Cripes, if there is any problems with the fish then SCons are going to be buggering off sharpish. Ruth has half a dozen seats pretty much predicated on immediate withdrawal from the Common fisheries policy.
Cripes, if there is any problems with the fish then SCons are going to be buggering off sharpish. Ruth has half a dozen seats pretty much predicated on immediate withdrawal from the Common fisheries policy.
Can't believe fish have suddenly swum back into the frame.
Cripes, if there is any problems with the fish then SCons are going to be buggering off sharpish. Ruth has half a dozen seats pretty much predicated on immediate withdrawal from the Common fisheries policy.
I win £610 if David Mundell is next out of the cabinet, I'm hopeful.
Basically a few countries have said we won't get a good deal if we don't open our seas to their fishing fleets.
Turns out they didn't get the memo about the UK holding all the aces.
Until now I have been very confident that May was going to produce an abysmal agreement but that the Commons would take the view that it was better than no deal and back it. There now seems a risk that it will be so bad that the Commons will not back it. At which point all hell breaks loose. May’s incompetence is having serious effects.
Well it is because it was not an obvious ploy for the leadership after he saw someone else jump and seize the moment.
Really? He looks and sounds much more like a leader than his brother and I don’t even agree with him.
I said 'obvious ploy', since he is not well known to the public as someone desperate for the top job. Everything Boris does is seen through that prism by many people. Not all, but many. Even if Jo's actions are for the same reason, he's a junior minister and with a low profile, most people I suspect will take his statement at face value.
Cripes, if there is any problems with the fish then SCons are going to be buggering off sharpish. Ruth has half a dozen seats pretty much predicated on immediate withdrawal from the Common fisheries policy.
Can't believe fish have suddenly swum back into the frame.
But I thought we'd been told everything was 95% settled! Or was that apart from fisheries, the backstop, sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health?
jo Johnson’s call for final say , with all this sudden conversion to democracy and referenda and call for a people’s vote is total hypocrisy . We neve got a final say after the first referendum to join , we never got a final say on Lisbon, we never got a final say on Maastricht . He elites have brought brexit upon themselves because they have ignored the silent majority for years and years. We voted leave after forty years of argument and debate not just a couple of months of campaigning .
Then you wont't mind turning out again just to cement the deal.
Referendums are once in a generation consultation . The majority voted to leave the European Union . It’s for the government to implement the choice we have made. In another twenty years if we need to think again we will but we have to go though with the decision made in 2016
Until now I have been very confident that May was going to produce an abysmal agreement but that the Commons would take the view that it was better than no deal and back it. There now seems a risk that it will be so bad that the Commons will not back it. At which point all hell breaks loose. May’s incompetence is having serious effects.
jo Johnson’s call for final say , with all this sudden conversion to democracy and referenda and call for a people’s vote is total hypocrisy . We neve got a final say after the first referendum to join , we never got a final say on Lisbon, we never got a final say on Maastricht . He elites have brought brexit upon themselves because they have ignored the silent majority for years and years. We voted leave after forty years of argument and debate not just a couple of months of campaigning .
Then you wont't mind turning out again just to cement the deal.
Referendums are once in a generation consultation . The majority voted to leave the European Union . It’s for the government to implement the choice we have made. In another twenty years if we need to think again we will but we have to go though with the decision made in 2016
The government is trying to implement it, however incompetently, but lack the votes. So with the government unable to progress things, how do things get progressed?
jo Johnson’s call for final say , with all this sudden conversion to democracy and referenda and call for a people’s vote is total hypocrisy . We neve got a final say after the first referendum to join , we never got a final say on Lisbon, we never got a final say on Maastricht . He elites have brought brexit upon themselves because they have ignored the silent majority for years and years. We voted leave after forty years of argument and debate not just a couple of months of campaigning .
Then you wont't mind turning out again just to cement the deal.
Referendums are once in a generation consultation . The majority voted to leave the European Union . It’s for the government to implement the choice we have made. In another twenty years if we need to think again we will but we have to go though with the decision made in 2016
The government is trying to implement it, but lack the votes. So with the government unable to progress things, how do things get progressed?
jo Johnson’s call for final say , with all this sudden conversion to democracy and referenda and call for a people’s vote is total hypocrisy . We neve got a final say after the first referendum to join , we never got a final say on Lisbon, we never got a final say on Maastricht . He elites have brought brexit upon themselves because they have ignored the silent majority for years and years. We voted leave after forty years of argument and debate not just a couple of months of campaigning .
Then you wont't mind turning out again just to cement the deal.
Referendums are once in a generation consultation . The majority voted to leave the European Union . It’s for the government to implement the choice we have made. In another twenty years if we need to think again we will but we have to go though with the decision made in 2016
Unfortunately, the Government can't implement the choice.
jo Johnson’s call for final say , with all this sudden conversion to democracy and referenda and call for a people’s vote is total hypocrisy . We neve got a final say after the first referendum to join , we never got a final say on Lisbon, we never got a final say on Maastricht . He elites have brought brexit upon themselves because they have ignored the silent majority for years and years. We voted leave after forty years of argument and debate not just a couple of months of campaigning .
Then you wont't mind turning out again just to cement the deal.
Referendums are once in a generation consultation . The majority voted to leave the European Union . It’s for the government to implement the choice we have made. In another twenty years if we need to think again we will but we have to go though with the decision made in 2016
The government is trying to implement it, but lack the votes. So with the government unable to progress things, how do things get progressed?
No progress means a No Deal exit.
Bring it on.
Not all of us are as cavalier as you, or presume a good outcome will occur in the medium term as a result. My worry is MPs are too busy pretending hard leaving and remaining would be super easy, the same thing the latter criticise Leave for, and selling the public on that idea.
jo Johnson’s call for final say , with all this sudden conversion to democracy and referenda and call for a people’s vote is total hypocrisy . We neve got a final say after the first referendum to join , we never got a final say on Lisbon, we never got a final say on Maastricht . He elites have brought brexit upon themselves because they have ignored the silent majority for years and years. We voted leave after forty years of argument and debate not just a couple of months of campaigning .
Then you wont't mind turning out again just to cement the deal.
Referendums are once in a generation consultation . The majority voted to leave the European Union . It’s for the government to implement the choice we have made. In another twenty years if we need to think again we will but we have to go though with the decision made in 2016
The government is trying to implement it, but lack the votes. So with the government unable to progress things, how do things get progressed?
No progress means a No Deal exit.
Bring it on.
I take it you are not any medication or use fresh food sourced from the continent?
When MrsMay backs the LosersVote the tories manifestly cease to be the electorate's chosen "party of brexit".
Nature and politics abhors a vacumn so circs look almost ideal for Mr Dominic Cummins' :
"‘If your side gets its way and there is another referendum, Vote Leave 2 will be much much worse for your side than VL1 was. VL2 will win by more than VL1 and the logical corollary will be to morph into a new party and fight the next election ‘to implement the promises we made in the referendum because the MPs have proved they can’t be trusted’."
"If you guys want to run with Adonis and create another wave, be careful what you wish for. ‘Unda fert nec regitur’ and VL2 will ride that wave right at — and through — the gates of Parliament.’"
jo Johnson’s call for final say , with all this sudden conversion to democracy and referenda and call for a people’s vote is total hypocrisy . We neve got a final say after the first referendum to join , we never got a final say on Lisbon, we never got a final say on Maastricht . He elites have brought brexit upon themselves because they have ignored the silent majority for years and years. We voted leave after forty years of argument and debate not just a couple of months of campaigning .
Then you wont't mind turning out again just to cement the deal.
Referendums are once in a generation consultation . The majority voted to leave the European Union . It’s for the government to implement the choice we have made. In another twenty years if we need to think again we will but we have to go though with the decision made in 2016
The government is trying to implement it, but lack the votes. So with the government unable to progress things, how do things get progressed?
No progress means a No Deal exit.
Bring it on.
I take it you are not any medication or use fresh food sourced from the continent?
Am on five different meds but I've made plans, I'll be out of the UK in the run up and fall out of March 29th.
jo Johnson’s call for final say , with all this sudden conversion to democracy and referenda and call for a people’s vote is total hypocrisy . We neve got a final say after the first referendum to join , we never got a final say on Lisbon, we never got a final say on Maastricht . He elites have brought brexit upon themselves because they have ignored the silent majority for years and years. We voted leave after forty years of argument and debate not just a couple of months of campaigning .
Then you wont't mind turning out again just to cement the deal.
Referendums are once in a generation consultation . The majority voted to leave the European Union . It’s for the government to implement the choice we have made. In another twenty years if we need to think again we will but we have to go though with the decision made in 2016
The government is trying to implement it, but lack the votes. So with the government unable to progress things, how do things get progressed?
No progress means a No Deal exit.
Bring it on.
Not all of us are as cavalier as you, or presume a good outcome will occur in the medium term as a result. My worry is MPs are too busy pretending hard leaving and remaining would be super easy, the same thing the latter criticise Leave for, and selling the public on that idea.
A bit of short term pain gain for long term gain.
Plus most of all I'm a democrat, the voters were warned of this, but voted for it, they cannot complain now.
The reality is that in the event of no deal, the government will be forced to sue for peace, it won't last much longer than a month, or there government will fall, and advocates of Leave forced into hiding as they dodge all those who have no meds/or have family members without meds.
The EU will also want a deal, as no deal buggers France and Ireland in particular.
The trouble is even if remain won a hypothetical Referendum Mark II, the margin would be so narrow it would be the height of arrogance to assume the result would mean the 48% or so who voted leave a second time would go "Well, that's me told, better shuffle off and do as I'm told and learn to love living under the EU yoke from now on". It would be a sullen, angry, cynical 48% with contempt in their heart for the whole damn system.
It would also be a license to start the campaign for Referendum Mark III. After all, if remain refuse to accept the result of Referendum I, why should leave accept the result of II?
One would hope, in a mature democracy, it would start a reasonable debate.
We should discuss our place in the World, our trade policy, our relationships with our nearest neighbours, and with friends and allies around the World.
We could, perhaps should, have regular votes on such things.
But we should call out bullshit, and expose charlatans who peddle outright lies about those things.
This is something I will agree with you on. In a mature, sensible democracy, the result as it stood, as narrow as it was, should have been a call to start a debate about our future relationship with Europe, rather than the "article 50 and out" that May turned it into. It might have been a "well, how about we go back to the negotiating table and ask for more concessions?" It might have been "well, what does associate membership look like?"
The trouble is I suspect the EU had no appetite for our a la carte approach. Nor do they now. It is either all the way in or all the way out, take it or leave it.
jo Johnson’s call for final say , with all this sudden conversion to democracy and referenda and call for a people’s vote is total hypocrisy . We neve got a final say after the first referendum to join , we never got a final say on Lisbon, we never got a final say on Maastricht . He elites have brought brexit upon themselves because they have ignored the silent majority for years and years. We voted leave after forty years of argument and debate not just a couple of months of campaigning .
Then you wont't mind turning out again just to cement the deal.
Referendums are once in a generation consultation . The majority voted to leave the European Union . It’s for the government to implement the choice we have made. In another twenty years if we need to think again we will but we have to go though with the decision made in 2016
The government is trying to implement it, but lack the votes. So with the government unable to progress things, how do things get progressed?
No progress means a No Deal exit.
Bring it on.
Not all of us are as cavalier as you, or presume a good outcome will occur in the medium term as a result. My worry is MPs are too busy pretending hard leaving and remaining would be super easy, the same thing the latter criticise Leave for, and selling the public on that idea.
A bit of short term pain gain for long term gain.
The EU will also want a deal, as no deal buggers France and Ireland in particular.
How is that different to all those leaver's promising it would be easy? It's the same reasoning as any leaver you decry as misleading people during referendum by assuming that the government would be able to sue for peace, for assuming the long term gain would occur, for assuming the EU would operate exactly as you want them to in order for it to work.
I can still believe it. The pressure on him will be immense, it is what his party wants, and is he strong enough to resist that?
I don't think he's changed his mind on anything, ever.
Trident, The Monarchy. NATO. He tries to persuade the party, but in the end he accepts what the party wants. It's unusual, but quite consistent.
It's my impression that the EU is something that Corbyn doesn't much like, but that doesn't really get him going the way nuclear weapons and injustice do. Would I be right or wrong in your opinion?
Cripes, if there is any problems with the fish then SCons are going to be buggering off sharpish. Ruth has half a dozen seats pretty much predicated on immediate withdrawal from the Common fisheries policy.
Can't believe fish have suddenly swum back into the frame.
But I thought we'd been told everything was 95% settled! Or was that apart from fisheries, the backstop, sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health?
That's a bit harsh. What about the blue ration books?
Cripes, if there is any problems with the fish then SCons are going to be buggering off sharpish. Ruth has half a dozen seats pretty much predicated on immediate withdrawal from the Common fisheries policy.
Can't believe fish have suddenly swum back into the frame.
But I thought we'd been told everything was 95% settled! Or was that apart from fisheries, the backstop, sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health?
That's a bit harsh. What about the blue ration books?
jo Johnson’s call for final say , with all this sudden conversion to democracy and referenda and call for a people’s vote is total hypocrisy . We neve got a final say after the first referendum to join , we never got a final say on Lisbon, we never got a final say on Maastricht . He elites have brought brexit upon themselves because they have ignored the silent majority for years and years. We voted leave after forty years of argument and debate not just a couple of months of campaigning .
Then you wont't mind turning out again just to cement the deal.
Referendums are once in a generation consultation . The majority voted to leave the European Union . It’s for the government to implement the choice we have made. In another twenty years if we need to think again we will but we have to go though with the decision made in 2016
The government is trying to implement it, but lack the votes. So with the government unable to progress things, how do things get progressed?
No progress means a No Deal exit.
Bring it on.
Not all of us are as cavalier as you, or presume a good outcome will occur in the medium term as a result. My worry is MPs are too busy pretending hard leaving and remaining would be super easy, the same thing the latter criticise Leave for, and selling the public on that idea.
A bit of short term pain gain for long term gain.
The EU will also want a deal, as no deal buggers France and Ireland in particular.
How is that different to all those leaver's promising it would be easy? It's the same reasoning as any leaver you decry as misleading people during referendum by assuming that the government would be able to sue for peace, for assuming the long term gain would occur, for assuming the EU would operate exactly as you want them to in order for it to work.
I acknowledge the possibility that I'm wrong unlike most Leavers, I'm working on the balance of probabilities.
But democracy has to be honoured, the people voted for it, that's the important thing.
They were warned that we'd be leaving the single market and customs union and the risks that entailed.
The trouble is even if remain won a hypothetical Referendum Mark II, the margin would be so narrow it would be the height of arrogance to assume the result would mean the 48% or so who voted leave a second time would go "Well, that's me told, better shuffle off and do as I'm told and learn to love living under the EU yoke from now on". It would be a sullen, angry, cynical 48% with contempt in their heart for the whole damn system.
It would also be a license to start the campaign for Referendum Mark III. After all, if remain refuse to accept the result of Referendum I, why should leave accept the result of II?
One would hope, in a mature democracy, it would start a reasonable debate.
We should discuss our place in the World, our trade policy, our relationships with our nearest neighbours, and with friends and allies around the World.
We could, perhaps should, have regular votes on such things.
But we should call out bullshit, and expose charlatans who peddle outright lies about those things.
This is something I will agree with you on. In a mature, sensible democracy, the result as it stood, as narrow as it was, should have been a call to start a debate about our future relationship with Europe, rather than the "article 50 and out" that May turned it into. It might have been a "well, how about we go back to the negotiating table and ask for more concessions?" It might have been "well, what does associate membership look like?"
The trouble is I suspect the EU had no appetite for our a la carte approach. Nor do they now. It is either all the way in or all the way out, take it or leave it.
with the government unable to progress things, how do things get progressed?
A General election. Oh, wait, we had one of those...
Precisely why a GE is not a good option at all. It has even less chance of progressing things than a referendum might.
Indeed. The odds of the voters obediently making their choice solely on the grounds of Brexit (even if there were significant differences between the Big Two, both offering a fantasy of a Good Deal Brexit) are slim: voters have the habit of voting in elections based on what they consider to be the appropriate grounds rather than what the politicians say it's all about.
And even if they did, we all know the winning Party will take it as authorisation and buy-in of everything in their manifesto. Which is why the electorate won't just vote on Brexit in that case.
Labour are trying to hold out for it solely because they want to use the crisis to get into power, not because they have a plan to sort out the crisis.
Until now I have been very confident that May was going to produce an abysmal agreement but that the Commons would take the view that it was better than no deal and back it. There now seems a risk that it will be so bad that the Commons will not back it. At which point all hell breaks loose. May’s incompetence is having serious effects.
I think May will not want to reach a deal that she doesn't think will be passed by the Commons. Better to come back from Brussels without a deal, blame the foreigners and strike a pose of strength, than to be exposed as weak domestically. (Edit: and be left with no deal anyway)
It looks like the plan had been to gain enough support from Labour Remainers, or abstention from the Labour or SNP leaderships, to offset opposition from the DUP and ERG to an NI backstop agreeable to the EU.
Jo Johnson pretty much destroys that.
So the option that has the best chance of keeping May in office is: blame the foreigners, no deal is better than a bad deal, dig for victory.
Cripes, if there is any problems with the fish then SCons are going to be buggering off sharpish. Ruth has half a dozen seats pretty much predicated on immediate withdrawal from the Common fisheries policy.
Can't believe fish have suddenly swum back into the frame.
This is the plaice where Brexit will flounder, but Gove said back in the summer there was to be no change in quotas post Brexit:
jo Johnson’s call for final say , with all this sudden conversion to democracy and referenda and call for a people’s vote is total hypocrisy . We neve got a final say after the first referendum to join
We never got a referendum on joining int he first place.
Sinema toast up by around 9000, no difference to last night. We await tonight's returns ! Florida is a complete and utter dumpster fire of an election now, even worse than Brexit.
Can we call it for Sinema now then? It looks the latest returns seem to be favouring her.
Yeah just catching up on Florida - looks like another "oops" moment for the south Florida election officials!
We can't call it for Sinema yet, but she's a strong favourite I think.
I agree Sinema should be favorite, but as I have posted previously the Republicans have launched a legal action to try to get some of the votes excluded from the count.
I will probably regret this but now Sinema's odds have shortened I have partially cashed out - I am now as green as I can be on Sinema with no risk to capital.
Creasy at least acknowledges the need to put the case to the country, so not quite another one who appears is backing a second referendum not, it seems, because they think the people really need to make the decision again, but because they think it will stop Brexit. Which it might, but it might not. So it is not democracy some thinks it is time for, not really, but stopping Brexit.
Stopping Brexit is not the same thing as democracy. It might be stopped through democratic means, but it is very lazy of people to act as though stopping brexit is democracy, and therefore, presumably, brexit is not democracy.
A vote means we might still brexit, but even harder. Some like TSE are happy to acknowledge that a harder brexit is a price worth paying, but others are far less honest about the risk to this push for another vote.
On topic, it's a very good letter from JoJo and while I don't agree with his reasoning, there is certainly a consistent logic to it.
I still feel that it's necessary for democracy to implement the June 2016 vote, particularly when current opinion remains as close as it is: there has been no decisive shift. It's also obvious that a second vote would have no better debate than the first one.
There are also other options - EEA, most notably - which could still square most circles in the game, without the need for a potentially extremely damaging second vote which would likely result in either a No Deal departure, with all the pain involved, or a Remain, where millions feel like their vote was betrayed and worthless.
We might end up with SM+CU+VAT area and keep most, but not all of the benefits of EU membership, and crucially without any say over the rules we need to follow. The Vassalage option in Johnson's selection.
I don't see another vote, but I'm increasingly doubtful that Brexit can be delivered. Which is going to lead to a massive crisis. The Withdrawal Agreement without any permanent commitments beyond the Irish backstop was relatively straightforward and delayed exposing the contradictions and false premises behind the Leave vote. Once we get into indefinite customs unions we get into discussions about fishing and regulation. No Deal is the absence of a solution rather than an end state. It is guaranteed to bring on that crisis, probably in a matter of days.
The trouble is even if remain won a hypothetical Referendum Mark II, the margin would be so narrow it would be the height of arrogance to assume the result would mean the 48% or so who voted leave a second time would go "Well, that's me told, better shuffle off and do as I'm told and learn to love living under the EU yoke from now on". It would be a sullen, angry, cynical 48% with contempt in their heart for the whole damn system.
It would also be a license to start the campaign for Referendum Mark III. After all, if remain refuse to accept the result of Referendum I, why should leave accept the result of II?
One would hope, in a mature democracy, it would start a reasonable debate.
We should discuss our place in the World, our trade policy, our relationships with our nearest neighbours, and with friends and allies around the World.
We could, perhaps should, have regular votes on such things.
But we should call out bullshit, and expose charlatans who peddle outright lies about those things.
This is something I will agree with you on. In a mature, sensible democracy, the result as it stood, as narrow as it was, should have been a call to start a debate about our future relationship with Europe, rather than the "article 50 and out" that May turned it into. It might have been a "well, how about we go back to the negotiating table and ask for more concessions?" It might have been "well, what does associate membership look like?"
The trouble is I suspect the EU had no appetite for our a la carte approach. Nor do they now. It is either all the way in or all the way out, take it or leave it.
Brexit is all about our place in the world. This FT article covers it well:
Can someone summarise the downside of a WTO Brexit? I can explain the problems of this being unplanned but not the specifics of the pros and cons
Possibly the fact we don't get to join the WTO as others members have stated they will veto us joining (and they have said rights to veto)...
Um, no, we are already a member of the WTO, but while we're in the EU we come under the EU's collective membership. There are various aspects of our resuming independent membership that can be vetoed by the other members, but if I understand it correctly, they don't make much practical difference.
The real problem with exiting to base WTO membership is that the extra paperwork and potentially tariffs to be charged would impact a) the hardness of the Irish border, and b) the supply chains just-in-time manufacturing rely upon. Brexiteer Ultras try to handwave this away with "we'll simply not charge any tariffs or conduct any inspections" ignoring that the rest of the EU will have to do both or else have to do the same with their other external borders.
But the real danger of No-Deal is not reverting to the WTO, but falling out to a true No-Deal where the planes stop flying and our exports to the EU are no longer certified. Everyone says that can't happen, and no-one wants it to happen, but some sort of agreement, even if it's the minimal "lifeboat" deal Juncker has talked about, has to be made to implement that. The EU has made it clear that will require at the very least the UK agreeing to pay up for its financial obligations to the EU (not necessarily the full 39bn, but a big chunk of it).
"The United Kingdom has been a WTO member since 1 January 1995 and a member of GATT since 1 January 1948. It is a member State of the European Union (more info). All EU member States are WTO members, as is the EU (until 30 November 2009 known officially in the WTO as the European Communities for legal reasons) in its own right."
Mr. Eek, hasn't the WTO itself said we're already members?
We're members of the WTO by virtue of our membership of the EU, we're not members in our own right.
So when we Leave that ceases and we'll have to reapply, and several countries have threatened to delay that unless they get what they want.
Nope, we can apply base WTO tariffs from 30/3/19.
According to the Rules we have to undertake negotiations thereafter with countries objecting to us inheriting a portion of the EU's existing WTO agreements. eg Russia who has objected. Not many people are worried about that.
In the first link "We are a full and founding member of the WTO."
Your first link is nearly two years old, and it says
Smoothly separating the UK from the EU schedules is the best way we can reassure our WTO partners that their trade with us will not be disrupted as we leave the EU. Once we have our own schedules in the WTO, the UK will be able to negotiate changes to the international trading system as well, whether multilaterally (with the whole membership of the WTO) or plurilaterally (with some of it). A country’s WTO schedules also provide the baseline for negotiating bilateral Free Trade Agreements.
There is a process in the WTO that allows the UK to submit new schedules. But they can only be adopted – or certified – and thus replace our existing EU schedules if none of the WTO’s other 163 members object to them. So to minimise any grounds for objection, we plan to replicate our existing trade regime as far as possible in our new schedules. Before we take any formal steps in the WTO we will hold extensive informal consultations with the WTO membership. Every member will have an opportunity to raise any issues or concerns with us before we proceed.
Here's the reality
The US and China are reportedly among 20 countries attempting to block Britain from agreeing a fast-track deal with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) on its post-Brexit terms of trade with the rest of the world.
Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, admitted several WTO members had “expressed reservations” about the government’s plan to stay on terms similar to those it still enjoys as a member of the European Union (EU).
IIRC Mrs May, when asked what would happen if her deal was voted down, didn't say "we leave on 29 March without a deal" but said "it will be up to parliament to decide".
But how can that happen in practice? One option is for Mrs May to facilitate it by introducing legislation that instructs the government to inform the EU that no deal has proven possible and that the UK will therefore leave the EU on 29 March without a withdrawal agreement.
This would give parliament the opportunity to amend it with, for example, asking the EU to extend A50 for six months while a second referendum takes place".
I don't think the PM would feel able to propose a second referendum herself but if parliament so decides, well .... Her other option of calling a general election is just too risky. How would the Tory party decide what to put in the manifesto regarding Brexit? It would tear it apart. And facilitate a Corbyn government.
She has very little choice but to open it up to parliament to decide.
In the first link "We are a full and founding member of the WTO."
Your first link is nearly two years old, and it says
Smoothly separating the UK from the EU schedules is the best way we can reassure our WTO partners that their trade with us will not be disrupted as we leave the EU. Once we have our own schedules in the WTO, the UK will be able to negotiate changes to the international trading system as well, whether multilaterally (with the whole membership of the WTO) or plurilaterally (with some of it). A country’s WTO schedules also provide the baseline for negotiating bilateral Free Trade Agreements.
There is a process in the WTO that allows the UK to submit new schedules. But they can only be adopted – or certified – and thus replace our existing EU schedules if none of the WTO’s other 163 members object to them. So to minimise any grounds for objection, we plan to replicate our existing trade regime as far as possible in our new schedules. Before we take any formal steps in the WTO we will hold extensive informal consultations with the WTO membership. Every member will have an opportunity to raise any issues or concerns with us before we proceed.
Here's the reality
The US and China are reportedly among 20 countries attempting to block Britain from agreeing a fast-track deal with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) on its post-Brexit terms of trade with the rest of the world.
Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, admitted several WTO members had “expressed reservations” about the government’s plan to stay on terms similar to those it still enjoys as a member of the European Union (EU).
More misdirection. they are objecting to us sharing out the existing EU allowances.
We can apply immediate reductions in tariffs from 30/3/19. Obviously if Hammond is still chancellor he will try to find a way to put up imported food prices etc back to EU level.
In the first link "We are a full and founding member of the WTO."
Your first link is nearly two years old, and it says
Smoothly separating the UK from the EU schedules is the best way we can reassure our There is a process in the WTO that allows the UK to submit new schedules. But they can only be adopted – or certified – and thus replace our existing EU schedules if none of the WTO’s other 163 members object to them. So to minimise any grounds for objection, we plan to replicate our existing trade regime as far as possible in our new schedules. Before we take any formal steps in the WTO we will hold extensive informal consultations with the WTO membership. Every member will have an opportunity to raise any issues or concerns with us before we proceed.
Here's the reality
The US and China are reportedly among 20 countries attempting to block Britain from agreeing a fast-track deal with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) on its post-Brexit terms of trade with the rest of the world.
Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, admitted several WTO members had “expressed reservations” about the government’s plan to stay on terms similar to those it still enjoys as a member of the European Union (EU).
jo Johnson’s call for final say , with all this sudden conversion to democracy and referenda and call for a people’s vote is total hypocrisy . We neve got a final say after the first referendum to join , we never got a final say on Lisbon, we never got a final say on Maastricht . He elites have brought brexit upon themselves because they have ignored the silent majority for years and years. We voted leave after forty years of argument and debate not just a couple of months of campaigning .
Then you wont't mind turning out again just to cement the deal.
Referendums are once in a generation consultation . The majority voted to leave the European Union . It’s for the government to implement the choice we have made. In another twenty years if we need to think again we will but we have to go though with the decision made in 2016
No. The Government gets to do what it wants. Sorry.
In the first link "We are a full and founding member of the WTO."
Your first link is nearly two years old, and it says
Smoothly separating the UK from the EU schedules is the best way we can reassure our There is a process in the WTO that allows the UK to submit new schedules. But they can only be adopted – or certified – and thus replace our existing EU schedules if none of the WTO’s other 163 members object to them. So to minimise any grounds for objection, we plan to replicate our existing trade regime as far as possible in our new schedules. Before we take any formal steps in the WTO we will hold extensive informal consultations with the WTO membership. Every member will have an opportunity to raise any issues or concerns with us before we proceed.
Here's the reality
The US and China are reportedly among 20 countries attempting to block Britain from agreeing a fast-track deal with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) on its post-Brexit terms of trade with the rest of the world.
Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, admitted several WTO members had “expressed reservations” about the government’s plan to stay on terms similar to those it still enjoys as a member of the European Union (EU).
The Bush campaign paid protestors to pocket Florida election offices in 2000. It turned violent, Democrats got assaulted, the recount process shut down.
Roger Stone is trying to do the same again now.
FUN FACT: Brett Kavanaugh was one of the Brooks Brother Rioters.
Whenever the GOP accuses the Dems of doing something nefarious it is because they've already done it.
jo Johnson’s call for final say , with all this sudden conversion to democracy and referenda and call for a people’s vote is total hypocrisy . We neve got a final say after the first referendum to join , we never got a final say on Lisbon, we never got a final say on Maastricht . He elites have brought brexit upon themselves because they have ignored the silent majority for years and years. We voted leave after forty years of argument and debate not just a couple of months of campaigning .
Then you wont't mind turning out again just to cement the deal.
Referendums are once in a generation consultation . The majority voted to leave the European Union . It’s for the government to implement the choice we have made. In another twenty years if we need to think again we will but we have to go though with the decision made in 2016
No. The Government gets to do what it wants. Sorry.
Mr Cameron, PrimeMinister (2016) disagrees (@cost of £9m).
But then, as he also once said, he's an f'ing tory
A Ryanair plane has been seized by French authorities in a row over money in the latest problem for the airline.
The French civil aviation authority grounded the Boeing 737 on Thursday at Bordeaux airport, before it was due to fly to Stansted with 149 passengers.
It said the move was "a last resort".
The dispute was caused by French subsidies paid to Ryanair for flights from Angoulême regional airport between 2008 and 2009, which the European Commission later deemed illegal.
I expect a deluge of Cabinet resignations, Theresa to quit in ignominy and her successor to apply for an essay extension so we can sort this madness out.
Mr. Eek, hasn't the WTO itself said we're already members?
We're members of the WTO by virtue of our membership of the EU, we're not members in our own right.
So when we Leave that ceases and we'll have to reapply, and several countries have threatened to delay that unless they get what they want.
Nope, we can apply base WTO tariffs from 30/3/19.
According to the Rules we have to undertake negotiations thereafter with countries objecting to us inheriting a portion of the EU's existing WTO agreements. eg Russia who has objected. Not many people are worried about that.
Technically Russia objected because the EU has not updated it's schedules when Croatia joined the EU so they are saying the EU schedules are invalid and so hence are the UK's.
Apparently a spanner in the WTO works is that last year we denied a visa to the wife of Moldova's foreign minister, and consequently the Moldovans are vetoing us from joining the WTO's Government Procurement Agreement, which we're currently only members of through the EU. This could lead to British firms being blocked from bidding on government contracts worth $1.7tn worldwide. Never mind, there's always "innovative jams" to fall back on.
jo Johnson’s call for final say , with all this sudden conversion to democracy and referenda and call for a people’s vote is total hypocrisy . We neve got a final say after the first referendum to join , we never got a final say on Lisbon, we never got a final say on Maastricht . He elites have brought brexit upon themselves because they have ignored the silent majority for years and years. We voted leave after forty years of argument and debate not just a couple of months of campaigning .
Then you wont't mind turning out again just to cement the deal.
Referendums are once in a generation consultation . The majority voted to leave the European Union . It’s for the government to implement the choice we have made. In another twenty years if we need to think again we will but we have to go though with the decision made in 2016
No. The Government gets to do what it wants. Sorry.
Though they'll probably get held up at Dover, so we won't get them for ages, and by the time we do we'll have starved to death or shuffled off this mortal coil due to lack of essential meds.
The Bush campaign paid protestors to pocket Florida election offices in 2000. It turned violent, Democrats got assaulted, the recount process shut down.
Roger Stone is trying to do the same again now.
FUN FACT: Brett Kavanaugh was one of the Brooks Brother Rioters.
Whenever the GOP accuses the Dems of doing something nefarious it is because they've already done it.
This is a pattern I've noticed too. Guilt by denunciation.
Mr. Eek, hasn't the WTO itself said we're already members?
We're members of the WTO by virtue of our membership of the EU, we're not members in our own right.
So when we Leave that ceases and we'll have to reapply, and several countries have threatened to delay that unless they get what they want.
Nope, we can apply base WTO tariffs from 30/3/19.
According to the Rules we have to undertake negotiations thereafter with countries objecting to us inheriting a portion of the EU's existing WTO agreements. eg Russia who has objected. Not many people are worried about that.
Technically Russia objected because the EU has not updated it's schedules when Croatia joined the EU so they are saying the EU schedules are invalid and so hence are the UK's.
Apparently a spanner in the WTO works is that last year we denied a visa to the wife of Moldova's foreign minister, and consequently the Moldovans are vetoing us from joining the WTO's Government Procurement Agreement, which we're currently only members of through the EU. This could lead to British firms being blocked from bidding on government contracts worth $1.7tn worldwide. Never mind, there's always "innovative jams" to fall back on.
I've been assuming that something like Chequers would eventually crawl through with lashings of fudge. But I do begin to wonder, now those on the Remain side are starting to desert the ship. And this may be the Friday beer talking, but I'm feeling quite relaxed about it, in a shrugging "whatevs" sort of way.
I voted remain for economic continuity (sure, the institutions are a bit annoying, inefficient and probably Not Veyr British but in the grand scheme we do OK), but the "don't worry, everything will be just as good" Brexit didn't frighten me unduly. I'm not a natural Tory, but the Majors and Camerons (or Blairs and Browns) don't offend me ideologically. I'm not going to demand Brexit is reversed, given we were told clearly that the government was committed to delivering it (whatever "it" was) before we voted.
And I'm sitting here thinking "let's see how the cards fall, where's my popcorn?". I'll probably be a bit worse off, but I'll survive. And if the next ten years wipe out the extremists and bring back some dull, competent middle-of-the-roaders to run the country, all good.
Comments
Basically a few countries have said we won't get a good deal if we don't open our seas to their fishing fleets.
Turns out they didn't get the memo about the UK holding all the aces.
Or do you want a chance to tell them to reconsider?
Now 26
Next week is when it happens one way or another.
If the Government really thinks doing so will lead to shortages of food and medicine, they would be irresponsible to do so
Bring it on.
Play nicely.
Nature and politics abhors a vacumn so circs look almost ideal for Mr Dominic Cummins' :
"‘If your side gets its way and there is another referendum, Vote Leave 2 will be much much worse for your side than VL1 was. VL2 will win by more than VL1 and the logical corollary will be to morph into a new party and fight the next election ‘to implement the promises we made in the referendum because the MPs have proved they can’t be trusted’."
"If you guys want to run with Adonis and create another wave, be careful what you wish for. ‘Unda fert nec regitur’ and VL2 will ride that wave right at — and through — the gates of Parliament.’"
Plus most of all I'm a democrat, the voters were warned of this, but voted for it, they cannot complain now.
The reality is that in the event of no deal, the government will be forced to sue for peace, it won't last much longer than a month, or there government will fall, and advocates of Leave forced into hiding as they dodge all those who have no meds/or have family members without meds.
The EU will also want a deal, as no deal buggers France and Ireland in particular.
The trouble is I suspect the EU had no appetite for our a la carte approach. Nor do they now. It is either all the way in or all the way out, take it or leave it.
I was watching a programme about crime yesterday and it featured Broxtowe.. Leafy, but of the weed variety?
But democracy has to be honoured, the people voted for it, that's the important thing.
They were warned that we'd be leaving the single market and customs union and the risks that entailed.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/11/09/swallow-the-lot-and-swallow-it-now-britain-is-and-was-deluded-about-its-negotiating-power-with-the-eu/
‘Swallow the lot, and swallow it now’: Britain is, and was, deluded about its negotiating power with the EU
The odds of the voters obediently making their choice solely on the grounds of Brexit (even if there were significant differences between the Big Two, both offering a fantasy of a Good Deal Brexit) are slim: voters have the habit of voting in elections based on what they consider to be the appropriate grounds rather than what the politicians say it's all about.
And even if they did, we all know the winning Party will take it as authorisation and buy-in of everything in their manifesto. Which is why the electorate won't just vote on Brexit in that case.
Labour are trying to hold out for it solely because they want to use the crisis to get into power, not because they have a plan to sort out the crisis.
It looks like the plan had been to gain enough support from Labour Remainers, or abstention from the Labour or SNP leaderships, to offset opposition from the DUP and ERG to an NI backstop agreeable to the EU.
Jo Johnson pretty much destroys that.
So the option that has the best chance of keeping May in office is: blame the foreigners, no deal is better than a bad deal, dig for victory.
https://twitter.com/stellacreasy/status/1060961967492489216?s=21
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/06/uk-fishing-fleets-unlikely-to-gain-from-brexit-despite-goves-claims-say-experts
I will probably regret this but now Sinema's odds have shortened I have partially cashed out - I am now as green as I can be on Sinema with no risk to capital.
Stopping Brexit is not the same thing as democracy. It might be stopped through democratic means, but it is very lazy of people to act as though stopping brexit is democracy, and therefore, presumably, brexit is not democracy.
A vote means we might still brexit, but even harder. Some like TSE are happy to acknowledge that a harder brexit is a price worth paying, but others are far less honest about the risk to this push for another vote.
I don't see another vote, but I'm increasingly doubtful that Brexit can be delivered. Which is going to lead to a massive crisis. The Withdrawal Agreement without any permanent commitments beyond the Irish backstop was relatively straightforward and delayed exposing the contradictions and false premises behind the Leave vote. Once we get into indefinite customs unions we get into discussions about fishing and regulation. No Deal is the absence of a solution rather than an end state. It is guaranteed to bring on that crisis, probably in a matter of days.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1060828103856021505?s=19
Geezer: Will this be affected by Brexit?
Me: No idea - it's way down the todo list and they haven't got the big things sorted yet.
Geezer: It's a bleedin' mess. Whose idea was it?
Me: Not sure.
Geezer: Well they'd better get it cancelled sharpish.
I don't think she'll be risking her seat.
So when we Leave that ceases and we'll have to reapply, and several countries have threatened to delay that unless they get what they want.
The real problem with exiting to base WTO membership is that the extra paperwork and potentially tariffs to be charged would impact a) the hardness of the Irish border, and b) the supply chains just-in-time manufacturing rely upon. Brexiteer Ultras try to handwave this away with "we'll simply not charge any tariffs or conduct any inspections" ignoring that the rest of the EU will have to do both or else have to do the same with their other external borders.
But the real danger of No-Deal is not reverting to the WTO, but falling out to a true No-Deal where the planes stop flying and our exports to the EU are no longer certified. Everyone says that can't happen, and no-one wants it to happen, but some sort of agreement, even if it's the minimal "lifeboat" deal Juncker has talked about, has to be made to implement that. The EU has made it clear that will require at the very least the UK agreeing to pay up for its financial obligations to the EU (not necessarily the full 39bn, but a big chunk of it).
Hard Brexit vs Remain. Let’s go.
"The United Kingdom has been a WTO member since 1 January 1995 and a member of GATT since 1 January 1948. It is a member State of the European Union (more info). All EU member States are WTO members, as is the EU (until 30 November 2009 known officially in the WTO as the European Communities for legal reasons) in its own right."
https://blogs.fco.gov.uk/julianbraithwaite/2017/01/23/ensuring-a-smooth-transition-in-the-wto-as-we-leave-the-eu/
https://blogs.fco.gov.uk/julianbraithwaite/2017/10/11/a-milestone-in-the-uks-wto-transition/
In the first link "We are a full and founding member of the WTO."
According to the Rules we have to undertake negotiations thereafter with countries objecting to us inheriting a portion of the EU's existing WTO agreements. eg Russia who has objected. Not many people are worried about that.
Smoothly separating the UK from the EU schedules is the best way we can reassure our WTO partners that their trade with us will not be disrupted as we leave the EU. Once we have our own schedules in the WTO, the UK will be able to negotiate changes to the international trading system as well, whether multilaterally (with the whole membership of the WTO) or plurilaterally (with some of it). A country’s WTO schedules also provide the baseline for negotiating bilateral Free Trade Agreements.
There is a process in the WTO that allows the UK to submit new schedules. But they can only be adopted – or certified – and thus replace our existing EU schedules if none of the WTO’s other 163 members object to them. So to minimise any grounds for objection, we plan to replicate our existing trade regime as far as possible in our new schedules. Before we take any formal steps in the WTO we will hold extensive informal consultations with the WTO membership. Every member will have an opportunity to raise any issues or concerns with us before we proceed.
Here's the reality
The US and China are reportedly among 20 countries attempting to block Britain from agreeing a fast-track deal with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) on its post-Brexit terms of trade with the rest of the world.
Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, admitted several WTO members had “expressed reservations” about the government’s plan to stay on terms similar to those it still enjoys as a member of the European Union (EU).
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-trade-deal-wto-liam-fox-no-deal-international-trade-a8603811.html
But how can that happen in practice? One option is for Mrs May to facilitate it by introducing legislation that instructs the government to inform the EU that no deal has proven possible and that the UK will therefore leave the EU on 29 March without a withdrawal agreement.
This would give parliament the opportunity to amend it with, for example, asking the EU to extend A50 for six months while a second referendum takes place".
I don't think the PM would feel able to propose a second referendum herself but if parliament so decides, well .... Her other option of calling a general election is just too risky. How would the Tory party decide what to put in the manifesto regarding Brexit? It would tear it apart. And facilitate a Corbyn government.
She has very little choice but to open it up to parliament to decide.
We can apply immediate reductions in tariffs from 30/3/19. Obviously if Hammond is still chancellor he will try to find a way to put up imported food prices etc back to EU level.
That's also the position where we should have started negotiations.
I could see things moving very quickly if this deal is utter turd.
The Government gets to do what it wants. Sorry.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot
The Bush campaign paid protestors to pocket Florida election offices in 2000. It turned violent, Democrats got assaulted, the recount process shut down.
Roger Stone is trying to do the same again now.
FUN FACT: Brett Kavanaugh was one of the Brooks Brother Rioters.
Whenever the GOP accuses the Dems of doing something nefarious it is because they've already done it.
But then, as he also once said, he's an f'ing tory
The French civil aviation authority grounded the Boeing 737 on Thursday at Bordeaux airport, before it was due to fly to Stansted with 149 passengers.
It said the move was "a last resort".
The dispute was caused by French subsidies paid to Ryanair for flights from Angoulême regional airport between 2008 and 2009, which the European Commission later deemed illegal.
Souce: BBC
May must go.
https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/10/25/brexits-latest-obstacle-a-moldovan-veto
Though they'll probably get held up at Dover, so we won't get them for ages, and by the time we do we'll have starved to death or shuffled off this mortal coil due to lack of essential meds.
(I may be exaggerating a bit here - hopefully.)
NEW THREAD
I voted remain for economic continuity (sure, the institutions are a bit annoying, inefficient and probably Not Veyr British but in the grand scheme we do OK), but the "don't worry, everything will be just as good" Brexit didn't frighten me unduly. I'm not a natural Tory, but the Majors and Camerons (or Blairs and Browns) don't offend me ideologically. I'm not going to demand Brexit is reversed, given we were told clearly that the government was committed to delivering it (whatever "it" was) before we voted.
And I'm sitting here thinking "let's see how the cards fall, where's my popcorn?". I'll probably be a bit worse off, but I'll survive. And if the next ten years wipe out the extremists and bring back some dull, competent middle-of-the-roaders to run the country, all good.