Another new Brexit thread

[lust overlord]

I’m not sure being run by a pathological liar fits the bill.

Nor do I.

 

[aguero93:20]

The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 abbreviated to the WA (Withdrawal Agreement) empowered the prime minister to invoke Article 50 was enacted in March 2017. Got it yet?

Who was it agreed with? Think you've got your abbreviations confused bud, everyone else is referring to the Withdrawal Agreement (May's deal) when they use 'WA'. Can see how that might have caused you some confusion, glad to have cleared it up for you.

 

[mcfc1632]

Playing devil's advocate here for a moment mate...

It's true that on November 1st with no deal, the EU will be obliged to apply tariffs on imports from the UK. But whilst there's a few exceptions, most tariffs are circa 10% or less.

However, the pound is already more than 20% down compared to the pre-referendum rates and would doubtless drop further if it became clear we're leaving with no deal. So the upshot is that even with tariffs applied, most UK exported goods would still be much cheaper than they were a few years ago. Exceptions like dairy could be given special subsidies, which we'd be free to do outside the EU.

And regards import tariffs on goods coming in, we don't have to apply them, at least not immediately. In the long term, unilaterally dropping your tariffs to zero, would make negotiating new trade deals more difficult, but even then not impossible. Instead of bartering with an offer to drop tariffs, we'd sit at the table with the threat to levy them if no deal is done.

For me the biggest fear is that inward investment into the UK from foreign businesses would be severely curtailed, and the ones already here would imo decamp in large numbers. It's not the tariffs per se, it's the supply chain "friction" and added administration costs and delays. I'm sure that would cost many, many jobs.

Good post - great to see some unblinkered thinking

I understand your last point - but think it is too late. Companies that will decamp because of Brexit either already have or will not reverse their plans because they cannot be confident of there being no future exit

Even by your Remainer logic - we may as well get on with it

 

[Metal Biker]

The objected to the Political Declaration which went alongside the WA and wanted it changed for their support. May reluctantly opened negotiations but it was more about running the clock down. This strategy was scuppered when she lost control of the House and an extension to A50 was obtained. Labour has no fundamental objections to the WA.

What precisely were Labour's objections to the PD and what did they want changed?

 

[BobKowalski]

The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 abbreviated to the WA (Withdrawal Agreement) empowered the prime minister to invoke Article 50 was enacted in March 2017. Got it yet?

The European Withdrawal Act comes after ratification of the WA. Parliament voting to pass the WA just meant that the formal bill could come before Parliament for debate and voting. That in itself will take a lot of time and will I suspect prove impossible to pass in this Parliament even if the WA is, by some miracle, ratified.

More likely is that we would extend A50 to allow Parliament to pass the Act making withdrawal lawful or allow a GE to be held in which the future of Britain after withdrawal is debated.

 

[inbetween]

Mine would be take remain and no deal out of the equation and present two or three realistic leave with a deal offers to the electorate.

No chance of this happening now though.

I agree with this, let's start again and take the two impossible options out (remain and no deal) and present the best possible options.

The electorate then votes on each and sorted, let's get on with our lives.

 

[Metal Biker]

It's not as good as staying in. Therefore it is very difficult(unheard of) for the Opposition to wave through a Government policy that leaves the UK worse than it was before

That's your opinion. To many others it opens up the UK to the rest of the world and not be singularly tied to one bloc. For many, the current arrangement with the EU is holding them back. Leaving with a deal is the common ground, with only the hardcore opinions being aggrieved. Leaving with a deal satisfies the current majority of those who respected the referendum. Staying in would be seen as a rejection of one side of the argument, especially the arguement that gained the most support.

It would be unforgivable and would do nothing to end the matter, neither would leaving without a deal. Leaving the EU with a deal is now the only acceptable option.

 

[BobKowalski]

What precisely were Labour's objections to the PD and what did they want changed?

It was very much a Tory Brexit future ie a commitment to uphold the rules on State Aid something Corbyn is obviously not keen on.

 

[George Hannah]

A lot has changed since we triggered A50. For starters most people assumed we had a plan. We didn’t. What we had was cheap slogans. Three years later and all we still have is cheap slogans. Cheap slogans are no basis for a complex international negotiation. A lesson we seemingly refuse to learn. Labour committed themselves to leaving with a deal. They ruled out leaving with no deal. The current row is about leaving with no deal.

Parliament is sovereign. If Parliament decides to take back control and change its own rules on how it operates who are we, or the executive, to say otherwise? Isn’t that what we voted for?

Forget the slogans, the reality is that May and Johnson committed the government to Brexit which is the only democratic course. The EU haven't negotiated anything, they just wanted their divorce settlement and an interminable period of transition with us under their rules to prepare themselves from a delayed no deal exit. That is the deal that is on the table - not a Brexit deal, a postponed no deal and Johnson knows it won't change. All the red lines etc are a fiction, just decoration to promote the illusion of dialogue, which is designed to sustain the HoC remain majority while they try to work out a way to kill Brexit from within, which is the EU's preferred outcome.

 

[west didsblue]

Playing devil's advocate here for a moment mate...

It's true that on November 1st with no deal, the EU will be obliged to apply tariffs on imports from the UK. But whilst there's a few exceptions, most tariffs are circa 10% or less.

However, the pound is already more than 20% down compared to the pre-referendum rates and would doubtless drop further if it became clear we're leaving with no deal. So the upshot is that even with tariffs applied, most UK exported goods would still be much cheaper than they were a few years ago. Exceptions like dairy could be given special subsidies, which we'd be free to do outside the EU.

And regards import tariffs on goods coming in, we don't have to apply them, at least not immediately. In the long term, unilaterally dropping your tariffs to zero, would make negotiating new trade deals more difficult, but even then not impossible. Instead of bartering with an offer to drop tariffs, we'd sit at the table with the threat to levy them if no deal is done.

For me the biggest fear is that inward investment into the UK from foreign businesses would be severely curtailed, and the ones already here would imo decamp in large numbers. It's not the tariffs per se, it's the supply chain "friction" and added administration costs and delays. I'm sure that would cost many, many jobs.

Inward investment is already down 80%. No Deal would make it even worse.

It's true that it's easier to export thanks to the weak pound, however a lot of exports consist of significant quantities of imported components (e.g. cars) which negates the benefit, and as you say supply chain friction would add even more cost.

It's the WTO rules that would screw us on subsidies for exports, nothing to do with the EU.

There would be winners and losers but I confidently predict there would be a lot more losers than winners in the event of No Deal.

 

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

You listen to people on tv and that is not the way they view it - we won out alone. They don't say we stood alone they say we won two world wars alone

You are right and some people do say this, but if you were to ask them "Were there only British people involved in winning these wars?", you would get a very different answer in the vast majority of cases if not all. I don't believe there is a myth about who was involved in those victories, these comments, which I agree are ridiculous, are in a different context.

 

[Metal Biker]

It was very much a Tory Brexit future ie a commitment to uphold the rules on State Aid something Corbyn is obviously not keen on.

Thanks for clearing up as to Labour's position. From my own point of view I can't see how Labour's position of voting against the WA was justified, especially if they were genuinely serious abpout concluding brexit, but that's just me.

 

[blueparrot]

Thanks for clearing up as to Labour's position. From my own point of view I can't see how Labour's position of voting against the WA was justified, especially if they were genuinely serious abpout concluding brexit, but that's just me.

If opposition parties had been invited to a cross party solution to agreeing a deal they would have responsibility for the shambles. As it is they were excluded so have no responsibility to help the government that tried to ride rough shod over opposition views.

 

[bugsyblue]

That's your opinion. To many others it opens up the UK to the rest of the world and not be singularly tied to one bloc. For many, the current arrangement with the EU is holding them back. Leaving with a deal is the common ground, with only the hardcore opinions being aggrieved. Leaving with a deal satisfies the current majority of those who respected the referendum. Staying in would be seen as a rejection of one side of the argument, especially the arguement that gained the most support.

It would be unforgivable and would do nothing to end the matter, neither would leaving without a deal. Leaving the EU with a deal is now the only acceptable option.

I voted remain and whilst I think it's still stupid to leave the EU I agree to an extent with your statement. If, and it's a big if, we can leave the EU with a trade partnership, allows us to do our own deals across the world, protects EU workers here and Brits abroad, somehow solves the Ireland issue, then I do think that's the only way to keep the majority content and for us to finally move on from this fucking mess of how many bloody years!

The problem is clearly whether we can do all those things mentioned above.

 

[George Hannah]

The European Withdrawal Act comes after ratification of the WA. Parliament voting to pass the WA just meant that the formal bill could come before Parliament for debate and voting. That in itself will take a lot of time and will I suspect prove impossible to pass in this Parliament even if the WA is, by some miracle, ratified.

More likely is that we would extend A50 to allow Parliament to pass the Act making withdrawal lawful or allow a GE to be held in which the future of Britain after withdrawal is debated.

No, the Withdrawal Act was enacted in March 2017, it is now the law and means we exit the EU Treaty on the 31st October deal or no deal.

 

[BobKowalski]

Forget the slogans, the reality is that May and Johnson committed the government to Brexit which is the only democratic course. The EU haven't negotiated anything, they just wanted their divorce settlement and an interminable period of transition with us under their rules to prepare themselves from a delayed no deal exit. That is the deal that is on the table - not a Brexit deal, a postponed no deal and Johnson knows it won't change. All the red lines etc are a fiction, just decoration to promote the illusion of dialogue, which is designed to sustain the HoC remain majority while they try to work out a way to kill Brexit from within, which is the EU's preferred outcome.

No. They committed the U.K. to a version of Brexit. Their version of Brexit. And that version is what is being fought over. It is a fight we should have had prior to the referendum. We should have decided the destination rather than voting for a magical mystery tour but it was ducked for cynical reasons so we are having it now with a gun at our head.

A soft Norway style version of Brexit would have won over enough Leavers and Remainers as a workable compromise but no. The Govt and Brexiteers went all Brexit jihad on us leading to this fucked up nonsense we have today.

 

[BobKowalski]

Thanks for clearing up as to Labour's position. From my own point of view I can't see how Labour's position of voting against the WA was justified, especially if they were genuinely serious abpout concluding brexit, but that's just me.

There was also some cynicism in their approach. A desire to do May down and force a General Election but there were some genuine grounds for their opposition.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Full respect and an understandable stance. I salute the determination that, even if your economy will suffer, you demonstrate resolution to decide matters for yourself and not be pushed into positions

Just one question...….

Why is such a stance always a noble thing when it comes from the Irish and Scottish - but is something to be despised and ridiculed when coming from the English?

Have I criticised anyone having English Nationalist views. I very much doubt you'll find anything like that in my posts.
Recognise them for what they are. Letting UKIP or whoever hijack English pride doesn't help the image portrayed.
I have maintained in previous posts that the English have a lot to be proud of. I don't really have an understanding of what British means and have never had it explained adequately. That's another debate that I'd actually love to explore, but in regards to Brexit; I've said it to yourself and other Brexiteers that you voted as the UK to exit. You should exit. I've never questioned anyone's motives for how they voted.

But from an Irish point of view as well as a Northern Irish view, I've always questioned the order of events that should have happened to make that a possibility.
The referendum should not have happened just to save the Tory Party, which didn't work out too well so far.
Every step of the way you've created a further mess, which I know you at least in part agree with.
If Johnson has backed the UK into a corner, and I don't believe this is as clever a move as you do, then he has also backed us into a corner which I think he has greatly misjudged.
Britain in general have always thought they had us figured out but my guess is that most don't think about us and when your Tory Govt., do it's a case of why can't they just do x, y or z without any sense of their part or responsibility for the mess that is theirs in the first place.
You have a history of reneging on the will of the people on this island. I won't go back over history again but I'm sure you are aware of what I mean as you must have read some of my previous observations on this.
This isn't just about the GFA. It is trying to make sure that the progress from it is not lost and it is also trying to ensure that you are not allowed force us into the same mistakes that you have enforced in the past.

If that came across as a rant, I apologise. Not my intention.

 

[Metal Biker]

If opposition parties had been invited to a cross party solution to agreeing a deal they would have responsibility for the shambles. As it is they were excluded so have no responsibility to help the government that tried to ride rough shod over opposition views.

How about concluding matters on behalf of the electorate?
Labour MP's kept arguing the position of remaining in, and all Labour MP's who were supportive of leaving were labelled party traitors for daring to side with the Government's position on leaving. They had a responsibility to deliver on the UK leaving the EU, but their party allegiences has meant they have collectively failed to do so. And I blame both sides of the House on this.

 

[TheBlueDune]

Was watching the TV this morning before work where they did their usual interviewing the man in the street. What is notable is that the vast majority of people interviewed have a simple view based on sound bites they've regularly heard. You hear them repeating word for word almost the stuff that Farage or Johnson say. There's no nuance or recognition of facts about the lack of negotiation with the EU or the fact that Johnson tells demonstrable lies every time he opens his mouth. A GE with traditional campaigning will result in a Tory victory as the government are not constrained by having to be factual because they know that the consequences of lying are far outweighed by the reality of a victory.

Exactly. Keep it simple and keep saying it.
Doesn't matter if it's true or lies.
People will start repeating it and we end up with groupthink.
Myths become fact and woe betide anybody who disagrees.
Dunkirk spirit.
Spirit of the Blitz.
England stood alone against Germany.

Football forum not a WWII forum so a few footy ones...

"United are always stronger in the second half of the season".
How many times did we get that thrown into punditry when all the facts showed it to be false?

"Scholes can't tackle" (dirty tw@t more like)

"Penalties are a lottery" (no skills involved then?)