Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PB Video Analysis. Brexit: How We Got Here & What We Want
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PB Video Analysis. Brexit: How We Got Here & What We Want
So: Brexit.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
"Be warned: this video will be equally annoying to Remainers and Leavers."
I'm not sure that's possible ...
Did he really say he wasn't going to cast any nasturtiums, near the end?!
We would make a great deal with the United Kingdom because they have product that we like,” Trump said. “I mean they have a lot of great product. They make phenomenal things, you know, and you have different names – you can say ‘England’, you can say ‘UK’, you can say ‘United Kingdom’ …
Couple of points on presentation:
Barnier is Michel, not Michael.
I personally find the written summaries rather distracting (especially those with spelling mistakes in). Are they really needed?
On the substance, one question the EU doesn't seem to have asked is what happens to the Euro if there is a no deal Brexit and derivatives trading is brought to a juddering halt thereby. Their willingness to risk severe damage to their own pet project is bizarre.
The GFA relies on the border being simultaneously both there and not there - depending on one’s identity it’s possible to choose which state (in both senses) to believe in.
The presence of any kind of physical checkpoint shatters one of those alternate realities.
I would have thought that at a time when sectarian violence is rapidly increasing all commentators would recognise this as a serious problem.
Shame the politicians seem to lack such clarity.
[Being finickity, (I am available as a proofreader, incidentally, for anyone wanting such), dialogue should have 'ue' at the end unless you're being literally Yankee doodle, and the L was missing from 'complex'].
Still, we collectively (or the media, and I appreciate it's rather easier to comment on this than be inside and make these comments) did that over cartoons mocking Mohammed, so perhaps we shouldn't be surprised.
Just a few points.
What comes across loud and clear is what a disastrous misstep the backstop plan for NI was in stage 1 of the negotiations. I remember the DUP saying at the time that they were concerned about it. It really is remarkable that that was ever signed off (and, for that matter, that DD was willing to sign it off). It is the biggest threat to UK sovereignty and integrity in the whole arrangement.
Secondly, the point about the length of the transitional arrangements going into the EEC is well made and really ought to assuage the concerns of those who feel threatened by fairly lengthy transitional arrangements coming out.
Thirdly, the point about rules of origin issue is interesting because it is not the point that has been emphasised to date. At present the focus has been almost entirely on the free and easy movement of parts of cars in the long supply lines of modern manufacturing. It has been argued that anything other than FTA and CU would make this unacceptably difficult. Robert's point is that a Mini built in Oxford may well have so much EU content that it fails a 45% rules of origin test for any FTA we enter with a third party. This seems to me a good point and would suggest that piggybacking on existing EU agreements so that their content is treated as our content may be more important than I for one had appreciated. No doubt Liam Fox and his department are totally on top of that (joke).
Finally, for now, I am not sure that I completely get the clearing point. If there is a clearing house dealing with Deutsche Bank in London in respect of a transaction in Italy surely its processes are already overseen and back stopped by the BoE? Similarly DB's London operations are similarly overseen here even if their ultimate regulator is the ECB because its head office is in Germany. If we wish to keep that business here we simply have to extend the oversight and responsibility of the BoE to cover the stability of DB (can't think why that particular institution came to mind), at least to the extent required to support its London operations. Presumably they already do similar things for all the US banks based here. Again, I thought the problem was different, namely that the ECB was resisting the clearing of Euros in institutions outwith its jurisdiction in what is essentially an anticompetitive move.
https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/1018397538154663936
Meanwhile, if it does come to that, wondering who the Stop Boris candidate will be.
Empirically, membership of the European Union is best for the UK. It's multilateral, which suits a medium powered country that wants to spread its influence. We're at the table helping to shape decisions in our interest. It's a collective of liberal democracies like us, it promotes the rule of law as we want to do and it's in Europe - our continent. This translates into useful programmes, greater prospects and more trade and more prosperity than we would otherwise have.
If these are things we want, it goes without saying that we will get far less of them after Brexit.
It shouldn't need saying, but unfortunately we do need to say it, because there is widespread denial about the consequences of Brexit. We won't get what we want, I suggest, because we had it but rejected it. It will instead be a messy distracting decade of damage limitation.
https://www.iwkoeln.de/fileadmin/publikationen/2017/329771/IW-Kurzbericht_22_2017_Financial_Markets.pdf
Essentially, it's saying that the real issue is that the ECB has left it all to London up to now as financial oversight is a national competency, and won't have a clue what it's doing when it has to supervise arrangements itself.
Interestingly, although it discusses the possibility of derivatives trading moving to the Continent it doesn't think that's the likely outcome or even the optimum outcome. Admittedly however it was written 18 months ago and published last year.
What worries me most about Brexit (even more than the economic damage that's looming) is that we effectively forfeit our chance to steer the EU towards being law-abiding and democratic. Admittedly it was proving very hard to steer - look at Juncker's appointment, or Giscard's, bearing in mind in this country both of those could very well be doing jail time - but will anyone even make the effort now?
https://www.mofa.go.jp/files/000185466.pdf
Do you actually disagree with me?
At least a new PM could throw that back at them.
The EU might be less than ideal but as one of the leading participants we had a chance to influence it, and in turn, influence the rule of law and democratic norms across Europe (and even further afield).
It doesn’t always work. Cameron tried to veto Juncker and was - from memory - the only one to do so. He was outvoted. On the other hand, Juncker is generally recognised now to have been a very poor choice. The U.K. would have gained a few diplomatic points for having foretold that - points to be spent elsewhere in the messy but necessary horse trading that characterises the EU.
Cynics will scoff, of course, but this forfeiture of influence weighs as heavily on me as the economic harm caused by Brexit.
A previous thread suggested May had a surprisingly good week. Why? Because she survived? No other commentators agree, today's Observer depicting it as a 'terrible week.'
But it's deeper than that. I don't understand how you're not listening, really listening, to what's going on? Chat to those Conservative MPs, listen to the constituency feedback, watch the empirical evidence. Here are some examples:
- The Tories have just plunged 6% in the polls and Labour have their biggest lead since the GE.
- Tory MP's are getting mailbags filled with complaining Leave supporters
- Peter Mandelson has just taken down the Chequers fudge in today's Observer
but perhaps most significantly, it's widely known that the Brexiteer tories have asked supporting MPs to pull back from the No Confidence vote. Timing is everything. The word is that they want to see Theresa May's position weaken further in Europe, which is pretty much inevitable because there's no way they will rubber stamp her proposal. After the summer recess they want to strike.
It will be very interesting to see if the opinion poll slump represents a blip, or a seismic shift in opinion. Surely for a betting site this is the critical news you should be right on the money about?
One of the few true things you’ve said of late.
The one to have a vote on was Maastricht.
On reflection I am more relaxed about Brexit and have no idea whether TM survives, or there is a leadership election, but it is obvious that everything is at deadlock and there is no possible way of seeing how this pans out between now and October
As a matter of interest did you catch up on the Airbus report in the business section of the guardian
History doesn't have a stop button that you can press when you arrive at circumstances that you find favourable.
I simply look at my own position. I am not thrilled, to put it politely, with the extent to which we are committing ourselves to keep all existing EU based laws and, even worse, commit ourselves to enacting all future laws that impinge on the Single Market as a condition of a FTA.
I am not comfortable with how the interpretation of those laws will in fact be in the control of the CJE and UK Courts will have to follow their guidance. We will effectively have a shadow legal system where a lot of the important decisions are made elsewhere and this is particularly concerning when one considers how the CJE has consistently made additional land grabs for the EU giving legislation passed its widest possible effect rather than seeking to construe it narrowly as UK courts tend to do with our legislation.
But TINA. If I was in the Commons I would vote for the proposal through gritted teeth.
You’re right. All they have is innuendo and sniping from the sidelines.
Blames everyone but himself and has no plan for a hard Brexit
London deserves better, much better
You may disagree with me - that is your right - but i never lie
If Brussels ays "OK, OK, you can have the White Paper as Brexit", then they can all claim they played their part in facing down the Eurocracy. Anyone think that is going to happen though?
Also interesting on the technical problems with a FTA that will need resolving e.g. country of origin rules and the EU's requirement of oversight for a financial services deal and the issues for Ireland
Mordaunt resigning could be good, though. She's clearly the optimal choice for next PM.
For Britain to join, knowing that, and then complain that the other 27 members are changing the EU into something we don't like is perverse. Being a member of the EU implies willingness to move over a long period of time towards greater integration ("ever-closer union"). The Brexiteers, who dislike this, are quite right to point it out. That said, being geographically appended to Europe means that we will inevitably either be drawn into the project or maintain a separation with all kinds of uncomfortable consequences that are now becoming apparent - not because of evil intent by anyone, simply because you're either effectively in a club or you're not. There isn't a third option.
"Conservative member reads Guardian - shock horror expose".....
The issues with immigration - while real for many - could have been solved internally. It was the interplay with QMV and the Eurozone, plus the unwilling to live by the spirit of the arrangements and the drive for ever client set union that were the problem
At the point the voters judged that the negatives outweighed the positives we voted to leave
The issues with immigration - while real for many - could have been solved internally. It was the interplay with QMV and the Eurozone, plus the unwilling to live by the spirit of the arrangements and the drive for ever client set union that were the problem
At the point the voters judged that the negatives outweighed the positives we voted to leave
The BaFin’s weakness is one reason why Frankfurt will find it difficult to rival London. Having confidence in the regulatory system is critical to a good financial system. The FCA and PR a are far from ideal but they are titans by comparison with BaFin.
Also note Broughton where the Airbus plant is is in Flintshire which voted 56% Leave
My reputation and brand depends on honesty
It already has moved production to China but that production is for the Chinese market.
Airbus will remain in Europe and continue its development of new products. Indeed it is that that takes my son in law to meetings in France, Germany and Spain regularly
The area voted leave but they did not vote for Airbus to close their operations in North Wales
May also confirmed it is non negotiable we will end free movement and leave the customs union.
She also says her mobility plans will not be free movement but based on specific business needs