the backstop.

Stuff about the EU being unreasonable in negotiating doesn't stand up to examination. It's the reverse, if anything, far more flexible than the UK. A year ago the UK essentially agreed to the backstop, to continue until and unless some alternative could be cobbled together to provide a permanent guarantee against a hard border, and did so specially in order to allow other negotiations to proceed - then after going ahead with those negotiations it has tried to backslide on it.

The £39 billion isn't a charge for an agreed withdrawal which can be dispensed with in a no deal exit, it's a debt which we'd be duty bound to pay however we leave. If the UK defaulted on that debt it would be acting illegally, and would do enormous damage to it's reputation. Financially it would be a rogue state, and no one would be likely to trust it. The old label "Perfidious Albion" would be revived, and justly so. And this would be a country hoping to set up favourable trade agreements round the world?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 05:02 PM

"I am sure you will cope with the disappointment."
With the growth of career politicians the result is no real surprise.

By the way certain versions of the backstop, if implemented, would in my view be treasonous by way of depriving the sovereign of her crown.
(Crown of Ireland Act 1542:)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 05:27 PM

"There can be no march to federalism while the UK is a member of the EU. Do you ever listen?"

"Are you trying to convince me or yourself, by endless repetition?"

Neither. I'm trying to get through those cloth ears of yours to whatever resides within your cranium that no major shift in direction, policy or law can be pushed through, as long as we are members, and as a large and influential member state, without our consent. Veto is a four-letter word in your lexicon, I suppose.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 05:29 PM

I am sure you will cope with the disappointment."
With the growth of career politicians the result is no real surprise.

Interesting. So you think when a Tory MP is focused on progressing their career - which necessarily includes future elections and judgement by voters - they think their best bet is to stick with Teresa May.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 05:30 PM

Despite the fact that she on with a reasonable majority, Lord Snooty and the Bash Street Brexiteers are demanding that she resign
"Yes means yes" only when it suits some people, it would appear
What a friggin' shower of articulated arseholes
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 05:31 PM

As the May vote had around 140 spineless mps on the government payroll, then adopting remainiacs logic. May lost by a vote of approx. 100 to 50.
I think she is damaged goods no matter how the spinmeisters present it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 05:51 PM

She is damaged Tory goods only if there is a credible successor waiting in the wings. Which there isn't. She is damaged in the country, that's for sure. But she was anyway. Nothing has changed, frankly.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 03:50 AM

Thatcher won by 53 votes and was gone a week later. Who had ever heard of Major at that time? May has won by 83. You really think she has the continued confidence of her party?

Credible successor? What is this mythical construct? You clutch at straws!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 04:05 AM

It should be gratifying to se the right tearing each others throats out, but somehow, it sends a shiver down the spine to think it is jackals like these who represent the British people
Nice to be able to open Mudcat and see it in the raw

I never thought I'd say this, but May is the only politician to emerge from this mess with a shred of dignity - Parliament seems to be made up of elected Iain-alikes with every bit as little grasp of humanity and political responsibility
Bring on THE GREAT TWATSBY I say
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 04:15 AM

This situation is different. They say she's theoretically safe for twelve months. I reckon she's safe until 29/3/19. After that it depends on whether we have left or not. If we have left the EU by then, whoever replaces her will not be to blame directly for the result. They will start with a clean sheet. It will be relatively safe to replace her.

If we have not left, the situation is more fluid and more difficult to predict. Her replacement will then be responsible for leaving or not leaving. That would be a much more vulnerable position.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 04:20 AM

May has some rather vital legislation to get passed by parliament.
Stalling this helps no one. Delaying until January is not going to achieve anything useful, it merely enables Corbyn to call for a vote of no confidence in the government, and the outcome of that would be anybody's guess.
May's hubris may well lead to both her and her governments downfall.
She needs to go now, and I am sure many others view the situation the same way. Interesting times!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 05:40 AM

Well Iains, you are clearly wrong that stalling helps no one. By your own admission it helps Corbyn. By extension many of us will feel that this helps us.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 05:42 AM

Best thing to come out of Brexit if it brings on a Labour Government

"She needs to go now,"
So musch for democratic voting
I watched those arrogant twots lastt night all claiming to speak for the British people - just like here - when in faxcct all they are speaking for is their own Litle England view
The Britit people were never asked to vote on the future we now know is quite likely - they would have had to be a nation of lemmings to do so
It is deeply insulting to the British people to suggest any of this has anything to do with them - nothing new there from these flag-waggers
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 06:13 AM

The Britit people were never asked to vote on the future we now know is quite likely

Is the above sense or nonsense? To know something is quite likely is to know jack shit!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 06:18 AM

We do now know a lot more about the damage the brexit will cause. So now is time for a more informed vote, a People's vote. Time for a government of National Unity to be appointed, to withdraw Article 50, and hold a People's vote in 2019.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 06:30 AM

"Credible successor? What is this mythical construct? You clutch at straws!"

I clutched at nothing. A rereading of my post will confirm.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 06:56 AM

To be fair, Jim, the British do not speak with one voice. Daily Mail readers, apparently, want Rees Moog as the next Prime Minister.

The backstop issue is the one Theresa May is focussed on, presumably because she needs the Northern Ireland DUP's support and they won't support a solution that leaves them treated differently from the rest of the UK in terms of customs arrangements with the UK.

While we are still in the EU the border on the island of Ireland has no customs importance; there is free movement of goods and services. When we are not in the EU, the border will be a border between the EU and the UK.

In theory this means there should be border checks on goods crossing the border, but imposing such checks would be in breach of an agreement between the UK and the Irish Republic, and is seen as likely to bring about a return to higher levels of sectarian violence.

So the aims in terms of that are to agree a trade deal with the EU that keeps the border as open as it is now, which seems to mean pretty much a 'free trade' agreement, which seems to mean that goods we send across that border must reach EU standards, which is what Rees Moog and co want to be free from (especially in respect of finance and chemicals).

In the event that a deal isn't reached by a certain date, the backstop kicks in and specifies that there must be no 'hard border' across the island of Ireland.

I'm thinking that both the Republic and the UK must have within their 'no deal' planning, thoughts about how to address the political violence with which we may be faced if we crash out with no agreement that supports a no hard border option.   The Republic is recruiting potential customs officers already, though as it is sometimes said that border posts may be a target it seems a job for the brave!

The DUP are concerned that solutions to the no hard border problem will result in a customs border between the island of Ireland and GB, which they do not want as they see it as weakening the union.

This seems to me to be an intractible problem, and I don't know what Johnson or Rees Moog would do about it, and my guess is that they won't get rid of May before Brexit because nobody else knows what they would do about it, simply because it is intractible, so they are happy to let May continue until we crash out, which is what some of them want. Then she can get the blame.

Rees Moog seems to be against any form of backstop as he says the whole thing is the fault of the EU, not of Brexiteers, which seems to mean he doesn't mind a hard border down the middle of Ireland.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 07:17 AM

"To be fair, Jim, the British do not speak with one voice. "
Of course it doesn't - it is open to historical prejudices and misinformation - the problem here is that there was no study of how Britain should exit Europe, no game plan for the future and no discussion of the likely consequences
One of the things never considered was the debt Britain owes to its former colonies, some of whom are at war with the despots who rule them
Instead of assisting former colonial citizens to repair the mess left behind by the fallen empire, the British State is licencing arms to be used against their bettering their lot while, at the same time, blocking the entry of refugees from the wars created by the situation we left behind
This cynical and predatory behaviour s not only inhuman, but it has given rise to world-wide terrorism

Ireland is not untypical of what is happening - a partitioned nation moving slowly towards reconciliation which is quite likely to be thrown into further conflict by the re-introduction of solid borders.
The effect of Brexit reaches far beyond the shores of Britain   
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 01:48 PM


Rees Moog seems to be against any form of backstop as he says the whole thing is the fault of the EU, not of Brexiteers, which seems to mean he doesn't mind a hard border down the middle of Ireland

That is my understanding, but I would put it more strongly. He opposes a hard border, but sees the entire UK responsibility being not to implement one on our side. If international law requires one - which some dispute - he is willing to delay enough to force the EU side to implement it. Then it is entirely the EU's responsibility - "we have not implemented a hard border."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 02:30 PM

The Norwegian situation is an interesting one. They rejected full membership of the EU in 1994.
Does Norway have free trade with EU?
As member of the European Free Trade Association ( EFTA ), Norway seeks to conclude bilateral Free Trade Agreement in the so-called EFTA framework. This means that Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein can negotiate a Free Trade Agreement with a respective third country via EFTA .

Thus they avoided The Maastricht Treaty, known formally as the Treaty on European Union, the international agreement responsible for the creation of the European Union. They pay €0.40billion annually for the privilege.While not formally a single market membership fee, this money is linked to trade relations with the EU. Norway's EU minister said last year that “We gain from being a member of the single market. Norway is also in the Schengen area whereas the UK has never been a part of it. Norway is not part of the customs union. So it sets its own tariffs on goods imported from outside the single market. But Norwegian goods (with exceptions for farm produce and fish) are imported tariff-free into the EU.
    Personally I would be happy to see some brexit result approximating the Norway model. But I doubt the EU would agree, too many in Brussels and Strasbourg would be trampled in the rush to follow us.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 02:33 PM

"Rees Moog "
Love it - why does the idea of a 'Moog Sympathiser conjure up thought of electronic music
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 03:38 PM

Hmmmmmmmm

Over 40% of Conservative MP's voted to out the present leader Teresa May.

She has retained her position.

Less than 40% of the electorate voted to leave the EU and yet we are told we have to follow that vote.

Is there something slightly amiss I wonder.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 03:45 PM

Is there something slightly amiss I wonder.
Probably your comprehension.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 03:52 PM

Is there something slightly amiss I wonder.

Not at all, in both cases the issue being voted on was decided by a majority of the votes - you know, the way it works in a democracy.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 05:23 PM

The thing is, 100% of the Tory MPs voted, whereas only 74% of those entitled to vote in the referendum. So the refenfum majority was short of being a majority of the electorate by a good few million, far larger than the margin of victory.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 05:37 PM

The Norway option is not an option for two reasons. First, Norway will not let us become members of EFTA on the same terms because they know we'll swamp it (not my opinion: they've said so). The EU has nothing to do with that. Second, brexiteers will very gleefully point out that "we did not vote to stay in the single market, to allow free movement, to keep paying money to the EU and to have no say in rule-making." Finally, and even worse in the eyes of brexiteers, the "Norway-plus" option also involves staying in the customs union. It's remain without the bollocks. It'll do me if we really have to leave, but it ain't gonna happen!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 05:45 PM

the refenfum [sic] majority was short of being a majority of the electorate by a good few million,far larger than the margin of victory

Totally irrelevant in a democratic vote.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Mossback
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 06:24 PM

Atta boy, Bobad!

A classic Trump/Rudy Giuliani response if ever there was one !

Truth isn't truth, and a majority isn't a majority.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 06:24 PM

From: Raggytash - PM
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 03:38 PM
Hmmmmmmmm
Over 40% of Conservative MP's voted to out the present leader Teresa May.
Yes, it was 'over 40%'. But with 317 Conservative MPs eligible to vote, she polled 200. That is 63%, so yes, it is over 40%, but accurately representing your figures might allow you to make a more convincing argument.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 06:32 PM

From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 05:37
The Norway option is not an option for two reasons. First, Norway will not let us become members of EFTA on the same terms because they know we'll swamp it (not my opinion: they've said so). The EU has nothing to do with that.

And why are we not members of EFTA?
Because we left to join the EEC in 1972 (having been a founder member of EFTA from 1960). So as the EU is the current form of the EEC I would say that us not being members of EFTA is very much to do with the EU.

For those who want facts to back up opinions: EFTA through the years

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 06:57 PM

Atta boy, Bobad!

A classic Trump/Rudy Giuliani response if ever there was one !

Truth isn't truth, and a majority isn't a majority.

Sorry Greg but a majority of the voters decided the issue. You seem to be a little confused about the concepts of majority and democracy.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 07:00 PM

I don't really think facts have much to do with anything. Theres a sort of random facts aspect. Every buggers got facts and statistics to prove their point of view.

Its down to gut feeling.

I knew before we went in it wouldn't work.

All the industrial decline I've seen since, somewhere in the mix you could spot the fine Italian hand of the EEC/EU. If you weren't looking for it, you wouldn't have seen it. And the south eastern part of our country (its economy bolstered by foreign investment and property speculation have never had reason to look for it.

Its too big, too long, too unwieldly a process for any fact fuelled bean counting expert to have noticed. But my god, I've seen it happening the communities I lived most of my life in and grew up in. Steel,   fishing, textiles, cars, motorbikes, heavy engineering, ship building and re-fitting.....all down to villainous trade unions, rotten management, corrupt politicians.

You can carry on telling yourself that if it fits your set of predjudices...

Great news about the Fiat Panda and the Fiat 500 failing every safety standard. My Renault Kangoo was a write off after going through a deep puddle.
Wolsey, Reliant Scimitar, Triumph, Austin, Morris, Singer....never mind the competition will give them something to think about.

Those are my predjudices.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 07:16 PM

My Renault Kangoo was a write off after going through a deep puddle.

As Tom and Ray Magliozzi, the hosts of APR's Car Talk program used to say regarding French made cars; "the French copy no one and no one copies the French".

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 07:33 PM

Mossback is not Greg. Sorry.

The EU will not intervene in any effort we make to become a member of EFTA. That's what I meant and it was pretty clear. Nothing to do with our departure from EFTA all those many decades ago. Stop being silly again, Nigel.