[Politics] Brexit

[The Clamp]

I would imagine sticking feathers up My April would make Me a pervert, what goes on behind your front door is your business but it’s not my bag.





On our cheery way.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thanks for that Das,

Regards

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

It is, but also a real risk Labour MPs with high numbers of leave voters won't back it.

Watched QT last night, and I thought one leave voter made a very good point that he voted Leave, but why should May's deal be the only option between leaving and not in a 2nd referendum? I had some sympathy for that position that a 2nd referendum with a choice between May's Deal and Remain, actually prevents leaving only down to the shambolic negotiations / red lines / whatever you want to call it of the government. I voted Remain, but I can see this being so divisive because many Leave voters are on the left of politics (our very own [MENTION=12825]cunning fergus[/MENTION] for one), and their voice is effectively null and void by a 2nd referendum that only gives voters the choice between a Conservative negotiated deal or remaining.

That said, democratically the Conservatives were elected post referendum to deliver Brexit, and so the argument is this is the deal that the electorate voted for because the electorate put the Tories in power to deliver it – therefore this is what Brexit looks like, no ifs or buts, this is what we have, do you want to still leave with all the facts at hand now or stay?

My other issue with the Kyle/Wilson amendment, is that it doesn't give Parliament the chance to actually vote for the main deal. It takes away the scenario where there are enough votes to get the deal over the line without another referendum or election, however unlikely that may be, but we are then staring down the barrel of No Deal.

What a mess.

I think that this is a very good and fair post.

 

[Dick Swiveller]

I see The Government have just given the magic money tree another shake and bunged £33m to Eurotunnel to stop them asking awkward questions over the no deal ferry contracts.

I try not to get involved in this cluster*** but just read this and it sounds like every dictatorship after being caught doing something they shouldn't.

In a statement accompanying the agreement, Mr Grayling said: "While it is disappointing that Eurotunnel chose to take legal action on contracts in place to ensure the smooth supply of vital medicines, I am pleased that this agreement will ensure the Channel Tunnel is ready for a post-Brexit world."



I guess that is the same way that every military target bombed was a school, It was OK to circumvent procurement processes to give money to a company with no ships because it was all about vital medicines. It was probably the best medicine ever, way beyond any medicine you have ever seen. And the failing Eurotunnel, sad, went crying to the failing MSM. We are going to make them build a new terminal and make the taxpayer pay for it. MBGA.

Do these morons even think that anyone will buy their BS anymore or are they just seeing what they can get away with?

 

[A1X]

You really should have read Article 50, its quite clear in it there is a two year timeline for negotiations from when notice is given. Hardly criminal acting within the parameters of a legal treaty.
Wanting immigration controls on EU nationals is not drivel, and I see you avoided the other part of the reply. What do you think happens if our goods schedule is uncertified?

I'm perfectly aware of what Article 50 means. But it is a framework, not a stated intention. The process can also be revoked or extended at any time (the former unilaterally, the second subject to unanimous agreement with the other members of the bloc), however the outcome is entirely within the hands of the departing entity and the Government thereof. So whatever happens will be ultimately their fault, not anyone elses. Not even "the process".

What so bad about EU nationals being here anyway? Why are you so keen for control of a border when the people crossing it are net contributors and are, by and large, employed in useful jobs while assimilating into our own society? You're also still ignoring the elephant in the room, which I've pointed out to you several times, that we already do and can control our borders with the EU, indeed we have some of the laxest border controls within the EU. We can tighten them up significantly without having to leave. So why aren't you advocating for that?

As for "expanding into other markets", I don't know whether you noticed but the EU recently signed a pretty big trade deal with Japan, the 3rd largest economy on the planet. Which "expanding markets" do you feel can replace this for UK industry, and what about the Japan deal are you so against?

What happens if our goods schedule is uncertified at the WOT is (I assume) the question you're asking. The simple answer is we're ****ed and can't trade with anyone even on WTO terms. This would leave two options, #1 being entirely open borders which would decimate the UK farming and manufacturing sectors within a week. #2 is to not trade with anyone at all. Which is unthinkable.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

I try not to get involved in this cluster*** but just read this and it sounds like every dictatorship after being caught doing something they shouldn't.

In a statement accompanying the agreement, Mr Grayling said: "While it is disappointing that Eurotunnel chose to take legal action on contracts in place to ensure the smooth supply of vital medicines, I am pleased that this agreement will ensure the Channel Tunnel is ready for a post-Brexit world."



I guess that is the same way that every military target bombed was a school, It was OK to circumvent procurement processes to give money to a company with no ships because it was all about vital medicines. It was probably the best medicine ever, way beyond any medicine you have ever seen. And the failing Eurotunnel, sad, went crying to the failing MSM. We are going to make them build a new terminal and make the taxpayer pay for it. MBGA.

Do these morons even think that anyone will buy their BS anymore or are they just seeing what they can get away with?

Tremendous medicines.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Another £33M down the pan. Eurotunnel took the government to court over not putting the 'ferry' contracts out to tender]

And your point is?

Or just pouring petrol on fire whilst holding an extinguisher behind your back

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I see The Government have just given the magic money tree another shake and bunged £33m to Eurotunnel to stop them asking awkward questions over the no deal ferry contracts.

First of many I imagine.

Shame Eurotunnel took the money and didn’t push for answers.

 

[studio150]

I see The Government have just given the magic money tree another shake and bunged £33m to Eurotunnel to stop them asking awkward questions over the no deal ferry contracts.

But 'absolutely not' an attempt to keep details of the contentious saga out of the public domain

The Government yet again believing that you can fool all of the people all of the time.

At the very least Grayling should resign or be sacked.

 

[Stat Brother]

But 'absolutely not' an attempt to keep details of the contentious saga out of the public domain

The Government yet again believing that you can fool all of the people all of the time.

At the very least Grayling should resign or be sacked.

If Grayling goes all eyes will turn to someone else.

The fact that the spotlight could easily turn on 649 others likely candidates isn't all that comforting.

 

[Triggaaar]

Watched QT last night, and I thought one leave voter made a very good point that he voted Leave, but why should May's deal be the only option between leaving and not in a 2nd referendum? I had some sympathy for that position that a 2nd referendum with a choice between May's Deal and Remain, actually prevents leaving only down to the shambolic negotiations / red lines / whatever you want to call it of the government.

Noted.

That said, democratically the Conservatives were elected post referendum to deliver Brexit, and so the argument is this is the deal that the electorate voted for because the electorate put the Tories in power to deliver it – therefore this is what Brexit looks like, no ifs or buts, this is what we have, do you want to still leave with all the facts at hand now or stay?

If you're saying that it's ok for May's deal to be what Brexiteers get on a potential referendum, because we voted in this Tory government, then equally shouldn't we be saying that we don't need a second referendum, because following the first the country voted in a government that promised Brexit?

I know that both main parties promised to deliver Brexit, but if you use that argument to dismiss the GE result, then you can't claim the GE result as justification for May's deal to be the only Brexit option in a second referendum.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

How on EARTH does Failing Grayling keep his job? The dubious dishing out of Brexit-related ferry contracts is moronic at best and distinctly shady at worst.

Still, could be worse. Could have been in charge of the prison service. Oh.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

How on EARTH does Failing Grayling keep his job? The dubious dishing out of Brexit-related ferry contracts is moronic at best and distinctly shady at worst. Still, could be worse. Could have been in charge of the prison service. Oh.

[tweet]1101381479639248896[/tweet]








I suspect Theresa May keeps him, because he makes her appear competent.

 

[CHAPPERS]

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ss-to-uk-food-markets-after-brexit-trade-deal

The US laid out its aims for a trade deal to cut tariff and non-tariff barriers for US industrial and agricultural goods and reduce regulatory differences.

TAKING BACK CONTROL

 

[Bold Seagull]

If you're saying that it's ok for May's deal to be what Brexiteers get on a potential referendum, because we voted in this Tory government, then equally shouldn't we be saying that we don't need a second referendum, because following the first the country voted in a government that promised Brexit?

I don't think I am saying that, I posed that as an argument given I expressed my reservations in my first paragraph.

I know that both main parties promised to deliver Brexit, but if you use that argument to dismiss the GE result, then you can't claim the GE result as justification for May's deal to be the only Brexit option in a second referendum.

I agree. However, we argued about taking no deal off the table, and you said it would be a foolish thing to do as it's a bargaining position with the EU, however now more than ever it looks like the exact opposite because that very scenario is also our weakness in our own Parliament. It's like having a gun on the table but the EU know there are no bullets in it.

 

[Blue3]

How on EARTH does Failing Grayling keep his job? The dubious dishing out of Brexit-related ferry contracts is moronic at best and distinctly shady at worst.

Still, could be worse. Could have been in charge of the prison service. Oh.

His personal incompidence has cost us the tax payer billions I just did a quick toting up of his errors and the cost to resolve

Probation service roll out issues cost £3.3,000,000,000 to resolve
Seaborne contract £300,000
Rail strikes,timetables and franchises £600,000,000
Eurotunell £33,000,000

How he manages to stay as a front bench minister is quite incredible and must be made of Teflon what would it take for him to resign or for Mrs May to sack him

 

[A1X]

[TWEET]1101413906201931778[/TWEET]

 

[pastafarian]

What so bad about EU nationals being here anyway? Why are you so keen for control of a border when the people crossing it are net contributors and are, by and large, employed in useful jobs while assimilating into our own society? You're also still ignoring the elephant in the room, which I've pointed out to you several times, that we already do and can control our borders with the EU, indeed we have some of the laxest border controls within the EU. We can tighten them up significantly without having to leave. So why aren't you advocating for that?

But I am advocating tightening our border controls with EU citizens.
If we can control our EU borders but are too lax to do so, what EU mechanism permits us to remain members of the EU whilst ending free movement and making EU citizens subject to the same protocols as non EU citizens, ie permits to enter(visas) for those wishing to come here to live and work and having EU citizens subject to the same quota controls in tier groups as non EU citizens, should we choose to raise or lower quotas, or even scrap them.
A straight forward link to the EU mechanism legislation that permits this will suffice.

What happens if our goods schedule is uncertified at the WOT is (I assume) the question you're asking. The simple answer is we're ****ed and can't trade with anyone even on WTO terms. This would leave two options, #1 being entirely open borders which would decimate the UK farming and manufacturing sectors within a week. #2 is to not trade with anyone at all. Which is unthinkable.

I wonder who has told you this rubbish. Just think about what you have suggested for one second, in your view, in the event our WTO goods schedule is not certified (and it wont be certified by march 29) The UK “ cant trade with anyone”.
Really? Can you not even grasp how preposterous this sounds? If this was true why is the media not plastering this everywhere, every second of the day. Why are parliament not pointing this out at every single debate? Why are businesses not screaming that on march 29 all trade in and out of the country stops?

Take into account The EU goods schedule from 1995 was not certified until 2010. The revised EU goods schedule for expansion in 2004 from 15 states was not certified by the WTO until dec 2016. We are part of the EU, did all trade in and out of the EU stop because the EU schedule on goods was uncertified during these years or did the EU trade according to the schedule and tariffs it submitted and proposed despite objections to components of the schedule and despite the EU schedule being uncertified.


Here is something else to think about
This is from the House of Lords select committee on Brexit trade

What if there is no agreement to the UK’s schedules?

Mr Eglin was not concerned at the prospect that the UK’s schedules might not be certified by all WTO members by the end of the two-year negotiating period under Article 50: “Does it pose a problem? In my view, no, none whatsoever.”
He said the UK could continue to trade on the basis of its proposed schedules: “Our proposal, as a schedule, is the terms on which we continue to trade regardless of whether [they have] been certified or not—that is our MFN schedule—and nobody is going to object to that.” He said these were “fine points of law”, and that fundamentally the WTO was a “commercial contract”, which existed “for the benefit of all members’ businesses.” He continued: “Chaos would break out if anybody were to suggest that the UK does not have a schedule … it would be absolute pandemonium”. As a result, he argued, “it is not going to happen”. While it might take many years for there to be consensus on the UK’s proposed schedules, and therefore, for final certification, the UK “would continue to trade on the terms in which we proposed we should trade, as long as they were reasonable”.

House of Lords Select Committee
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldeucom/72/7202.htm

 

[Baldseagull]

Do you honestly think that the world is going to stop over wooden pallets, and whether or not they tick the necessary boxes? I'm sure pallet manufacturers have spotted this impending doom and disaster where we all might starve.

They have, but they are not going to make lots of them unless someone orders them, no one wants to order them until they know they need them as they cost more, and the industry body does not think we have enough capacity to make the numbers required if we go no deal and everyone then needs them. Recycled pallets of this type have to go through the treatment again, the plants that produce them have to be certificated and authorised to use the official stamp, and they are inspected every 6 months.
Thank god we will not have all that EU red tape to deal with.

 

[pb21]

Mr Eglin was not concerned at the prospect that the UK’s schedules might not be certified by all WTO members by the end of the two-year negotiating period under Article 50: “Does it pose a problem? In my view, no, none whatsoever.”
He said the UK could continue to trade on the basis of its proposed schedules: “Our proposal, as a schedule, is the terms on which we continue to trade regardless of whether [they have] been certified or not—that is our MFN schedule—and nobody is going to object to that.” He said these were “fine points of law”, and that fundamentally the WTO was a “commercial contract”, which existed “for the benefit of all members’ businesses.” He continued: “Chaos would break out if anybody were to suggest that the UK does not have a schedule … it would be absolute pandemonium”. As a result, he argued, “it is not going to happen”. While it might take many years for there to be consensus on the UK’s proposed schedules, and therefore, for final certification, the UK “would continue to trade on the terms in which we proposed we should trade, as long as they were reasonable”.

House of Lords Select Committee
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldeucom/72/7202.htm

Interesting, just had a look at that and one of the first things I noted was this:

199.In relation to industrial goods, Mr Eglin highlighted that automobiles were a “heavily restricted sector”, with a 10% tariff on cars and a 22% tariff on trucks and lorries.286 Similar tariffs apply throughout the supply chain, and Dr Christos Tsinopoulos, Senior Lecturer, Durham University, explained that “trade barriers and more specifically, tariffs, are often seen as a key issue in the decision making process of location of a part of the supply chain. Such barriers increase costs, and complicate decision making.”287

Quite prescient.

Then I saw this:

200.Mr Eglin noted that trading under WTO rules would also affect the cost of agricultural imports to the UK: [b[“There will be much more severe restrictions in certain sectors, primarily agriculture, than we face at the moment[/b] as a member of the Single Market.” In the food processing sector, for example, the average tariff for beverages and confectionery was in the region of 45%, and it was much higher on certain products such as poultry, where the ad valorem tariff (a tariff based on the determined value of the item being taxed) was over 200%.288 While the UK could unilaterally decide to lower its tariffs on agricultural goods, this could complicate the process of agreement to its schedules (as a modification rather than rectification) and reduce its leverage in future FTA negotiations, as the UK would be less able to offer preferential terms to other countries. It would also have deleterious implications for the UK’s agricultural industries.

This WTO things sounds like a right pile of

 

[A1X]

But I am advocating tightening our border controls with EU citizens.
If we can control our EU borders but are too lax to do so, what EU mechanism permits us to remain members of the EU whilst ending free movement and making EU citizens subject to the same protocols as non EU citizens, ie permits to enter(visas) for those wishing to come here to live and work and having EU citizens subject to the same quota controls in tier groups as non EU citizens, should we choose to raise or lower quotas, or even scrap them.
A straight forward link to the EU mechanism legislation that permits this will suffice.

There is a difference between imposing restrictions and ending free movement. In terms of the laws, Directive 2004/38/EC applies the rights of FoM however these can be manipulated to some degree at national level by their respective legislatures. For example, Germany has a rule that someone arriving under FoM can only stay for three months unless they are workers or self-employed persons in the host Member State or are seeking employment (for a certain length of time), are not in employment or are students or trainees and have sufficient resources and comprehensive health insurance cover, have the right of permanent residence (following legal residence of five years) or are Family members, regardless of their citizenship, accompanying or joining an EU citizen who satisfies these conditions also have the right of residence for more than three months.

We don't apply those restrictions in the UK, however would be able to do so unilaterally. What about that would be insufficient in

I wonder who has told you this rubbish. Just think about what you have suggested for one second, in your view, in the event our WTO goods schedule is not certified (and it wont be certified by march 29) The UK “ cant trade with anyone”.
Really? Can you not even grasp how preposterous this sounds? If this was true why is the media not plastering this everywhere, every second of the day. Why are parliament not pointing this out at every single debate? Why are businesses not screaming that on march 29 all trade in and out of the country stops?

They are screaming it, you (and others) are refusing to listen, plus we have a press which is often hell-bent on No Deal, or at least Brexit, and aren't prepared to listen. "Project Fear" is, I believe, the dismissal of choice.

Take into account The EU goods schedule from 1995 was not certified until 2010. The revised EU goods schedule for expansion in 2004 from 15 states was not certified by the WTO until dec 2016. We are part of the EU, did all trade in and out of the EU stop because the EU schedule on goods was uncertified during these years or did the EU trade according to the schedule and tariffs it submitted and proposed despite objections to components of the schedule and despite the EU schedule being uncertified.

Prior to both of those the individual constituent parts (be if the EEC or the nations joining in 2004) had their own which were rolled over. The UK does not have one because it has always been part of the EU's or EEC's.

THere is something else to think about
This is from the House of Lords select committee on Brexit trade

What if there is no agreement to the UK’s schedules?

Mr Eglin was not concerned at the prospect that the UK’s schedules might not be certified by all WTO members by the end of the two-year negotiating period under Article 50: “Does it pose a problem? In my view, no, none whatsoever.”
He said the UK could continue to trade on the basis of its proposed schedules: “Our proposal, as a schedule, is the terms on which we continue to trade regardless of whether [they have] been certified or not—that is our MFN schedule—and nobody is going to object to that.” He said these were “fine points of law”, and that fundamentally the WTO was a “commercial contract”, which existed “for the benefit of all members’ businesses.” He continued: “Chaos would break out if anybody were to suggest that the UK does not have a schedule … it would be absolute pandemonium”. As a result, he argued, “it is not going to happen”. While it might take many years for there to be consensus on the UK’s proposed schedules, and therefore, for final certification, the UK “would continue to trade on the terms in which we proposed we should trade, as long as they were reasonable”.

House of Lords Select Committee
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldeucom/72/7202.htm

So he says it's not going to happen because he's sure other people will decide to make sure things happen? Forgive me if that doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. The world of December 2016 (when those quotes were made) is very different to what it is now. Trump, for example, is riding a coach & horses through the WTO and threatening it's very existence.