Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[grasshopper]

7 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

I tend to agree with you on this one......but......it seems that now Brexit has been defined.... and it's probably 'the best that we can get'.......it does not appear popular to MP's or the public..... so what is the point of it other than it allows the ref result to be honoured?

I am not trivialising the importance of the last point... I am just stating that that appears to be it's only function.

Damned if you do and damned of you don't.... strange world.

Yep. Pretty much what Philip Hammond told the Treasury Select Committee yesterday. We will be worse off economically but we have to do it for political expediency.

Whether our elected parliament will agree is another matter.

A betrayal of the Brexit vote would have far-reaching consequences for the social fabric of Britain that would outweigh the economic cost of leaving the EU, Philip Hammond has told MPs.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/05/brexit-betrayal-would-damage-society-philip-hammond-tells-mps

[onlooker]

41 minutes ago, thehowler said:

You have no idea what is going to happen if May's deal tanks.

At least with May's deal you would no longer be a member state, no FOM, limited ECJ and chance to negotiate something better.

I think this is where you are wrong. The permanent Irish backstop means that, unless the UK splits, the UK will still be subject to the ECJ, and will still be in the CU and SM, and in particular will not be able to sign trade agreements which will give it any advantage over the EU. This is what it is all about from Brussels' POV. The do not want a successful independent UK on their doorstep.

As May's deal stands the Irish backstop means that for practical purposes, Britain is treated as a 3rd party foreign country by Northern Ireland, so the DUP won't accept it anyway.

[Kosmin]

6 minutes ago, grasshopper said:

A betrayal of the Brexit vote would have far-reaching consequences for the social fabric of Britain that would outweigh the economic cost of leaving the EU, Philip Hammond has told MPs.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/05/brexit-betrayal-would-damage-society-philip-hammond-tells-mps

Why do people keep asserting this without any argument?

Hammond won't even speak truthfully about the consequences of a stamp duty cut, so I don't think he's in any position to weigh anything against economic costs.

[Bruce Banner]

12 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

Why do people keep asserting this without any argument?

Hammond won't even speak truthfully about the consequences of a stamp duty cut, so I don't think he's in any position to weigh anything against economic costs.

Because they think it's their best chance of getting May's deal through... AKA "The big lie"

[thehowler]

36 minutes ago, onlooker said:

I think this is where you are wrong. The permanent Irish backstop means that, unless the UK splits, the UK will still be subject to the ECJ, and will still be in the CU and SM, and in particular will not be able to sign trade agreements which will give it any advantage over the EU. This is what it is all about from Brussels' POV. The do not want a successful independent UK on their doorstep.

No, the backstop is not permanent as described in the WA (it is not automatic so we could still choose to crash out with bolt-ons at end of transition, and there is the possibility of avoiding it AND/OR negotiating an alternative) and we will diverge if it does kick in - made clear from EU/27 sources and set out in the legal advice yesterday - so we will not be in the SM. We will be in a UK-wide CU, but there will be no frictionless trade from GB, and no FOM.

Signing trade agreements with other nations was always a bit of a leaver myth - yes it's important but it's not as important as maintaining a good trading relationship with the EU/27. AFAIK most British companies have no interest in a US trade deal, as they couldn't possibly compete - as jonb2 has made clear, many times, it will be rich leavers that benefit the most from spurious US trade deals. There might be some great deals to be done outside the EU/27 but we can trade with these countries already - we just have to do it under sensible regulatory controls, which will apply anyway. We're not in the 19thC any more. All modern states compromise and yield when it comes to trade.

But views on the deal and backstop arrangement all come down to how much priority you give to keeping the border open between NI and ROI. I think it's vital and I haven't heard one sensible argument from any leaver about how to protect it outside the EU/27 shroud. So for me, it's either the EU/27 compromise as in May's deal or we remain. IMHO remain brings yet more chaos, so I'd go for May's deal.

Sadly I've lost any confidence that MPs will choose this path...

[onlooker]

13 minutes ago, thehowler said:

No, the backstop is not permanent as described in the WA (it is not automatic so we could still choose to crash out with bolt-ons at end of transition, and there is the possibility of avoiding it AND/OR negotiating an alternative) and we will diverge if it does kick in - made clear from EU/27 sources and set out in the legal advice yesterday - so we will not be in the SM. We will be in a UK-wide CU, but there will be no frictionless trade from GB, and no FOM.

Signing trade agreements with other nations was always a bit of a leaver myth - yes it's important but it's not as important as maintaining a good trading relationship with the EU/27. AFAIK most British companies have no interest in a US trade deal, as they couldn't possibly compete - as jonb2 has made clear, many times, it will be rich leavers that benefit the most from spurious US trade deals. There might be some great deals to be done outside the EU/27 but we can trade with these countries already - we just have to do it under sensible regulatory controls, which will apply anyway. We're not in the 19thC any more. All modern states compromise and yield when it comes to trade.

But views on the deal and backstop arrangement all come down to how much priority you give to keeping the border open between NI and ROI. I think it's vital and I haven't heard one sensible argument from any leaver about how to protect it outside the EU/27 shroud. So for me, it's either the EU/27 compromise as in May's deal or we remain. IMHO remain brings yet more chaos, so I'd go for May's deal.

Sadly I've lost any confidence that MPs will choose this path...

I have to disagree with your interpretation. If goods can move without checks of any kind across the NI/RoI border, but British exporters cannot export to NI without filling out forms and waiting for clearance, then effectively the UK is divided. What happens when the ECJ (the ultimate court in the EU) comes into conflict with the HoC (the ultimate court in the UK). It is just a recipe for eternal conflict.

[rollover]

FTSE 100 falls to two-year low amid share sell-off

Is it related to Brexit and ongoing discussion in HoC?

[thehowler]

44 minutes ago, onlooker said:

1 hour ago, thehowler said:

No, the backstop is not permanent as described in the WA (it is not automatic so we could still choose to crash out with bolt-ons at end of transition, and there is the possibility of avoiding it AND/OR negotiating an alternative) and we will diverge if it does kick in - made clear from EU/27 sources and set out in the legal advice yesterday - so we will not be in the SM. We will be in a UK-wide CU, but there will be no frictionless trade from GB, and no FOM.

Signing trade agreements with other nations was always a bit of a leaver myth - yes it's important but it's not as important as maintaining a good trading relationship with the EU/27. AFAIK most British companies have no interest in a US trade deal, as they couldn't possibly compete - as jonb2 has made clear, many times, it will be rich leavers that benefit the most from spurious US trade deals. There might be some great deals to be done outside the EU/27 but we can trade with these countries already - we just have to do it under sensible regulatory controls, which will apply anyway. We're not in the 19thC any more. All modern states compromise and yield when it comes to trade.

But views on the deal and backstop arrangement all come down to how much priority you give to keeping the border open between NI and ROI. I think it's vital and I haven't heard one sensible argument from any leaver about how to protect it outside the EU/27 shroud. So for me, it's either the EU/27 compromise as in May's deal or we remain. IMHO remain brings yet more chaos, so I'd go for May's deal.

Sadly I've lost any confidence that MPs will choose this path...

I have to disagree with your interpretation. If goods can move without checks of any kind across the NI/RoI border, but British exporters cannot export to NI without filling out forms and waiting for clearance, then effectively the UK is divided. What happens when the ECJ (the ultimate court in the EU) comes into conflict with the HoC (the ultimate court in the UK). It is just a recipe for eternal conflict. 

Not sure what you're disagreeing with, I said we'd diverge (GB and NI) as in bold above.

And I agree with you that it's going to be very difficult to administer - not least because the DUP have said they will not enforce any of the required checks/legal requirements - but that supports May's argument that the EU/27 will not want the backstop in the long-term.

[thehowler]

6 minutes ago, rollover said:

FTSE 100 falls to two-year low amid share sell-off

Is it related to Brexit and ongoing discussion in HoC?

Can't be helping. I think the Huawei arrest in Canada is more significant though, and the fact that the trade war truce between US/China is an illusion.

[onlooker]

2 minutes ago, thehowler said:

Not sure what you're disagreeing with, I said we'd diverge (GB and NI) as in bold above.

And I agree with you that it's going to be very difficult to administer - not least because the DUP have said they will not enforce any of the required checks/legal requirements - but that supports May's argument that the EU/27 will not want the backstop in the long-term.

You said the backstop was not permanent, but I think it will be, because it can only be ended solely with the agreement of the EU, and that means it has to be assumed to be permanent. The EU will use it to continually bludgeon us into doing what they approve of.

[onlooker]

10 minutes ago, rollover said:

FTSE 100 falls to two-year low amid share sell-off

Is it related to Brexit and ongoing discussion in HoC?

Japanese, French and German stockmarkets down by the same amount. To relate it to Brexit is just ignorant.

[thehowler]

God, it's depressing watching the MPs on politics live. They don't understand we can't have a detailed plan for future relationship, not possible under EU/27 rules. They don't understand there's no majority for anything in Parliament. They don't understand the deal on the table. They...just...want...to...remain.

Hopeless.

[Bruce Banner]

13 minutes ago, thehowler said:

Can't be helping. I think the Huawei arrest in Canada is more significant though, and the fact that the trade war truce between US/China is an illusion.

Seeing as Huawei equipment is used in many Openreach fibre cabinets, I would agree with you. 

VPN tunnel with end to end encryption is looking even more desirable for the security conscious.

[thehowler]

15 minutes ago, onlooker said:

You said the backstop was not permanent, but I think it will be, because it can only be ended solely with the agreement of the EU, and that means it has to be assumed to be permanent. The EU will use it to continually bludgeon us into doing what they approve of.

Nothing is permanent.  And it will go to a joint committee. And as I understand it, we will only have to cede to existing ECJ law, not evolving.

That's the price for keeping the NI border open.

What do you suggest otherwise?

[IMHAL]

12 minutes ago, thehowler said:

God, it's depressing watching the MPs on politics live. They don't understand we can't have a detailed plan for future relationship, not possible under EU/27 rules. They don't understand there's no majority for anything in Parliament. They don't understand the deal on the table. They...just...want...to...remain.

Hopeless.

You put your finger on it......there is a majority who want to remain and substantially less support for the other 2 options........  that conflict does not sit well with our parliamentary democracy.....it has been brought to breaking point.

EDIT: It is also true that their is more support for Remain than for the other 2 options where it to go to a peoples vote.

So what is it (Brexit) good for? - exactly nothing!

Edited December 6, 2018 by IMHAL

[rollover]

If I understood John McDonnell correctly, he is suggesting he or labour can support the Brexit compromise next week.

 

[Bruce Banner]

Labour MP Chris Bryant, interviewed on Sky News just now, said that emails from his constituents, almost unanimously, asked him to vote against the deal and 80% of those asked him to vote remain, "as we now know what leave looks like and what remain looks like and we prefer to remain". This was in a constituency that narrowly voted to leave.

[thehowler]

2 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

Labour MP Chris Bryant, interviewed on Sky News just now, said that emails from his constituents, almost unanimously, asked him to vote against the deal and 80% of those asked him to vote remain, "as we now know what leave looks like and what remain looks like and we prefer to remain". This was in a constituency that narrowly voted to leave.

Bruce, remainers are unhappy. They don't want May's deal. May's deal is the end of remain. They are sending emails to their MP.

Most leavers think we had a vote, they won, and now it's time for Parliament to leave the EU.

[Bruce Banner]

1 minute ago, thehowler said:

Bruce, remainers are unhappy. They don't want May's deal. May's deal is the end of remain. They are sending emails to their MP.

Most leavers think we had a vote, they won, and now it's time for Parliament to leave the EU.

You missed the point completely.

This was in a constituency that voted to leave leave.

His point was that his constituents have changed their minds.

[thehowler]

Watching the debates today, it's almost like MPs have finally woken up and realized we might have to leave the EU/27! And they're freaking out about it.

They will also be thinking that if/when they reject May's deal next week, the great slumbering leave majority is going to say "but we told you to leave!" Labour high command know this and are being very careful what they say - Corbyn didn't even MENTION Brexit yesterday at PMQs.

[thehowler]

2 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

You missed the point completely.

This was in a constituency that voted to leave leave.

His point was that his constituents have changed their minds. 

You missed that I suggested Bryant's email bag is not representative of his broad constituency.

Remainers are desperate to stop May's deal. They are emailing their MPs. No doubt many of them live in constituencies where leave won, as most did.

[rollover]

8 minutes ago, thehowler said:

Bruce, remainers are unhappy. They don't want May's deal. May's deal is the end of remain. They are sending emails to their MP.

Most leavers think we had a vote, they won, and now it's time for Parliament to leave the EU.

OK, can you be more clear,  time for Parliament to leave the EU on May's Brexit deal or no deal Brexit.

Because I think that is the point Tories and government are split on and disagree with each other.

[thehowler]

McDonnell saying no guarantee under Labour there won't be a NI backstop...also moving away from any SM commitment, so no chance of frictionless. So much for Labour protecting jobs/economy and those six tests!

from Gruniad live blog, ref only...

McDonnell says that Labour would organise comprehensive customs union deal with the EU and that this would make it “so much more unlikely” that a backstop would be need. He says the “permanence” of the agreement would also help.

McDonnell appears to concede that a backstop might be needed under Labour’s Brexit plans. The general Labour line has been to argue that there would be no need for a backstop under its plans. But, when pressed on this, McDonnell just said that Labour’s plans would make a customs union “much more unlikely”.

[Chunketh]

42 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

Seeing as Huawei equipment is used in many Openreach fibre cabinets, I would agree with you. 

VPN tunnel with end to end encryption is looking even more desirable for the security conscious.

This was never not the case. If you do not control both ends you can have no confidence in the integrity of the connection. 

 

[kzb]

14 hours ago, macca13 said:

Trump must go also, maybe the FBI will kick him out.. 

I really don’t know how we fix the planet, too many stupid people.. I guess over the next 10 to 20 years the planet will show the people what idiots they have been.. maybe it will be too late by then though.. 

All I know is the sooner we crash the system the sooner we have a chance to start again.. 

isolationism is a must to protect ourselves from what’s coming if people don’t stop being so destructive..  

Trump is a Tariff Man.  You say you want isolationism, and there you go.   I wish we had some leadership who would stand up forour nations' industries in the same way. 

China is largely coal fired and exports about £380 billion of goods into the EU single market.  Without having to pay for access or follow the rules of the SM.

CO2 emissions are at record levels.  But not from us.  If we stopped all CO2 emissions tomorrow it would make up for about one years growth in China.

Britain is sinking in the SE, and rising in the north west, a rebound from the last ice age.  London is sinking.  This is going to happen irrespective of any sea level increase.