It's very peculiar that the tin-eared has no idea what "it" is, but she's absolutely determined that whatever "it" is, the public want us to get on with "it".
She's convinced she's doing the right thing, even when she has no idea what it is she's doing. That's deranged behaviour.
Actually she did point out that 80% of people voted for parties committed to Brexit which probably needs to be repeated.
Despite being utterly irrelevant
Not at all it is a fact and relevant what with us being in a democracy an' all.
Their manifestos may have been committed to delivering brexit, but what is brexit? One persons understanding of brexit is anothers 230 vote humiliation. Unless brexit is clarified and defined so we all know what it means, then there is dishonesty putting it in manifestos, and a pointlessness to keep saying “the policy is to deliver brexit”.
I cannot speak for him obviously but I would have thought the LDems could offer to support her deal provided it is sanctioned by a 2nd Ref. Why is that so hard for the government to accept?
I really don't see how a deal that had so few backers in parliament could realistically be put to the country.
Who would campaign for it?
Previous leave voters would in all likelihood boycott in their millions leaving a turnout well down on 2016 and a remain win with no legitimacy.
It would be much better for the remainer majority in parliament to have the courage of their convictions and either go directly to revoke or, alternatively, provide a 3-way referendum under AV with: Revoke, Deal, No Deal.
Good piece in The Spectator about the realities of 'no deal' Brexit.
Thanks to your recommendation I took a read. Half of it saying the people that do the stuff day and day out like the Road Haulage Association are wrong about their own processes. Half of it straw men. Paint a picture of lurid catastrophe. Not going to happen, so it's all going to be fine
Peter Lilley had quite a good argument that No Deal wouldn't be as bad as expected.
He said the Millennium Bug wasn't as bad as expected.
Oh for the love of God. The Bug wasn't as bad because software people spent months and months in the run up checking every blasted piece of software that might remotely be a problem.
I cannot speak for him obviously but I would have thought the LDems could offer to support her deal provided it is sanctioned by a 2nd Ref. Why is that so hard for the government to accept?
I really don't see how a deal that had so few backers in parliament could realistically be put to the country.
Who would campaign for it?
Previous leave voters would in all likelihood boycott in their millions leaving a turnout well down on 2016 and a remain win with no legitimacy.
It would be much better for the remainer majority in parliament to have the courage of their convictions and either go directly to revoke or, alternatively, provide a 3-way referendum under AV with: Revoke, Deal, No Deal.
Yes it would. But that's a lot of courage.
I predict May will seek an extension from the EU, try to get more concessions and fail, and put it to the vote again and fail. Parliament will then, through whatever means is necessary, seek to revoke A50 on the pretence that we need to figure out what we want, but really just because it means we will remain.
Something better than this. Which is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is pretending that it is unfair they are now faced with the prospect they agreed to set in motion should things not go well.
I'm not being funny but this deal is absolutely more or less what I was expecting. In fact to get back FoM and a solution to Northern Ireland (Of sorts) was remarkable I thought. My main concern is that a FTA will take longer than a couple of years - but the backstop is really not at all bad eonomically speaking for us.
Whether you like the Speaker or not...you have to admit he's very fucking good at the whole theatrics of the show. Not quite up to that Yank who does the boxing pre announcements- but Bercow's Parliamentary antics are class...
If, as Hammond has promised business no deal is taken off table in a few days, wouldn’t corbyn turn up to the talks with a packet of jammy dodgers and triumphant smirk on his face?
Good piece in The Spectator about the realities of 'no deal' Brexit.
Thanks to your recommendation I took a read. Half of it saying the people that do the stuff day and day out like the Road Haulage Association are wrong about their own processes. Half of it straw men. Paint a picture of lurid catastrophe. Not going to happen, so it's all going to be fine
It's not strawmen if it's trying to debunk the notion that No Deal would be a catastrophe, considering people are saying it will be a catastrophe.
Something better than this. Which is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is pretending that it is unfair they are now faced with the prospect they agreed to set in motion should things not go well.
I'm not being funny but this deal is absolutely more or less what I was expecting. In fact to get back FoM and a solution to Northern Ireland (Of sorts) was remarkable I thought. My main concern is that a FTA will take longer than a couple of years - but the backstop is really not at all bad eonomically speaking for us.
Works for me, but I don't blame people for hoping for more, whatever that might be. But I draw the line at the faux outrage of MPs who voted to put us on a course which they claim is unacceptable.
Oh for the love of God. The Bug wasn't as bad because software people spent months and months in the run up checking every blasted piece of software that might remotely be a problem.
Indeed. Net cost worldwide supposedly $450 billion in today's money ....... and that for a relatively easy to fix problem.
What else could he say to them that would have a scrap of credibility? Everyone except the orcs of the ERG know that no deal will be a shit show at the fuck factory.
Is it weird that I’m spending tomorrow night at a solemn mass for the soul of a relative who died 300 years ago? And then spending the rest of the evening toasting his memory in champagne?
Peter Lilley had quite a good argument that No Deal wouldn't be as bad as expected.
He said the Millennium Bug wasn't as bad as expected.
That would only be a good argument if we had not spent billions of dollars and man hours ensuring it wasn't as bad as expected.
To be fair, there were some bloody stupid claims made about the millennium bug, such as that aeroplanes would fall out of the sky. However, that doesn't alter the fact that, if there hadn't been a massive effort to find and fix the bugs, it would have been pretty catastrophic - banking systems failing, salaries not paid, insurance policies voided, pensions not paid, etc.
No Deal Brexit is very similar. The more lurid claims are nonsense - no-one's going to die because of shortage of medicines, for example - but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be an economic catastrophe.
Is it weird that I’m spending tomorrow night at a solemn mass for the soul of a relative who died 300 years ago? And then spending the rest of the evening toasting his memory in champagne?
Good piece in The Spectator about the realities of 'no deal' Brexit.
Thanks to your recommendation I took a read. Half of it saying the people that do the stuff day and day out like the Road Haulage Association are wrong about their own processes. Half of it straw men. Paint a picture of lurid catastrophe. Not going to happen, so it's all going to be fine
Peter Lilley had quite a good argument that No Deal wouldn't be as bad as expected.
He said the Millennium Bug wasn't as bad as expected.
It wasn't. That's because a lot of work was done beforehand. No-deal is similarly mitigatable. But we have left it rather late...
Something better than this. Which is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is pretending that it is unfair they are now faced with the prospect they agreed to set in motion should things not go well.
I'm not being funny but this deal is absolutely more or less what I was expecting. In fact to get back FoM and a solution to Northern Ireland (Of sorts) was remarkable I thought. My main concern is that a FTA will take longer than a couple of years - but the backstop is really not at all bad eonomically speaking for us.
Works for me, but I don't blame people for hoping for more, whatever that might be. But I draw the line at the faux outrage of MPs who voted to put us on a course which they claim is unacceptable.
Well I voted to remain as I couldn't see Brexit being brilliant but once something has been voted for it is almost unconsciable not to implement it. If we'd forced Scotland to go independent after it voted to remain part of the union and asked for another vote for it to remain - what would unionist Scots have thought about that ?
Lucy Powell/Stephen Kinnock might be the backbenchers to head over to for a supersoft political declaration Brexit.
I cannot speak for him obviously but I would have thought the LDems could offer to support her deal provided it is sanctioned by a 2nd Ref. Why is that so hard for the government to accept?
I really don't see how a deal that had so few backers in parliament could realistically be put to the country.
Who would campaign for it?
Previous leave voters would in all likelihood boycott in their millions leaving a turnout well down on 2016 and a remain win with no legitimacy.
It would be much better for the remainer majority in parliament to have the courage of their convictions and either go directly to revoke or, alternatively, provide a 3-way referendum under AV with: Revoke, Deal, No Deal.
Yes it would. But that's a lot of courage.
I predict May will seek an extension from the EU, try to get more concessions and fail, and put it to the vote again and fail. Parliament will then, through whatever means is necessary, seek to revoke A50 on the pretence that we need to figure out what we want, but really just because it means we will remain.
I think they will revoke A50 because we currently have the best deal on offer in membership of the EU. For all the talk about peoples votes and retracting article 50 I think the focus should be on the strength of the Deal or arrangements in place.
1/. Membership of the EU is the best option or best deal.
2/. The May Deal is less good than EU membership. No democratic input or representation on shaping the single market or accountability. No customers Union which will cause problems to the manufacturer sector.
3/. No Deal, which poses a systemic risk to the economy.
The best deal is option one. The political class overcame MPs expenses, retracting article 50 on the grounds that the deal we have is optimal is a no brainer.
I cannot speak for him obviously but I would have thought the LDems could offer to support her deal provided it is sanctioned by a 2nd Ref. Why is that so hard for the government to accept?
I really don't see how a deal that had so few backers in parliament could realistically be put to the country.
Who would campaign for it?
Previous leave voters would in all likelihood boycott in their millions leaving a turnout well down on 2016 and a remain win with no legitimacy.
It would be much better for the remainer majority in parliament to have the courage of their convictions and either go directly to revoke or, alternatively, provide a 3-way referendum under AV with: Revoke, Deal, No Deal.
If MPs genuinely believe Brexit to be catastrophic they should revoke, then submit themselves to judgement at a General Election.
The Deal is a fallback position if they're too frightened to set aside the referendum result altogether, but anything other than No Deal - which Parliament must not allow if it thinks it a disaster - will disappoint a lot of Leave voters. I don't see how it's very much worse, from that point of view, as revocation.
A second referendum (which could only realistically be Deal/Remain,) on the other hand, would be worse - firstly because MPs should be made to clear up the mess that they've created rather than palming off the decision on the voters; secondly, and more crucially, because it would be a festival of national bloodletting that would still do nothing to placate the aforementioned angry Leave voters in any event.
Hopefully stopping the Brexit process and then providing ourselves with a new Parliament will provide both clarity and resolution. If voters install a majority for Brexit then it can reinvoke A50 when ready - hopefully after learning from previous mistakes and agreeing on an approach that can command support in the HoC and preparing for it properly. If not, we move on.
Thanks to your recommendation I took a read. Half of it saying the people that do the stuff day and day out like the Road Haulage Association are wrong about their own processes. Half of it straw men. Paint a picture of lurid catastrophe. Not going to happen, so it's all going to be fine
I mentioned this yesterday but at the risk of boring PB'rs...
I work in an industry that post vote was constantly at the centre of remain claims of catastrophic failure in the event of no deal.
Nobody I came in to contact with professionally thought for a moment this was correct and we couldn't understand how there was such a misunderstanding of the fundamentals of how our business operates.
Now, i'm not saying that all assessments of no deal impacts are a mixture of fanciful imagination and opportunistic embellishment but in my particular experience this was most certainly the case.
I cannot speak for him obviously but I would have thought the LDems could offer to support her deal provided it is sanctioned by a 2nd Ref. Why is that so hard for the government to accept?
I really don't see how a deal that had so few backers in parliament could realistically be put to the country.
Who would campaign for it?
Previous leave voters would in all likelihood boycott in their millions leaving a turnout well down on 2016 and a remain win with no legitimacy.
It would be much better for the remainer majority in parliament to have the courage of their convictions and either go directly to revoke or, alternatively, provide a 3-way referendum under AV with: Revoke, Deal, No Deal.
Yes it would. But that's a lot of courage.
I predict May will seek an extension from the EU, try to get more concessions and fail, and put it to the vote again and fail. Parliament will then, through whatever means is necessary, seek to revoke A50 on the pretence that we need to figure out what we want, but really just because it means we will remain.
I think they will revoke A50 because we currently have the best deal on offer in membership of the EU. For all the talk about peoples votes and retracting article 50 I think the focus should be on the strength of the Deal or arrangements in place.
1/. Membership of the EU is the best option or best deal.
2/. The May Deal is less good than EU membership. No democratic input or representation on shaping the single market or accountability.
3/. No Deal, which poses a systemic risk to the economy.
The best deal is option one. The political class overcame MPs expenses, retracting article 50 on the grounds that the deal we have is optimal is a no brainer.
If that were so they'd never have triggered in the first place. Simply saying staying is best is not enough for them, clearly. Even now many who obviously will not accept anything but remain talk of delays rather than revocation for its own sake. And they want democratic cover for any switch, even though they have rubbished any alternatives but remain. So they need something to ease the transition to a remain stance. Hence, extension to start with. May and the leavers don't have enough votes for anything, so they have to go with that too as a hope that something comes up.
I'm watching this from abroad (thankfully...it seems even more nuts than usual in the UK).
Is there any room for arguing that No Deal is going to be bad, but not truly terrible?
To take a slightly - but not madly - random number, let's assume it wipes 2% off GDP immediately and 1% for the next two years. That's bad, but hardly existential. (small compared to the financial crisis and we never held a referendum on that issue, even once).
My own view is that staying in or leaving the EU (on whatever basis in the case of the latter) is considerably less important overall than anyone cares to admit.
We have raised this issue to a status that it doesn't rationally deserve. My own preference from here would be to leave on WTO terms, but I don't think there is (rationally) anything like as much at stake on the spectrum (from reversing Brexit to deliberately "crashing out") as 99% of people seem to think.
The range of "worst that can happen" to "best that can happen" is actually fairly narrow, all things told. Not trivial, but not of crushing significance either.
Is it weird that I’m spending tomorrow night at a solemn mass for the soul of a relative who died 300 years ago? And then spending the rest of the evening toasting his memory in champagne?
I'm spending tomorrow night measuring for bookcases. So no, it isn't...
Something better than this. Which is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is pretending that it is unfair they are now faced with the prospect they agreed to set in motion should things not go well.
I'm not being funny but this deal is absolutely more or less what I was expecting. In fact to get back FoM and a solution to Northern Ireland (Of sorts) was remarkable I thought. My main concern is that a FTA will take longer than a couple of years - but the backstop is really not at all bad eonomically speaking for us.
Works for me, but I don't blame people for hoping for more, whatever that might be. But I draw the line at the faux outrage of MPs who voted to put us on a course which they claim is unacceptable.
Well I voted to remain as I couldn't see Brexit being brilliant but once something has been voted for it is almost unconsciable not to implement it. If we'd forced Scotland to go independent after it voted to remain part of the union and asked for another vote for it to remain - what would unionist Scots have thought about that ?
Lucy Powell/Stephen Kinnock might be the backbenchers to head over to for a supersoft political declaration Brexit.
Many people mistake the 2016 referendum as setting in stone the future. It was only advisory and Boris Johnson even claimed a Leave vote could assist the UK in negotiating a better deal and if it did not then we stay in the EU on current terms:
I'm watching this from abroad (thankfully...it seems even more nuts than usual in the UK).
Is there any room for arguing that No Deal is going to be bad, but not truly terrible?
To take a slightly - but not madly - random number, let's assume it wipes 2% off GDP immediately and 1% for the next two years. That's bad, but hardly existential. (small compared to the financial crisis and we never held a referendum on that issue, even once).
My own view is that staying in or leaving the EU (on whatever basis in the case of the latter) is considerably less important overall than anyone cares to admit.
We have raised this issue to a status that it doesn't rationally deserve. My own preference from here would be to leave on WTO terms, but I don't think there is (rationally) anything like as much at stake on the spectrum (from reversing Brexit to deliberately "crashing out") as 99% of people seem to think.
The range of "worst that can happen" to "best that can happen" is actually fairly narrow, all things told. Not trivial, but not of crushing significance either.
Thanks for the macro-economic update, but I would rather not take the risk, as my family rely totally on daily medications from the NHS.
I'm watching this from abroad (thankfully...it seems even more nuts than usual in the UK).
Is there any room for arguing that No Deal is going to be bad, but not truly terrible?
To take a slightly - but not madly - random number, let's assume it wipes 2% off GDP immediately and 1% for the next two years. That's bad, but hardly existential. (small compared to the financial crisis and we never held a referendum on that issue, even once).
My own view is that staying in or leaving the EU (on whatever basis in the case of the latter) is considerably less important overall than anyone cares to admit.
We have raised this issue to a status that it doesn't rationally deserve. My own preference from here would be to leave on WTO terms, but I don't think there is (rationally) anything like as much at stake on the spectrum (from reversing Brexit to deliberately "crashing out") as 99% of people seem to think.
The range of "worst that can happen" to "best that can happen" is actually fairly narrow, all things told. Not trivial, but not of crushing significance either.
Do you accept that whatever the effect on overall GDP statistics, for a meaningful number of people the effects will be of crushing significance to their lives?
I think Jezza should go to No 10 Just for the photo shot.
As for humouring no deal.
Not so much
Are the rumours true that Corbyn was upset at being eclipsed by Tom Watson?
I voted for both.
Blimey. Watson made Corbyn look a bit rubbish today.
He made a huge tactical mistake and he was bloody awful. She set him an elephant trap and he blindly wandered into it. His ineptitude isn't funny anymore.
"He has sat down with terrorists... but not the PM': Fury as Jeremy Corbyn refuses to have Brexit talks with Theresa May unless she rules out a no deal"
I think Jezza should go to No 10 Just for the photo shot.
As for humouring no deal.
Not so much
Are the rumours true that Corbyn was upset at being eclipsed by Tom Watson?
I voted for both.
Blimey. Watson made Corbyn look a bit rubbish today.
He made a huge tactical mistake and he was bloody awful. She set him an elephant trap and he blindly wandered into it. His ineptitude isn't funny anymore.
I'm watching this from abroad (thankfully...it seems even more nuts than usual in the UK).
Is there any room for arguing that No Deal is going to be bad, but not truly terrible?
To take a slightly - but not madly - random number, let's assume it wipes 2% off GDP immediately and 1% for the next two years. That's bad, but hardly existential. (small compared to the financial crisis and we never held a referendum on that issue, even once).
My own view is that staying in or leaving the EU (on whatever basis in the case of the latter) is considerably less important overall than anyone cares to admit.
We have raised this issue to a status that it doesn't rationally deserve. My own preference from here would be to leave on WTO terms, but I don't think there is (rationally) anything like as much at stake on the spectrum (from reversing Brexit to deliberately "crashing out") as 99% of people seem to think.
The range of "worst that can happen" to "best that can happen" is actually fairly narrow, all things told. Not trivial, but not of crushing significance either.
Do you accept that whatever the effect on overall GDP statistics, for a meaningful number of people the effects will be of crushing significance to their lives?
I think Jezza should go to No 10 Just for the photo shot.
As for humouring no deal.
Not so much
Are the rumours true that Corbyn was upset at being eclipsed by Tom Watson?
I voted for both.
Blimey. Watson made Corbyn look a bit rubbish today. The chosen one seems to think he can take off his glasses and shout his way into govt.
Of course I am not a Labour supporter but Watson looked like a real Statesman today. I won't sully that comment by making a disparaging comparison to any other Labour MP. Watson looked good in his own right. It was the statement of a proper Parliamentarian and a potential party leader.
I'm watching this from abroad (thankfully...it seems even more nuts than usual in the UK).
Is there any room for arguing that No Deal is going to be bad, but not truly terrible?
To take a slightly - but not madly - random number, let's assume it wipes 2% off GDP immediately and 1% for the next two years. That's bad, but hardly existential. (small compared to the financial crisis and we never held a referendum on that issue, even once).
My own view is that staying in or leaving the EU (on whatever basis in the case of the latter) is considerably less important overall than anyone cares to admit.
We have raised this issue to a status that it doesn't rationally deserve. My own preference from here would be to leave on WTO terms, but I don't think there is (rationally) anything like as much at stake on the spectrum (from reversing Brexit to deliberately "crashing out") as 99% of people seem to think.
The range of "worst that can happen" to "best that can happen" is actually fairly narrow, all things told. Not trivial, but not of crushing significance either.
Thanks for the macro-economic update, but I would rather not take the risk, as my family rely totally on daily medications from the NHS.
Sure, I get that. I can conceive that a minor slowdown in medicinal delivery could literally mean death for some number of people and loved ones. This, of course, would best be avoided.
But to listen to the debate, you'd think the entirety of civilisation was up for grabs. (from both sides)
We have escalated this issue too high. It would be like absolutely everyone being obsessed by the number of people killed in traffic accidents. It happens. It's tragic. It hits those who've suffered from it dreadfully. We should strive for fewer deaths. But it doesn't especially afflict the nation as a whole.
I'm watching this from abroad (thankfully...it seems even more nuts than usual in the UK).
Is there any room for arguing that No Deal is going to be bad, but not truly terrible?
To take a slightly - but not madly - random number, let's assume it wipes 2% off GDP immediately and 1% for the next two years. That's bad, but hardly existential. (small compared to the financial crisis and we never held a referendum on that issue, even once).
My own view is that staying in or leaving the EU (on whatever basis in the case of the latter) is considerably less important overall than anyone cares to admit.
We have raised this issue to a status that it doesn't rationally deserve. My own preference from here would be to leave on WTO terms, but I don't think there is (rationally) anything like as much at stake on the spectrum (from reversing Brexit to deliberately "crashing out") as 99% of people seem to think.
The range of "worst that can happen" to "best that can happen" is actually fairly narrow, all things told. Not trivial, but not of crushing significance either.
I don't think there is room for arguing that. The problem isn't trading under WTO terms as such, which as you imply would have a bad effect but not an existential one. It's adjusting to WTO terms with virtually zero notice and in chaos, given the fact that such a huge chunk of the economy is currently set up on the basis of frictionless trade with the EU. In other words, if we were talking about an orderly transition to WTO terms, we could live with it. But we're not, we're talking about a situation where in 11 weeks time some companies can't operate at all (because they wouldn't have the regulatory basis to do so), and many others would be thrown into complete confusion - for example, having to complete Customs Declarations with no expertise and with customs agents completely swamped with work, or just-in-time supply chains being disrupted.
I think Jezza should go to No 10 Just for the photo shot.
As for humouring no deal.
Not so much
Are the rumours true that Corbyn was upset at being eclipsed by Tom Watson?
I voted for both.
Blimey. Watson made Corbyn look a bit rubbish today.
He made a huge tactical mistake and he was bloody awful. She set him an elephant trap and he blindly wandered into it. His ineptitude isn't funny anymore.
He had no choice, he had to call a vote. His partisan core doesn’t work in these situations. There are time when you don’t bang on about Tories.
The next VONC after May climbs offf the fence is the one that actually matters. Let’s hope he can get that right. Look at Watson, do that.
Thanks to your recommendation I took a read. Half of it saying the people that do the stuff day and day out like the Road Haulage Association are wrong about their own processes. Half of it straw men. Paint a picture of lurid catastrophe. Not going to happen, so it's all going to be fine
I mentioned this yesterday but at the risk of boring PB'rs...
I work in an industry that post vote was constantly at the centre of remain claims of catastrophic failure in the event of no deal.
Nobody I came in to contact with professionally thought for a moment this was correct and we couldn't understand how there was such a misunderstanding of the fundamentals of how our business operates.
Now, i'm not saying that all assessments of no deal impacts are a mixture of fanciful imagination and opportunistic embellishment but in my particular experience this was most certainly the case.
That's the reason why I stop reading the Economist 25 years ago after they published an article about the industry I was working in. Once you see an article that is 95% wrong you end up questioning everything else they are saying...
Watching the BBC Wales News, Corbyn being solely blamed for the impasse by Alun Cairns, and the editorial stance is blaming him too.. I thought that the Conservative Party would be blamed for the fiasco that is Brexit. Somehow through utter incompetence Jeremy Corbyn has managed to pin the fiasco of No Deal onto himself and the Labour Party.
I cannot speak for him obviously but I would have thought the LDems could offer to support her deal provided it is sanctioned by a 2nd Ref. Why is that so hard for the government to accept?
.
Yes it would. But that's a lot of courage.
I predict May will seek an extension from the EU, try to get more concessions and fail, and put it to the vote again and fail. Parliament will then, through whatever means is necessary, seek to revoke A50 on the pretence that we need to figure out what we want, but really just because it means we will remain.
I think they will revoke A50 because we currently have the best deal on offer in membership of the EU. For all the talk about peoples votes and retracting article 50 I think the focus should be on the strength of the Deal or arrangements in place.
1/. Membership of the EU is the best option or best deal.
2/. The May Deal is less good than EU membership. No democratic input or representation on shaping the single market or accountability.
3/. No Deal, which poses a systemic risk to the economy.
The best deal is option one. The political class overcame MPs expenses, retracting article 50 on the grounds that the deal we have is optimal is a no brainer.
If that were so they'd never have triggered in the first place. Simply saying staying is best is not enough for them, clearly. Even now many who obviously will not accept anything but remain talk of delays rather than revocation for its own sake. And they want democratic cover for any switch, even though they have rubbished any alternatives but remain. So they need something to ease the transition to a remain stance. Hence, extension to start with. May and the leavers don't have enough votes for anything, so they have to go with that too as a hope that something comes up.
To be honest I think the Government have screwed this all up from the start. The MPs all voting for A50 in the way they did is a classic example of the political class embarking on a political decision for all the wrong reasons and being afraid of being exposed on the wrong side of the argument. Politicians were afraid the 52% would become a voting block in party political terms rather than a cross party issue and were afraid it would crush them if they did not agree to A50. Maybe your correct on the best path out of this mess, it may take a change of Government post Corbyn to cleanse the UK of this madness.
Do you accept that whatever the effect on overall GDP statistics, for a meaningful number of people the effects will be of crushing significance to their lives?
'Crushing significance'
Remainers do their cause an injustice with ever increasingly shrill claims.
If their predictions of catastrophe we to come close to being borne out we would be back in the EU in very short order...and back right in the middle of the project: Euro, Schengen...the lot.
That should be the perfect scenario for them; the public educated on how vital the EU is to their lives so there will be barely a murmur of resistance to rejoining.
And yet they seem utterly terrified!
They claim their fear is of the consequences of no deal, but in reality what they are terrified of, is the UK actually not failing but prospering and, of course, the corollary that the UK would never rejoin the EU.
The vast majority of remainers I come in to contact with both in real life and on here are intellectually dishonest; sometimes consciously, sometimes not.
I'm watching this from abroad (thankfully...it seems even more nuts than usual in the UK).
Is there any room for arguing that No Deal is going to be bad, but not truly terrible?
To take a slightly - but not madly - random number, let's assume it wipes 2% off GDP immediately and 1% for the next two years. That's bad, but hardly existential. (small compared to the financial crisis and we never held a referendum on that issue, even once).
My own view is that staying in or leaving the EU (on whatever basis in the case of the latter) is considerably less important overall than anyone cares to admit.
We have raised this issue to a status that it doesn't rationally deserve. My own preference from here would be to leave on WTO terms, but I don't think there is (rationally) anything like as much at stake on the spectrum (from reversing Brexit to deliberately "crashing out") as 99% of people seem to think.
The range of "worst that can happen" to "best that can happen" is actually fairly narrow, all things told. Not trivial, but not of crushing significance either.
Thanks for the macro-economic update, but I would rather not take the risk, as my family rely totally on daily medications from the NHS.
Sure, I get that. I can conceive that a minor slowdown in medicinal delivery could literally mean death for some number of people and loved ones. This, of course, would best be avoided.
But to listen to the debate, you'd think the entirety of civilisation was up for grabs. (from both sides)
We have escalated this issue too high. It would be like absolutely everyone being obsessed by the number of people killed in traffic accidents. It happens. It's tragic. It hits those who've suffered from it dreadfully. We should strive for fewer deaths. But it doesn't especially afflict the nation as a whole.
Everyone seems to be in panic mode. Everyone.
Except this is a motorway pileup that could be avoided and yet we choose to carry on barrelling down the slip road at 90mph.
Watching the BBC Wales News, Corbyn being solely blamed for the impasse by Alun Cairns, and the editorial stance is blaming him too.. I thought that the Conservative Party would be blamed for the fiasco that is Brexit. Somehow through utter incompetence Jeremy Corbyn has managed to pin the fiasco of No Deal onto himself and the Labour Party.
The daft thing is that Corbyn could easily come out of this well, since Labour's existing policy (permanent customs union) is a very likely solution that a cross-party group can move to.
I think Jezza should go to No 10 Just for the photo shot.
As for humouring no deal.
Not so much
Are the rumours true that Corbyn was upset at being eclipsed by Tom Watson?
I voted for both.
Blimey. Watson made Corbyn look a bit rubbish today. The chosen one seems to think he can take off his glasses and shout his way into govt.
Didn't see it but if you want to bash Jezza tonight that's up to you.
Me I am more surprised Woodcock abstained.
Jezza needs to up his game. Does he want to limit himself to ranty shouty impotence or actually achieve something? It’s a genuine question. He could become PM, but I am not sure he wants to.
If it’s the former he needs to get out of the way and let someone lead Labour to victory asap. If it’s the latter he needs to stop being quite so partisan, it pisses people off, people he needs to feel able to vote for him or abstain. Wake up Jezza.
Watching the BBC Wales News, Corbyn being solely blamed for the impasse by Alun Cairns, and the editorial stance is blaming him too.. I thought that the Conservative Party would be blamed for the fiasco that is Brexit. Somehow through utter incompetence Jeremy Corbyn has managed to pin the fiasco of No Deal onto himself and the Labour Party.
Yeah right the bloke saying he wants to rule out no deal is definitely responsible for the fiasco of no deal. The woman who won't rule out the fiasco of no deal is definitely in no way responsible for the fiasco of no deal.
I'm watching this from abroad (thankfully...it seems even more nuts than usual in the UK).
Is there any room for arguing that No Deal is going to be bad, but not truly terrible?
To take a slightly - but not madly - random number, let's assume it wipes 2% off GDP immediately and 1% for the next two years. That's bad, but hardly existential. (small compared to the financial crisis and we never held a referendum on that issue, even once).
My own view is that staying in or leaving the EU (on whatever basis in the case of the latter) is considerably less important overall than anyone cares to admit.
We have raised this issue to a status that it doesn't rationally deserve. My own preference from here would be to leave on WTO terms, but I don't think there is (rationally) anything like as much at stake on the spectrum (from reversing Brexit to deliberately "crashing out") as 99% of people seem to think.
The range of "worst that can happen" to "best that can happen" is actually fairly narrow, all things told. Not trivial, but not of crushing significance either.
I don't think there is room for arguing that. The problem isn't trading under WTO terms as such, which as you imply would have a bad effect but not an existential one. It's adjusting to WTO terms with virtually zero notice and in chaos, given the fact that such a huge chunk of the economy is currently set up on the basis of frictionless trade with the EU. In other words, if we were talking about an orderly transition to WTO terms, we could live with it. But we're not, we're talking about a situation where in 11 weeks time some companies can't operate at all (because they wouldn't have the regulatory basis to do so), and many others would be thrown into complete confusion - for example, having to complete Customs Declarations with no expertise and with customs agents completely swamped with work, or just-in-time supply chains being disrupted.
I agree that running down the clock without any rate of return has been pathetic, basically.
Politicians tend to behave like this. The eleventh hour is an early trigger to start doing stuff, rather than the time at which things get genuinely urgent. Difficult decisions are always postponed (witness the "meaningful vote"...a one month delay for no obvious objective reason at all).
I just wonder how reality would operate if we do "crash out". I think the regulatory arrangements might be less unconquerable than some folk fear.
My guess would be that we could swiftly solve the "regulatory basis" issues. It requires an iron will and a fairly sanguine attitude though. Both of which seem lacking anywhere in politics at the moment.
I'm watching this from abroad (thankfully...it seems even more nuts than usual in the UK).
Is there any room for arguing that No Deal is going to be bad, but not truly terrible?
To take a slightly - but not madly - random number, let's assume it wipes 2% off GDP immediately and 1% for the next two years. That's bad, but hardly existential. (small compared to the financial crisis and we never held a referendum on that issue, even once).
My own view is that staying in or leaving the EU (on whatever basis in the case of the latter) is considerably less important overall than anyone cares to admit.
We have raised this issue to a status that it doesn't rationally deserve. My own preference from here would be to leave on WTO terms, but I don't think there is (rationally) anything like as much at stake on the spectrum (from reversing Brexit to deliberately "crashing out") as 99% of people seem to think.
The range of "worst that can happen" to "best that can happen" is actually fairly narrow, all things told. Not trivial, but not of crushing significance either.
I don't think there is room for arguing that. The problem isn't trading under WTO terms as such, which as you imply would have a bad effect but not an existential one. It's adjusting to WTO terms with virtually zero notice and in chaos, given the fact that such a huge chunk of the economy is currently set up on the basis of frictionless trade with the EU. In other words, if we were talking about an orderly transition to WTO terms, we could live with it. But we're not, we're talking about a situation where in 11 weeks time some companies can't operate at all (because they wouldn't have the regulatory basis to do so), and many others would be thrown into complete confusion - for example, having to complete Customs Declarations with no expertise and with customs agents completely swamped with work, or just-in-time supply chains being disrupted.
+1 I agree with your analysis of the problem with WTO terms.
Watching the BBC Wales News, Corbyn being solely blamed for the impasse by Alun Cairns, and the editorial stance is blaming him too.. I thought that the Conservative Party would be blamed for the fiasco that is Brexit. Somehow through utter incompetence Jeremy Corbyn has managed to pin the fiasco of No Deal onto himself and the Labour Party.
Yeah right the bloke saying he wants to rule out no deal is definitely responsible for the fiasco of no deal. The woman who won't rule out the fiasco of no deal is definitely in no way responsible for the fiasco of no deal.
FFS get a grip.
The bloke saying he wants to rule out no deal is the bloke who yesterday led his party into voting in a way which make no deal possible, perhaps even very likely.
I'm watching this from abroad (thankfully...it seems even more nuts than usual in the UK).
Is there any room for arguing that No Deal is going to be bad, but not truly terrible?
To take a slightly - but not madly - random number, let's assume it wipes 2% off GDP immediately and 1% for the next two years. That's bad, but hardly existential. (small compared to the financial crisis and we never held a referendum on that issue, even once).
My own view is that staying in or leaving the EU (on whatever basis in the case of the latter) is considerably less important overall than anyone cares to admit.
We have raised this issue to a status that it doesn't rationally deserve. My own preference from here would be to leave on WTO terms, but I don't think there is (rationally) anything like as much at stake on the spectrum (from reversing Brexit to deliberately "crashing out") as 99% of people seem to think.
The range of "worst that can happen" to "best that can happen" is actually fairly narrow, all things told. Not trivial, but not of crushing significance either.
I don't think there is room for arguing that. The problem isn't trading under WTO terms as such, which as you imply would have a bad effect but not an existential one. It's adjusting to WTO terms with virtually zero notice and in chaos, given the fact that such a huge chunk of the economy is currently set up on the basis of frictionless trade with the EU. In other words, if we were talking about an orderly transition to WTO terms, we could live with it. But we're not, we're talking about a situation where in 11 weeks time some companies can't operate at all (because they wouldn't have the regulatory basis to do so), and many others would be thrown into complete confusion - for example, having to complete Customs Declarations with no expertise and with customs agents completely swamped with work, or just-in-time supply chains being disrupted.
If you think businesses that trade directly with the EU, over the last two years have not spent the time to understand what they need to do to continue trading with the EU or how to change suppliers, then I think you are wrong. They know. How to trade with the EU as a third party is clearly defined and has been for the last 40 years. Your whole argument is UK business is dumb and sits their with its fingers in it's ears saying "do, do, dah, dah."
Watching the BBC Wales News, Corbyn being solely blamed for the impasse by Alun Cairns, and the editorial stance is blaming him too.. I thought that the Conservative Party would be blamed for the fiasco that is Brexit. Somehow through utter incompetence Jeremy Corbyn has managed to pin the fiasco of No Deal onto himself and the Labour Party.
Yeah right the bloke saying he wants to rule out no deal is definitely responsible for the fiasco of no deal. The woman who won't rule out the fiasco of no deal is definitely in no way responsible for the fiasco of no deal.
FFS get a grip.
The bloke saying he wants to rule out no deal is the bloke who yesterday led his party into voting in a way which make no deal possible, perhaps even very likely.
Well, he can't exactly come out and state that Labour's Brexit policy is to ensure we crash out without a deal with May's hands duct taped to the steering wheel.
At least we have clarity now; Corbyn is perfectly relaxed about no deal just as long as May gets the blame.
I think Jezza should go to No 10 Just for the photo shot.
As for humouring no deal.
Not so much
Are the rumours true that Corbyn was upset at being eclipsed by Tom Watson?
I voted for both.
Blimey. Watson made Corbyn look a bit rubbish today. The chosen one seems to think he can take off his glasses and shout his way into govt.
Didn't see it but if you want to bash Jezza tonight that's up to you.
Me I am more surprised Woodcock abstained.
Jezza needs to up his game. Does he want to limit himself to ranty shouty impotence or actually achieve something? It’s a genuine question. He could become PM, but I am not sure he wants to.
If it’s the former he needs to get out of the way and let someone lead Labour to victory asap. If it’s the latter he needs to stop being quite so partisan, it pisses people off, people he needs to feel able to vote for him or abstain. Wake up Jezza.
I think Jezza should go to No 10 Just for the photo shot.
As for humouring no deal.
Not so much
Are the rumours true that Corbyn was upset at being eclipsed by Tom Watson?
I voted for both.
Blimey. Watson made Corbyn look a bit rubbish today. The chosen one seems to think he can take off his glasses and shout his way into govt.
Didn't see it but if you want to bash Jezza tonight that's up to you.
Me I am more surprised Woodcock abstained.
Jezza needs to up his game. Does he want to limit himself to ranty shouty impotence or actually achieve something? It’s a genuine question. He could become PM, but I am not sure he wants to.
If it’s the former he needs to get out of the way and let someone lead Labour to victory asap. If it’s the latter he needs to stop being quite so partisan, it pisses people off, people he needs to feel able to vote for him or abstain. Wake up Jezza.
Yes we need David Milliband or Liz Kendall really
It's such a pity.
Nah, we need the old fella to step up or step aside.
If their predictions of catastrophe we to come close to being borne out we would be back in the EU in very short order...and back right in the middle of the project: Euro, Schengen...the lot.
That should be the perfect scenario for them; the public educated on how vital the EU is to their lives so there will be barely a murmur of resistance to rejoining.
This is true, but not everyone is a bad ideologue willing to see other people suffer to advance their political cause.
I'm watching this from abroad (thankfully...it seems even more nuts than usual in the UK).
Is there any room for arguing that No Deal is going to be bad, but not truly terrible?
To take a slightly - but not madly - random number, let's assume it wipes 2% off GDP immediately and 1% for the next two years. That's bad, but hardly existential. (small compared to the financial crisis and we never held a referendum on that issue, even once).
My own view is that staying in or leaving the EU (on whatever basis in the case of the latter) is considerably less important overall than anyone cares to admit.
We have raised this issue to a status that it doesn't rationally deserve. My own preference from here would be to leave on WTO terms, but I don't think there is (rationally) anything like as much at stake on the spectrum (from reversing Brexit to deliberately "crashing out") as 99% of people seem to think.
The range of "worst that can happen" to "best that can happen" is actually fairly narrow, all things told. Not trivial, but not of crushing significance either.
Thanks for the macro-economic update, but I would rather not take the risk, as my family rely totally on daily medications from the NHS.
Sure, I get that. I can conceive that a minor slowdown in medicinal delivery could literally mean death for some number of people and loved ones. This, of course, would best be avoided.
But to listen to the debate, you'd think the entirety of civilisation was up for grabs. (from both sides)
We have escalated this issue too high. It would be like absolutely everyone being obsessed by the number of people killed in traffic accidents. It happens. It's tragic. It hits those who've suffered from it dreadfully. We should strive for fewer deaths. But it doesn't especially afflict the nation as a whole.
Everyone seems to be in panic mode. Everyone.
Except this is a motorway pileup that could be avoided and yet we choose to carry on barrelling down the slip road at 90mph.
So many metaphors. I'd say we are actually just ambling down the slip road. It's all a bit pathetic rather than genuinely scary, IMHO.
I do wonder if our fear of things going wrong, short term, is clouding everything.
I expect the UK to be pretty similar - all round - irrespective of how Brexit is resolved. There is a meaningful few % either way. But this isn't on the huge, earthquake historical level that some believe.
We are going to be half-in, half-out or fully out (I rule out "fully in" for at least 30 years). Actually, a huge number of issues we face (pensions time bomb, social care, productivity crisis etc) are almost wholly untouched by whatever the outcome is.
I think Jezza should go to No 10 Just for the photo shot.
As for humouring no deal.
Not so much
Are the rumours true that Corbyn was upset at being eclipsed by Tom Watson?
I voted for both.
Blimey. Watson made Corbyn look a bit rubbish today.
He made a huge tactical mistake and he was bloody awful. She set him an elephant trap and he blindly wandered into it. His ineptitude isn't funny anymore.
Corbyn's incompetence was never that funny...
Hi tyson. I'd get to Florence on the next flight. I'm in Nice and it looks much so much more distant from here.
If you think businesses that trade directly with the EU, over the last two years have not spent the time to understand what they need to do to continue trading with the EU or how to change suppliers, then I think you are wrong. They know. How to trade with the EU as a third party is clearly defined and has been for the last 40 years. Your whole argument is UK business is dumb and sits their with its finders in it's ears saying "do, do, dah, dah."
Have you ever run a small business? I have over thirty years' experience of it, and for the first ten years or so we were exporting a lot of stuff to Europe, before the Single Market was in full operation. I can tell you it was an absolute minefield; you had to set up guarantees with the bank to cover potential customs charges, the forms were impossible to understand, get one thing wrong and the consignment gets held up for weeks, etc etc.
The idea that all affected UK businesses, as well as doing their day jobs, have been able to prepare adequately for this - even on the assumption that they believed No Deal was possible, which no-one did until a few weeks ago - is, to put it mildly, optimistic. Are there even enough customs agents in existence to handle it all nowadays?
Well, he can't exactly come out and state that Labour's Brexit policy is to ensure we crash out without a deal with May's hands duct taped to the steering wheel.
At least we have clarity now; Corbyn is perfectly relaxed about no deal just as long as May gets the blame.
I'm watching this from abroad (thankfully...it seems even more nuts than usual in the UK).
Is there any room for arguing that No Deal is going to be bad, but not truly terrible? people seem to think.
The range of "worst that can happen" to "best that can happen" is actually fairly narrow, all things told. Not trivial, but not of crushing significance either.
I don't think there is room for arguing that. The problem isn't trading under WTO terms as such, which as you imply would have a bad effect but not an existential one. It's adjusting to WTO terms with virtually zero notice and in chaos, given the fact that such a huge chunk of the economy is currently set up on the basis of frictionless trade with the EU. In other words, if we were talking about an orderly transition to WTO terms, we could live with it. But we're not, we're talking about a situation where in 11 weeks time some companies can't operate at all (because they wouldn't have the regulatory basis to do so), and many others would be thrown into complete confusion - for example, having to complete Customs Declarations with no expertise and with customs agents completely swamped with work, or just-in-time supply chains being disrupted.
I agree that running down the clock without any rate of return has been pathetic, basically.
Politicians tend to behave like this. The eleventh hour is an early trigger to start doing stuff, rather than the time at which things get genuinely urgent. Difficult decisions are always postponed (witness the "meaningful vote"...a one month delay for no obvious objective reason at all).
I just wonder how reality would operate if we do "crash out". I think the regulatory arrangements might be less unconquerable than some folk fear.
My guess would be that we could swiftly solve the "regulatory basis" issues. It requires an iron will and a fairly sanguine attitude though. Both of which seem lacking anywhere in politics at the moment.
The regulatiry issues are only onerous for the highly regulated industries, basically drugs, med equipment and food and maybe financial services. Even these are well known and the companies face different regulatory environments all over the world. They also may have plants in non EU countries now where they export goods into the EU so know all of the issues. For the rest of industry the EU is very clear how a third country trades with them and it is all in a legal framework. Most non highly regulatory areas work by self regulation in the EU model.
Thanks to your recommendation I took a read. Half of it saying the people that do the stuff day and day out like the Road Haulage Association are wrong about their own processes. Half of it straw men. Paint a picture of lurid catastrophe. Not going to happen, so it's all going to be fine
I mentioned this yesterday but at the risk of boring PB'rs...
I work in an industry that post vote was constantly at the centre of remain claims of catastrophic failure in the event of no deal.
Nobody I came in to contact with professionally thought for a moment this was correct and we couldn't understand how there was such a misunderstanding of the fundamentals of how our business operates.
Now, i'm not saying that all assessments of no deal impacts are a mixture of fanciful imagination and opportunistic embellishment but in my particular experience this was most certainly the case.
That's the reason why I stop reading the Economist 25 years ago after they published an article about the industry I was working in. Once you see an article that is 95% wrong you end up questioning everything else they are saying...
I log in here sometimes and have people opining seriously about the woes of leaving without May's deal and the effects on my industry.
What is clear is that some of those people have absolutely no idea of the facts but just want to spread some fear.
If you think businesses that trade directly with the EU, over the last two years have not spent the time to understand what they need to do to continue trading with the EU or how to change suppliers, then I think you are wrong. They know. How to trade with the EU as a third party is clearly defined and has been for the last 40 years. Your whole argument is UK business is dumb and sits their with its finders in it's ears saying "do, do, dah, dah."
Have you ever run a small business? I have over thirty years' experience of it, and for the first ten years or so we were exporting a lot of stuff to Europe, before the Single Market was in full operation. I can tell you it was an absolute minefield; you had to set up guarantees with the bank to cover potential customs charges, the forms were impossible to understand, get one thing wrong and the consignment gets held up for weeks, etc etc.
The idea that all affected UK businesses, as well as doing their day jobs, have been able to prepare adequately for this - even on the assumption that they believed No Deal was possible, which no-one did until a few weeks ago - is, to put it mildly, optimistic. Are there even enough customs agents in existence to handle it all nowadays?
I think that's fair. Major disruption is not usually embraced by businesses - either large or small.
But it might be that we approach (or are forced to approach) the problem in a different way.
It's not obvious to me - either short or long term - that the absence of customs agents to "handle it all" is the root problem. Perhaps - at least unilaterally - we will have to take a more liberalised approach to customs, for example.
I think Jezza should go to No 10 Just for the photo shot.
As for humouring no deal.
Not so much
Are the rumours true that Corbyn was upset at being eclipsed by Tom Watson?
I voted for both.
Blimey. Watson made Corbyn look a bit rubbish today. The chosen one seems to think he can take off his glasses and shout his way into govt.
Didn't see it but if you want to bash Jezza tonight that's up to you.
Me I am more surprised Woodcock abstained.
Jezza needs to up his game. Does he want to limit himself to ranty shouty impotence or actually achieve something? It’s a genuine question. He could become PM, but I am not sure he wants to.
If it’s the former he needs to get out of the way and let someone lead Labour to victory asap. If it’s the latter he needs to stop being quite so partisan, it pisses people off, people he needs to feel able to vote for him or abstain. Wake up Jezza.
Yes we need David Milliband or Liz Kendall really
It's such a pity.
Nah, we need the old fella to step up or step aside.
You are entitled to your opinion Comrade.
I am happy with the bloke who delivered the biggest increase in Lab. vote since WW2 in 2017 despite the rather unhelpful interventions from some in the party.
We have a great chance of being the next Government IMO if we remain united.
I'm watching this from abroad (thankfully...it seems even more nuts than usual in the UK).
Is there any room for arguing that No Deal is going to be bad, but not truly terrible?
To take a slightly - but not madly - random number, let's assume it wipes 2% off GDP immediately and 1% for the next two years. That's bad, but hardly existential. (small compared to the financial crisis and we never held a referendum on that issue, even once).
My own view is that staying in or leaving the EU (on whatever basis in the case of the latter) is considerably less important overall than anyone cares to admit.
We have raised this issue to a status that it doesn't rationally deserve. My own preference from here would be to leave on WTO terms, but I don't think there is (rationally) anything like as much at stake on the spectrum (from reversing Brexit to deliberately "crashing out") as 99% of people seem to think.
The range of "worst that can happen" to "best that can happen" is actually fairly narrow, all things told. Not trivial, but not of crushing significance either.
Thanks for the macro-economic update, but I would rather not take the risk, as my family rely totally on daily medications from the NHS.
Sure, I get that. I can conceive that a minor slowdown in medicinal delivery could literally mean death for some number of people and loved ones. This, of course, would best be avoided.
But to listen to the debate, you'd think the entirety of civilisation was up for grabs. (from both sides)
We have escalated this issue too high. It would be like absolutely everyone being obsessed by the number of people killed in traffic accidents. It happens. It's tragic. It hits those who've suffered from it dreadfully. We should strive for fewer deaths. But it doesn't especially afflict the nation as a whole.
"He has sat down with terrorists... but not the PM': Fury as Jeremy Corbyn refuses to have Brexit talks with Theresa May unless she rules out a no deal"
Daily Mail
As someone said earlier - he only sits down with his friends.
If you think businesses that trade directly with the EU, over the last two years have not spent the time to understand what they need to do to continue trading with the EU or how to change suppliers, then I think you are wrong. They know. How to trade with the EU as a third party is clearly defined and has been for the last 40 years. Your whole argument is UK business is dumb and sits their with its finders in it's ears saying "do, do, dah, dah."
Have you ever run a small business? I have over thirty years' experience of it, and for the first ten years or so we were exporting a lot of stuff to Europe, before the Single Market was in full operation. I can tell you it was an absolute minefield; you had to set up guarantees with the bank to cover potential customs charges, the forms were impossible to understand, get one thing wrong and the consignment gets held up for weeks, etc etc.
The idea that all affected UK businesses, as well as doing their day jobs, have been able to prepare adequately for this - even on the assumption that they believed No Deal was possible, which no-one did until a few weeks ago - is, to put it mildly, optimistic. Are there even enough customs agents in existence to handle it all nowadays?
Why do you believe that protectionist polices that were in place thirty years ago are still in operation today? The EU has made major strides over the last thirty years in removing barriers to trade and simplying customs for third party countries.
My family is steeped in manufacturing and my brother is currently a joint owner of a manufacturing business where 80% is exported all round the world, He is the person legally repsonosible for making sure their EU products are compliant and getting it wrong means he would face a 5 year jail term. He can bore the pants of you with regs and stuff and how they all come back to global standards around the world.
He knows exactly what he needs to do in case of no deal. Set up Irish brass plate company. Lodge EU regulatory compliance docs their. Take order EU customer to Irish Sub. Fulfill direct from UK factory to customer. Customs software does all the paperwork. No problems.
I think Jezza should go to No 10 Just for the photo shot.
As for humouring no deal.
Not so much
Are the rumours true that Corbyn was upset at being eclipsed by Tom Watson?
I voted for both.
Blimey. Watson made Corbyn look a bit rubbish today. The chosen one seems to think he can take off his glasses and shout his way into govt.
Didn't see it but if you want to bash Jezza tonight that's up to you.
Me I am more surprised Woodcock abstained.
Jezza needs to up his game. Does he want to limit himself to ranty shouty impotence or actually achieve something? It’s a genuine question. He could become PM, but I am not sure he wants to.
If it’s the former he needs to get out of the way and let someone lead Labour to victory asap. If it’s the latter he needs to stop being quite so partisan, it pisses people off, people he needs to feel able to vote for him or abstain. Wake up Jezza.
Yes we need David Milliband or Liz Kendall really
It's such a pity.
Nah, we need the old fella to step up or step aside.
You are entitled to your opinion Comrade.
I am happy with the bloke who delivered the biggest increase in Lab. vote since WW2 in 2017 despite the rather unhelpful interventions from some in the party.
We have a great chance of being the next Government IMO if we remain united.
I am happy with someone who wins, not someone who come second whether that be general elections or confidence votes. Step up old fella. This is too serious.
I think that's fair. Major disruption is not usually embraced by businesses - either large or small.
But it might be that we approach (or are forced to approach) the problem in a different way.
It's not obvious to me - either short or long term - that the absence of customs agents to "handle it all" is the root problem. Perhaps - at least unilaterally - we will have to take a more liberalised approach to customs, for example.
We can take a more liberalised approach at our end, subject to not falling foul of the WTO rules for not favouring one nation over others. The problem is more at the EU end - it's UK exporters, not importers, who are at greatest risk on that score. Similarly, we can accept EU accreditations and regulations for services we want to buy from them, but that doesn't guarantee that in 11 weeks time we can continue to sell regulated services to them if there's no deal.
I'm watching this from abroad (thankfully...it seems even more nuts than usual in the UK).
Is there any room for arguing that No Deal is going to be bad, but not truly terrible?
To take a slightly - but not madly - random number, let's assume it wipes 2% off GDP immediately and 1% for the next two years. That's bad, but hardly existential. (small compared to the financial crisis and we never held a referendum on that issue, even once).
My own view is that staying in or leaving the EU (on whatever basis in the case of the latter) is considerably less important overall than anyone cares to admit.
We have raised this issue to a status that it doesn't rationally deserve. My own preference from here would be to leave on WTO terms, but I don't think there is (rationally) anything like as much at stake on the spectrum (from reversing Brexit to deliberately "crashing out") as 99% of people seem to think.
The range of "worst that can happen" to "best that can happen" is actually fairly narrow, all things told. Not trivial, but not of crushing significance either.
Thanks for the macro-economic update, but I would rather not take the risk, as my family rely totally on daily medications from the NHS.
Sure, I get that. I can conceive that a minor slowdown in medicinal delivery could literally mean death for some number of people and loved ones. This, of course, would best be avoided.
But to listen to the debate, you'd think the entirety of civilisation was up for grabs. (from both sides)
snip
Everyone seems to be in panic mode. Everyone.
Except this is a motorway pileup that could be avoided and yet we choose to carry on barrelling down the slip road at 90mph.
So many metaphors. I'd say we are actually just ambling down the slip road. It's all a bit pathetic rather than genuinely scary, IMHO.
I do wonder if our fear of things going wrong, short term, is clouding everything.
I expect the UK to be pretty similar - all round - irrespective of how Brexit is resolved. There is a meaningful few % either way. But this isn't on the huge, earthquake historical level that some believe.
We are going to be half-in, half-out or fully out (I rule out "fully in" for at least 30 years). Actually, a huge number of issues we face (pensions time bomb, social care, productivity crisis etc) are almost wholly untouched by whatever the outcome is.
Well, we can agree on last paragraph.
Personally, I think the whole Brexit referendum, result, debate on how to implement etc etc has been one monumental exercise in displacement activity from the real issues facing the UK.
Well, he can't exactly come out and state that Labour's Brexit policy is to ensure we crash out without a deal with May's hands duct taped to the steering wheel.
At least we have clarity now; Corbyn is perfectly relaxed about no deal just as long as May gets the blame.
Yes, well we knew that already.
Yeah the PM who won't rule out no deal definitely not responsible whereas the bloke asking her to is.
Why do you believe that protectionist polices that were in place thirty years ago are still in operation today? The EU has made major strides over the last thirty years in removing barriers to trade and simplying customs for third party countries.
My family is steeped in manufacturing and my brother is currently a joint owner of a manufacturing business where 80% is exported all round the world, He is the person legally repsonosible for making sure their EU products are compliant and getting it wrong means he would face a 5 year jail term. He can bore the pants of you with regs and stuff and how they all come back to global standards around the world.
He knows exactly what he needs to do in case of no deal. Set up Irish brass plate company. Lodge EU regulatory compliance docs their. Take order EU customer to Irish Sub. Fulfill direct from UK factory to customer. Customs software does all the paperwork. No problems.
Good for him. He knows what to do. 'Set up Irish brass plate company'. I think you've made my point for me.
I think Jezza should go to No 10 Just for the photo shot.
As for humouring no deal.
Not so much
Are the rumours true that Corbyn was upset at being eclipsed by Tom Watson?
I voted for both.
Blimey. Watson made Corbyn look a bit rubbish today. The chosen one seems to think he can take off his glasses and shout his way into govt.
Didn't see it but if you want to bash Jezza tonight that's up to you.
Me I am more surprised Woodcock abstained.
Jezza needs to up his game. Does he want to limit himself to ranty shouty impotence or actually achieve something? It’s a genuine question. He could become PM, but I am not sure he wants to.
If it’s the former he needs to get out of the way and let someone lead Labour to victory asap. If it’s the latter he needs to stop being quite so partisan, it pisses people off, people he needs to feel able to vote for him or abstain. Wake up Jezza.
Well you can please PB Tories with almost any old bollox tbf
Give the Tories a break. They've been stuck with The Glums (May and Hammond) since June 2016 - And tonight they've had a sniff of what life could be like with a leadership that has a bit of passion and oratory about them...
I think Jezza should go to No 10 Just for the photo shot.
As for humouring no deal.
Not so much
Are the rumours true that Corbyn was upset at being eclipsed by Tom Watson?
I voted for both.
Blimey. Watson made Corbyn look a bit rubbish today. The chosen one seems to think he can take off his glasses and shout his way into govt.
Didn't see it but if you want to bash Jezza tonight that's up to you.
Me I am more surprised Woodcock abstained.
Jezza needs to up his game. Does he want to limit himself to ranty shouty impotence or actually achieve something? It’s a genuine question. He could become PM, but I am not sure he wants to.
If it’s the former he needs to get out of the way and let someone lead Labour to victory asap. If it’s the latter he needs to stop being quite so partisan, it pisses people off, people he needs to feel able to vote for him or abstain. Wake up Jezza.
Yes we need David Milliband or Liz Kendall really
It's such a pity.
Nah, we need the old fella to step up or step aside.
You are entitled to your opinion Comrade.
I am happy with the bloke who delivered the biggest increase in Lab. vote since WW2 in 2017 despite the rather unhelpful interventions from some in the party.
We have a great chance of being the next Government IMO if we remain united.
I am happy with someone who wins, not someone who come second whether that be general elections or confidence votes. Step up old fella. This is too serious.
You think a better speech by Corbyn might have won the VONC. Who do you think might have changed their vote?
Well you can please PB Tories with almost any old bollox tbf
Give the Tories a break. They've been stuck with The Glums (May and Hammond) since Just 2016 - And tonight they've had a sniff of what life could be like with a leadership that has a bit of passion and oratory about them...
They've not been stuck with them. They chose them.
Well you can please PB Tories with almost any old bollox tbf
Give the Tories a break. They've been stuck with The Glums (May and Hammond) since Just 2016 - And tonight they've had a sniff of what life could be like with a leadership that has a bit of passion and oratory about them...
Same is true of Labour, of course. Tom Watson is nothing special - hardly a Blair or Robin Cook - but boy did he show up Jezza.
Comments
Who would campaign for it?
Previous leave voters would in all likelihood boycott in their millions leaving a turnout well down on 2016 and a remain win with no legitimacy.
It would be much better for the remainer majority in parliament to have the courage of their convictions and either go directly to revoke or, alternatively, provide a 3-way referendum under AV with: Revoke, Deal, No Deal.
The recommendation came from the very same poster whose powers of analysis lead him to believe that Jo Cox was murdered in a false flag operation.
Do your own research, etc.
I predict May will seek an extension from the EU, try to get more concessions and fail, and put it to the vote again and fail. Parliament will then, through whatever means is necessary, seek to revoke A50 on the pretence that we need to figure out what we want, but really just because it means we will remain.
https://twitter.com/jeremycliffe/status/1085537035388178432?s=21
Absolute legend.
No Deal Brexit is very similar. The more lurid claims are nonsense - no-one's going to die because of shortage of medicines, for example - but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be an economic catastrophe.
Lucy Powell/Stephen Kinnock might be the backbenchers to head over to for a supersoft political declaration Brexit.
As for humouring no deal.
Not so much
1/. Membership of the EU is the best option or best deal.
2/. The May Deal is less good than EU membership. No democratic input or representation on shaping the single market or accountability. No customers Union which will cause problems to the manufacturer sector.
3/. No Deal, which poses a systemic risk to the economy.
The best deal is option one. The political class overcame MPs expenses, retracting article 50 on the grounds that the deal we have is optimal is a no brainer.
The Deal is a fallback position if they're too frightened to set aside the referendum result altogether, but anything other than No Deal - which Parliament must not allow if it thinks it a disaster - will disappoint a lot of Leave voters. I don't see how it's very much worse, from that point of view, as revocation.
A second referendum (which could only realistically be Deal/Remain,) on the other hand, would be worse - firstly because MPs should be made to clear up the mess that they've created rather than palming off the decision on the voters; secondly, and more crucially, because it would be a festival of national bloodletting that would still do nothing to placate the aforementioned angry Leave voters in any event.
Hopefully stopping the Brexit process and then providing ourselves with a new Parliament will provide both clarity and resolution. If voters install a majority for Brexit then it can reinvoke A50 when ready - hopefully after learning from previous mistakes and agreeing on an approach that can command support in the HoC and preparing for it properly. If not, we move on.
I work in an industry that post vote was constantly at the centre of remain claims of catastrophic failure in the event of no deal.
Nobody I came in to contact with professionally thought for a moment this was correct and we couldn't understand how there was such a misunderstanding of the fundamentals of how our business operates.
Now, i'm not saying that all assessments of no deal impacts are a mixture of fanciful imagination and opportunistic embellishment but in my particular experience this was most certainly the case.
Is there any room for arguing that No Deal is going to be bad, but not truly terrible?
To take a slightly - but not madly - random number, let's assume it wipes 2% off GDP immediately and 1% for the next two years. That's bad, but hardly existential. (small compared to the financial crisis and we never held a referendum on that issue, even once).
My own view is that staying in or leaving the EU (on whatever basis in the case of the latter) is considerably less important overall than anyone cares to admit.
We have raised this issue to a status that it doesn't rationally deserve. My own preference from here would be to leave on WTO terms, but I don't think there is (rationally) anything like as much at stake on the spectrum (from reversing Brexit to deliberately "crashing out") as 99% of people seem to think.
The range of "worst that can happen" to "best that can happen" is actually fairly narrow, all things told. Not trivial, but not of crushing significance either.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/social-affairs/politics/news/68437/boris-johnson-vote-leave-get-better-eu-deal-britain
Daily Mail
But to listen to the debate, you'd think the entirety of civilisation was up for grabs. (from both sides)
We have escalated this issue too high. It would be like absolutely everyone being obsessed by the number of people killed in traffic accidents. It happens. It's tragic. It hits those who've suffered from it dreadfully. We should strive for fewer deaths. But it doesn't especially afflict the nation as a whole.
Everyone seems to be in panic mode. Everyone.
The next VONC after May climbs offf the fence is the one that actually matters. Let’s hope he can get that right. Look at Watson, do that.
Me I am more surprised Woodcock abstained.
Remainers do their cause an injustice with ever increasingly shrill claims.
If their predictions of catastrophe we to come close to being borne out we would be back in the EU in very short order...and back right in the middle of the project: Euro, Schengen...the lot.
That should be the perfect scenario for them; the public educated on how vital the EU is to their lives so there will be barely a murmur of resistance to rejoining.
And yet they seem utterly terrified!
They claim their fear is of the consequences of no deal, but in reality what they are terrified of, is the UK actually not failing but prospering and, of course, the corollary that the UK would never rejoin the EU.
The vast majority of remainers I come in to contact with both in real life and on here are intellectually dishonest; sometimes consciously, sometimes not.
The daft thing is that Corbyn could easily come out of this well, since Labour's existing policy (permanent customs union) is a very likely solution that a cross-party group can move to.
If it’s the former he needs to get out of the way and let someone lead Labour to victory asap. If it’s the latter he needs to stop being quite so partisan, it pisses people off, people he needs to feel able to vote for him or abstain. Wake up Jezza.
FFS get a grip.
Politicians tend to behave like this. The eleventh hour is an early trigger to start doing stuff, rather than the time at which things get genuinely urgent. Difficult decisions are always postponed (witness the "meaningful vote"...a one month delay for no obvious objective reason at all).
I just wonder how reality would operate if we do "crash out". I think the regulatory arrangements might be less unconquerable than some folk fear.
My guess would be that we could swiftly solve the "regulatory basis" issues. It requires an iron will and a fairly sanguine attitude though. Both of which seem lacking anywhere in politics at the moment.
They know. How to trade with the EU as a third party is clearly defined and has been for the last 40 years.
Your whole argument is UK business is dumb and sits their with its fingers in it's ears saying "do, do, dah, dah."
At least we have clarity now; Corbyn is perfectly relaxed about no deal just as long as May gets the blame.
Gives good northern lass.
Just owned the utterly ridiculous Liz Truss.
It's such a pity.
I do wonder if our fear of things going wrong, short term, is clouding everything.
I expect the UK to be pretty similar - all round - irrespective of how Brexit is resolved. There is a meaningful few % either way. But this isn't on the huge, earthquake historical level that some believe.
We are going to be half-in, half-out or fully out (I rule out "fully in" for at least 30 years). Actually, a huge number of issues we face (pensions time bomb, social care, productivity crisis etc) are almost wholly untouched by whatever the outcome is.
The idea that all affected UK businesses, as well as doing their day jobs, have been able to prepare adequately for this - even on the assumption that they believed No Deal was possible, which no-one did until a few weeks ago - is, to put it mildly, optimistic. Are there even enough customs agents in existence to handle it all nowadays?
For the rest of industry the EU is very clear how a third country trades with them and it is all in a legal framework. Most non highly regulatory areas work by self regulation in the EU model.
What is clear is that some of those people have absolutely no idea of the facts but just want to spread some fear.
But it might be that we approach (or are forced to approach) the problem in a different way.
It's not obvious to me - either short or long term - that the absence of customs agents to "handle it all" is the root problem. Perhaps - at least unilaterally - we will have to take a more liberalised approach to customs, for example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCs901Cjiyk
I am happy with the bloke who delivered the biggest increase in Lab. vote since WW2 in 2017 despite the rather unhelpful interventions from some in the party.
We have a great chance of being the next Government IMO if we remain united.
The EU has made major strides over the last thirty years in removing barriers to trade and simplying customs for third party countries.
My family is steeped in manufacturing and my brother is currently a joint owner of a manufacturing business where 80% is exported all round the world, He is the person legally repsonosible for making sure their EU products are compliant and getting it wrong means he would face a 5 year jail term. He can bore the pants of you with regs and stuff and how they all come back to global standards around the world.
He knows exactly what he needs to do in case of no deal. Set up Irish brass plate company. Lodge EU regulatory compliance docs their. Take order EU customer to Irish Sub. Fulfill direct from UK factory to customer. Customs software does all the paperwork.
No problems.
Personally, I think the whole Brexit referendum, result, debate on how to implement etc etc has been one monumental exercise in displacement activity from the real issues facing the UK.
Well you can please PB Tories with almost any old bollox tbf
Funny old game
But I suspect your comment was sarcastic.
Tom Watsons speech was much better.