[snip] In fact, a no-deal crash out will see the single largest *increase* in both tariff and non-tariff barriers in the entire history of the WTO.
And with just a few weeks' notice for businesses to completely overhaul their operations. 'Insanity' hardly begins to cover it.
Given that "No Deal" was a potential outcome when the Article 50 notice was served, "insanity" hardly begins to cover the Govt. refusing to plan for it for the past two years.....
Not at all, no-one thought that No Deal would be an option which MPs would end up going for.
In any case, despite months of asking, I've still not discovered what these mysterious preparations were supposed to be. No amount of UK government preparation is going to help UK companies export goods and services to the EU if the EU regulatory framework doesn't allow it, nor could any amount of preparation over a couple of years transform existing UK docks, let alone ones on the continent (which is more to the point).
The only serious preparation that could have been done would be businesses closing down UK operations and moving them them to the continent. I'm not sure encouraging that on the off-chance that MPs would lose their marbles would have been a good idea.
Technically, there is nothing to stop May doing that. She could reasonably claim that the HoC rejection of her Deal constitutes approval for revocation 'via democratic process' as required by the ECJ.
She should announce ahead of the vote that that is what she will do if she loses - that will concentrate the ERG's (and indeed Labour leadership's|) minds. Sure her position as leader of the Conservative party will become untenable but wtf - at least No Deal is avoided.
She would be out of office the minute she tried it. The cabinet would demand she goes and, in any respect, it is against everything she has said
I agree with your second point but not the first. All the cabinet could do is resign en masse, they cannot remove her from office (except by supporting a commons VoNC).
If a cabinet resign the PM has no choice but resign
That was the general assumption in the days before Corbyn ignored his shadow front bench resigning en masse.
However, in the case of the Tories, it's true: if the cabinet resigned in big numbers, it's almost certain that there would be similar opposition on the back benches - there certainly would in the instance being imagined here.
On which topic, it's not quite so certain that the PM can just revoke A50. The Notification Act only authorised the PM to notify the EU of Britain's intention to withdraw; it didn't authorise her to notify an intention to stay. Some will argue that the one power implies the other, or that parliamentary authority isn't needed as the notification would not be to override legislation in the same way that withdrawal does. They may be right. On the other hand, they may not.
[snip] In fact, a no-deal crash out will see the single largest *increase* in both tariff and non-tariff barriers in the entire history of the WTO.
And with just a few weeks' notice for businesses to completely overhaul their operations. 'Insanity' hardly begins to cover it.
Given that "No Deal" was a potential outcome when the Article 50 notice was served, "insanity" hardly begins to cover the Govt. refusing to plan for it for the past two years.....
Not at all, no-one thought that No Deal would be an option which MPs would end up going for.
In any case, despite months of asking, I've still not discovered what these mysterious preparations were supposed to be. No amount of UK government preparation is going to help UK companies export goods and services to the EU if the EU regulatory framework doesn't allow it, nor could any amount of preparation over a couple of years transform existing UK docks, let alone ones on the continent (which is more to the point).
The only serious preparation that could have been done would be businesses closing down UK operations and moving them them to the continent. I'm not sure encouraging that on the off-chance that MPs would lose their marbles would have been a good idea.
No MPs thought that No Deal would be an option which mMPs would end up going for.
Others might just have questioned their infallibility.....
Apparently the Yaxley-Lennon fans in Parliament Square also shouted they are going to rape Kay Burley and Anna Soubry with a pole with an EU flag on it.
Just another day in the sunlit uplands.
Surely that is a criminal offence? Threatening rape?
Why are the police doing nothing? What if Sky employed its own security and pushed them out of the way?
[snip] In fact, a no-deal crash out will see the single largest *increase* in both tariff and non-tariff barriers in the entire history of the WTO.
And with just a few weeks' notice for businesses to completely overhaul their operations. 'Insanity' hardly begins to cover it.
Given that "No Deal" was a potential outcome when the Article 50 notice was served, "insanity" hardly begins to cover the Govt. refusing to plan for it for the past two years.....
The only serious preparation that could have been done would be businesses closing down UK operations and moving them them to the continent. I'm not sure encouraging that on the off-chance that MPs would lose their marbles would have been a good idea.
Most businesses are probably savvy enough to have done that of their own accord. (My own employer has a warehouse in the Netherlands standing by.)
Technically, there is nothing to stop May doing that. She could reasonably claim that the HoC rejection of her Deal constitutes approval for revocation 'via democratic process' as required by the ECJ.
She should announce ahead of the vote that that is what she will do if she loses - that will concentrate the ERG's (and indeed Labour leadership's|) minds. Sure her position as leader of the Conservative party will become untenable but wtf - at least No Deal is avoided.
She would be out of office the minute she tried it. The cabinet would demand she goes and, in any respect, it is against everything she has said
I agree with your second point but not the first. All the cabinet could do is resign en masse, they cannot remove her from office (except by supporting a commons VoNC).
If a cabinet resign the PM has no choice but resign
That was the general assumption in the days before Corbyn ignored his shadow front bench resigning en masse.
However, in the case of the Tories, it's true: if the cabinet resigned in big numbers, it's almost certain that there would be similar opposition on the back benches - there certainly would in the instance being imagined here.
On which topic, it's not quite so certain that the PM can just revoke A50. The Notification Act only authorised the PM to notify the EU of Britain's intention to withdraw; it didn't authorise her to notify an intention to stay. Some will argue that the one power implies the other, or that parliamentary authority isn't needed as the notification would not be to override legislation in the same way that withdrawal does. They may be right. On the other hand, they may not.
In the scenario being outlined the HoC would have rejected her deal in the knowledge that such a rejection would lead to A50 revocation. Thus the HoC would have voted for A50 revocation.
Yeah, you can set up some mitigation procedures, which is what they are now doing. But that doesn't alter the big picture, which is that no deal would be an unmitigated disaster, whatever preparations were made unilaterally.
Technically, there is nothing to stop May doing that. She could reasonably claim that the HoC rejection of her Deal constitutes approval for revocation 'via democratic process' as required by the ECJ.
She should announce ahead of the vote that that is what she will do if she loses - that will concentrate the ERG's (and indeed Labour leadership's|) minds. Sure her position as leader of the Conservative party will become untenable but wtf - at least No Deal is avoided.
She would be out of office the minute she tried it. The cabinet would demand she goes and, in any respect, it is against everything she has said
I agree with your second point but not the first. All the cabinet could do is resign en masse, they cannot remove her from office (except by supporting a commons VoNC).
If a cabinet resign the PM has no choice but resign
That was the general assumption in the days before Corbyn ignored his shadow front bench resigning en masse.
However, in the case of the Tories, it's true: if the cabinet resigned in big numbers, it's almost certain that there would be similar opposition on the back benches - there certainly would in the instance being imagined here.
On which topic, it's not quite so certain that the PM can just revoke A50. The Notification Act only authorised the PM to notify the EU of Britain's intention to withdraw; it didn't authorise her to notify an intention to stay. Some will argue that the one power implies the other, or that parliamentary authority isn't needed as the notification would not be to override legislation in the same way that withdrawal does. They may be right. On the other hand, they may not.
In the scenario being outlined the HoC would have rejected her deal in the knowledge that such a rejection would lead to A50 revocation. Thus the HoC would have voted for A50 revocation.
Sorry Ben. To revoke A50 a specific vote authorising it would be required
[snip] In fact, a no-deal crash out will see the single largest *increase* in both tariff and non-tariff barriers in the entire history of the WTO.
And with just a few weeks' notice for businesses to completely overhaul their operations. 'Insanity' hardly begins to cover it.
Given that "No Deal" was a potential outcome when the Article 50 notice was served, "insanity" hardly begins to cover the Govt. refusing to plan for it for the past two years.....
The only serious preparation that could have been done would be businesses closing down UK operations and moving them them to the continent. I'm not sure encouraging that on the off-chance that MPs would lose their marbles would have been a good idea.
Most businesses are probably savvy enough to have done that of their own accord. (My own employer has a warehouse in the Netherlands standing by.)
[snip] In fact, a no-deal crash out will see the single largest *increase* in both tariff and non-tariff barriers in the entire history of the WTO.
And with just a few weeks' notice for businesses to completely overhaul their operations. 'Insanity' hardly begins to cover it.
Given that "No Deal" was a potential outcome when the Article 50 notice was served, "insanity" hardly begins to cover the Govt. refusing to plan for it for the past two years.....
Not at all, no-one thought that No Deal would be an option which MPs would end up going for.
In any case, despite months of asking, I've still not discovered what these mysterious preparations were supposed to be. No amount of UK government preparation is going to help UK companies export goods and services to the EU if the EU regulatory framework doesn't allow it, nor could any amount of preparation over a couple of years transform existing UK docks, let alone ones on the continent (which is more to the point).
The only serious preparation that could have been done would be businesses closing down UK operations and moving them them to the continent. I'm not sure encouraging that on the off-chance that MPs would lose their marbles would have been a good idea.
We will be setting up a company in Ireland in case we need it, so Varadkar will be getting various fees.
I find it incredible given our experience of Channel Tunnel strikes etc. that any exercise would add value to our understanding of how to stack lorries on the M20/M26.
No amount of preparation will prepare us for the indefinite queuing that will be required after a No Deal crash-out.
Some people think that although we don't want a deal, we will nevertheless be able to sign some agreements with the EU on the basics, etc. ie a deal. Yet some people believe these things are completely different.
That is precisely why "No Deal" is such a pejorative term - it is intended to shape opinion and lead some by the nose to conclude that chaos would ensue because there would be no arrangements covering even the basics. The choice using non perjorative language is between leaving under "May's Deal" and "World Trade Terms (or WTO Terms for short).
Under the latter, there is an obligation on both the UK and EU to act in good faith to reach basic agreements (i.e. deals) to give effect to their international obligations under the WTO.
"The WTO has done good work in recent years to make it illegal for countries to impose new non tariff barriers to impede trade. The EU has built these requirements into its own law codes. People on both sides of the Channel will continue to honour contracts and buy and sell to each other after our exit. To suggest otherwise is silly scaremongering."
In any case, despite months of asking, I've still not discovered what these mysterious preparations were supposed to be. No amount of UK government preparation is going to help UK companies export goods and services to the EU if the EU regulatory framework doesn't allow it, nor could any amount of preparation over a couple of years transform existing UK docks, let alone ones on the continent (which is more to the point).
The only serious preparation that could have been done would be businesses closing down UK operations and moving them them to the continent. I'm not sure encouraging that on the off-chance that MPs would lose their marbles would have been a good idea.
No project worth its salt fails to carry out adequate risk analysis and contingency planning. I cannot believe someone somewhere hasn't documented the possible implications of leaving without a Deal and I also can't believe some mitigating action will be put in place.
If it turns out the Government hasn't prepared or that Civil Servants were ordered NOT to prepare for the possibility of No Deal, Theresa May will have some serious questions to answer.
I find it incredible given our experience of Channel Tunnel strikes etc. that any exercise would add value to our understanding of how to stack lorries on the M20/M26.
No amount of preparation will prepare us for the indefinite queuing that will be required after a No Deal crash-out.
Exactly. It is like a 'Dads Army' exercise today. Embarrassing
Most of the replies to that Redwood blog piece are predictable nonsense, but I thought this one was very sensible:
Anthony ; Posted August 20, 2018 at 8:33 am
I’m a brexiteer who delivered leaflets and canvassed for vote leave during the referendum. I wanted to get that out of the way so that no one thought I was a project fear monger.
The blog above addresses the question of meeting the EU’s requirements on regulations. Indeed, even with no agreement with the EU, it is possible for the UK to voluntarily mirror EU regulations. Then UK goods will meet EU requirements and there is no no need to run a UK production line and a separate EU production line, reducing costs relative to other third countries.
But that isn’t the whole story. Exporters not only have to meet the regulations of the destination country but prove to the destination country that the regulations have been met (so called “conformity assessment”). This is where the cliff edge, if there is one, lies, not in the regulations themselves.
WTO rules mean that we can export to the EU for sure, access is not denied in the way it [is] often presented, but there may be extra costs and delays.
How can these costs and delays be mitigated unilaterally? Can exports normally headed for Calais be rerouted? Is there sufficient capacity elsewhere for this to work? Can extra costs be mitigated by a reduction in corporation tax? Can cash flow problems due to changes in VAT processes be addressed through government sponsored loans?
What about highly regulated sectors such as cars and chemicals? Do extra actions need to be taken? Food all has to be exported through a limited number of border inspection posts. There is limited capacity on the EU side and the UK side – do we simply have to write this trade off, if the EU is not helpful, noting that we import three times what we export in this sector but that our choice of food domestically will be more limited for a period?
A sensible discussion that accepted that there are problems but also solutions would go a long way to dealing with the soon to be febrile atmosphere.
I find it incredible given our experience of Channel Tunnel strikes etc. that any exercise would add value to our understanding of how to stack lorries on the M20/M26.
No amount of preparation will prepare us for the indefinite queuing that will be required after a No Deal crash-out.
Exactly. It is like a 'Dads Army' exercise today. Embarrassing
I do wish people would stop running down our brave boys in the Home Guard in this way
I find it incredible given our experience of Channel Tunnel strikes etc. that any exercise would add value to our understanding of how to stack lorries on the M20/M26.
No amount of preparation will prepare us for the indefinite queuing that will be required after a No Deal crash-out.
Exactly. It is like a 'Dads Army' exercise today. Embarrassing
I do wish people would stop running down our brave boys in the Home Guard in this way
In any case, despite months of asking, I've still not discovered what these mysterious preparations were supposed to be. No amount of UK government preparation is going to help UK companies export goods and services to the EU if the EU regulatory framework doesn't allow it, nor could any amount of preparation over a couple of years transform existing UK docks, let alone ones on the continent (which is more to the point).
The only serious preparation that could have been done would be businesses closing down UK operations and moving them them to the continent. I'm not sure encouraging that on the off-chance that MPs would lose their marbles would have been a good idea.
No project worth its salt fails to carry out adequate risk analysis and contingency planning. I cannot believe someone somewhere hasn't documented the possible implications of leaving without a Deal and I also can't believe some mitigating action will be put in place.
If it turns out the Government hasn't prepared or that Civil Servants were ordered NOT to prepare for the possibility of No Deal, Theresa May will have some serious questions to answer.
Of course they have carried out risk analysis, and of course that risk analysis will have come up with the blindingly obvious answer: that leaving with no deal is unthinkable.
Most of the replies to that Redwood blog piece are predictable nonsense, but I thought this one was very sensible:
Anthony ; Posted August 20, 2018 at 8:33 am
I’m a brexiteer who delivered leaflets and canvassed for vote leave during the referendum. I wanted to get that out of the way so that no one thought I was a project fear monger.
The blog above addresses the question of meeting the EU’s requirements on regulations. Indeed, even with no agreement with the EU, it is possible for the UK to voluntarily mirror EU regulations. Then UK goods will meet EU requirements and there is no no need to run a UK production line and a separate EU production line, reducing costs relative to other third countries.
But that isn’t the whole story. Exporters not only have to meet the regulations of the destination country but prove to the destination country that the regulations have been met (so called “conformity assessment”). This is where the cliff edge, if there is one, lies, not in the regulations themselves.
WTO rules mean that we can export to the EU for sure, access is not denied in the way it [is] often presented, but there may be extra costs and delays.
How can these costs and delays be mitigated unilaterally? Can exports normally headed for Calais be rerouted? Is there sufficient capacity elsewhere for this to work? Can extra costs be mitigated by a reduction in corporation tax? Can cash flow problems due to changes in VAT processes be addressed through government sponsored loans?
What about highly regulated sectors such as cars and chemicals? Do extra actions need to be taken? Food all has to be exported through a limited number of border inspection posts. There is limited capacity on the EU side and the UK side – do we simply have to write this trade off, if the EU is not helpful, noting that we import three times what we export in this sector but that our choice of food domestically will be more limited for a period?
A sensible discussion that accepted that there are problems but also solutions would go a long way to dealing with the soon to be febrile atmosphere.
Quite why that eminently sensible person is spending time on Redwood's blog is the bigger mystery.
Some people think that although we don't want a deal, we will nevertheless be able to sign some agreements with the EU on the basics, etc. ie a deal. Yet some people believe these things are completely different.
That is precisely why "No Deal" is such a pejorative term - it is intended to shape opinion and lead some by the nose to conclude that chaos would ensue because there would be no arrangements covering even the basics. The choice using non perjorative language is between leaving under "May's Deal" and "World Trade Terms (or WTO Terms for short).
Under the latter, there is an obligation on both the UK and EU to act in good faith to reach basic agreements (i.e. deals) to give effect to their international obligations under the WTO.
"The WTO has done good work in recent years to make it illegal for countries to impose new non tariff barriers to impede trade. The EU has built these requirements into its own law codes. People on both sides of the Channel will continue to honour contracts and buy and sell to each other after our exit. To suggest otherwise is silly scaremongering."
That is absolutely correct. The issue is not about the sudden cessation of trade between the UK and the EU. It is about a hundred small things - passports, corporation tax, existing EU arrangements with third countries - that we would drop out of. Individually, they are small...
Comments
https://twitter.com/orb_int/status/1082290316894498816?s=21
In any case, despite months of asking, I've still not discovered what these mysterious preparations were supposed to be. No amount of UK government preparation is going to help UK companies export goods and services to the EU if the EU regulatory framework doesn't allow it, nor could any amount of preparation over a couple of years transform existing UK docks, let alone ones on the continent (which is more to the point).
The only serious preparation that could have been done would be businesses closing down UK operations and moving them them to the continent. I'm not sure encouraging that on the off-chance that MPs would lose their marbles would have been a good idea.
However, in the case of the Tories, it's true: if the cabinet resigned in big numbers, it's almost certain that there would be similar opposition on the back benches - there certainly would in the instance being imagined here.
On which topic, it's not quite so certain that the PM can just revoke A50. The Notification Act only authorised the PM to notify the EU of Britain's intention to withdraw; it didn't authorise her to notify an intention to stay. Some will argue that the one power implies the other, or that parliamentary authority isn't needed as the notification would not be to override legislation in the same way that withdrawal does. They may be right. On the other hand, they may not.
Others might just have questioned their infallibility.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_harassment,_alarm_or_distress
Does rather explain why social media is unpoliced bandit country though.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-46775722
No amount of preparation will prepare us for the indefinite queuing that will be required after a No Deal crash-out.
If it turns out the Government hasn't prepared or that Civil Servants were ordered NOT to prepare for the possibility of No Deal, Theresa May will have some serious questions to answer.
Anthony ; Posted August 20, 2018 at 8:33 am
I’m a brexiteer who delivered leaflets and canvassed for vote leave during the referendum. I wanted to get that out of the way so that no one thought I was a project fear monger.
The blog above addresses the question of meeting the EU’s requirements on regulations. Indeed, even with no agreement with the EU, it is possible for the UK to voluntarily mirror EU regulations. Then UK goods will meet EU requirements and there is no no need to run a UK production line and a separate EU production line, reducing costs relative to other third countries.
But that isn’t the whole story. Exporters not only have to meet the regulations of the destination country but prove to the destination country that the regulations have been met (so called “conformity assessment”). This is where the cliff edge, if there is one, lies, not in the regulations themselves.
WTO rules mean that we can export to the EU for sure, access is not denied in the way it [is] often presented, but there may be extra costs and delays.
How can these costs and delays be mitigated unilaterally? Can exports normally headed for Calais be rerouted? Is there sufficient capacity elsewhere for this to work? Can extra costs be mitigated by a reduction in corporation tax? Can cash flow problems due to changes in VAT processes be addressed through government sponsored loans?
What about highly regulated sectors such as cars and chemicals? Do extra actions need to be taken? Food all has to be exported through a limited number of border inspection posts. There is limited capacity on the EU side and the UK side – do we simply have to write this trade off, if the EU is not helpful, noting that we import three times what we export in this sector but that our choice of food domestically will be more limited for a period?
A sensible discussion that accepted that there are problems but also solutions would go a long way to dealing with the soon to be febrile atmosphere.
NEW THREAD