Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
The Countdown begins. 23:28 - Nov 10 with 329835 viewspikeypaul



https://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?iso=20190329T23&p0=1336&msg=Democr

1:19 pm today was the exact mid point from when the result that the Great British public had decided to leave the EU and the time 11pm March 29th 2019 that Democracy will be delivered.

Happy days.
[Post edited 25 Jun 17:01]

🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧
Poll: Next major war involving UK against a super power ?

0
The Countdown begins. on 17:55 - Jul 9 with 1312 viewssherpajacob

The Countdown begins. on 16:48 - Jul 9 by Kerouac

What the f*ck are you talking about.
You and others have repeatedly said on here that Davis is lazy and has done 4hrs work on Brexit in 2 years.
I have asked you all for evidence...
Thick c*nts trying to wriggle off the hook now.


There is a lot more to preparing and negotiating for such a deal of course...and of course how much time you spend in the room with the bloke you are negotiating with depends on that bloke's willingness to sit down and negotiate...and of course your own side's willingness to allow you to go ahead and negotiate the deal (we now learn).

The whole thing was a sham.
May and the remainers in her cabinet will be removed and replaced by people who believe in Brexit or there will be riots on the streets...that's what happens when minorities try to dictate to the majority.
Democracy was supposed to be a civilised way to avoid such outcomes.


learn to fecking read.

nobody has said he's only done 4 hours work on brexit.

lots of people have said, and its been widely reported from many sources that he's only had 4 hours of meeting with Barnier.

get it yet thicko

Poll: Your favourite ever Swans shirt sponsor?

1
The Countdown begins. on 17:57 - Jul 9 with 1307 viewsGowerjack

The Countdown begins. on 17:55 - Jul 9 by sherpajacob

learn to fecking read.

nobody has said he's only done 4 hours work on brexit.

lots of people have said, and its been widely reported from many sources that he's only had 4 hours of meeting with Barnier.

get it yet thicko


Perhaps if he read it s l o w l y...

Plastic since 1974
Poll: Is the Ressurection

1

The Countdown begins. on 20:06 - Jul 9 with 1231 viewsShaky


Misology -- It's a bitch
Poll: Greatest PS Troll Hunter of all time

0

The Countdown begins. on 20:14 - Jul 9 with 1223 viewsOldjack

The man in the street expected this Brexit would be a simple bye bye see you again but don't know when ,2 years later talk shyte is still going on ,WTF

Prosser the Tosser dwells on Phil's bum hole like a rusty old hemorrhoid ,fact You Greedy Bastards Get Out Of OUR Club!

0

The Countdown begins. on 20:17 - Jul 9 with 1221 viewsShaky

We don’t know where Brexiteers are going now. And neither do they
By Nick Cohen

Spectator, 9 July 2018

In happier days when Britain was not on the brink of disintegration, David Davis told me a story about the 19th century French politician Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin. Little did I suspect that soon he would be living it.

The Francophiles among you will recall the apocryphal tale of Ledru-Rollin enjoying his lunch at a Parisian café when a revolutionary crowd stormed past. Ledru-Rollin leapt from his seat and cried

“There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader.”

Where were they going? He did not know. What was his plan? He did not have one.

True believers in Brexit are revolting, and not without cause. They were assured that we could have Brexit without tears; tear up economic and legal arrangements going back almost half a century without suffering a huge dislocation. Anyone who said otherwise was a liar, paid by the EU to promote “project fear”.

It used to be said that a conservative was “a liberal who had been mugged by reality”. Today the converse applies. Reality mugged the cabinet at Chequers on Friday and it agreed to a compromise. (I should not need to add that the compromise won’t work. The options facing Britain are full alignment with the EU – in which case, why leave? – or a complete break – in which case, chaos.)

Alas, there are politicians reality cannot lay a glove on, however hard it tries. Having agreed with his colleagues on Friday, Davis heard the rumbling of the tumbrils in the offices of the Sun, the stamping of feet on the Tory backbenches.

There go his people, he thought. He must follow them, for he is their leader.

Or is he?

This morning I wrote
If you think that he puts career before country,* then Johnson has to resign. He can’t allow Davis to outflank him on the Brexit right, and be left in the middle, neither a leaver nor a remainer, mistrusted by all.
*And I do.
— Nick Cohen (@NickCohen4) July 9, 2018

So it has proved.
Furious supporters of Brexit now have two leaders running after them. (Three if you include Rees Mogg. Four if you include Steve Baker, but to include him you must first know who he is.)

Where are they going?

We don’t know.

Even by the unforgivably self-indulgent standards of the Tory right, they are not going towards a leadership election. Are they? Seriously? Consider the timetable. On Friday, the cabinet agreed to support the prime minister. On Saturday “allies” of Boris Johnson – and in Westminster a politician’s closest ally often turns out to be himself – briefed Tim Shipman of the Sunday Times. The Foreign Secretary thought May’s plan was “a big turd”. (I hope you appreciate Johnson’s mastery of the English language, incidentally, and can see why he was one of the most acclaimed journalists of his generation.)

Would he resign, then? When presented with a “big turd” the only honourable, and indeed hygienic, course is to flush yourself out of the cabinet.

Not so fast, his “allies” continued, “The only people who would benefit from Johnson leaving the cabinet would be [Michel] Barnier, [Angela] Merkel and [Martin] Selmayr.” As a true patriot who wanted nothing more than to protect Britain from its enemies, Johnson would eat whatever shit May served him (if I may deign to imitate the great stylist’s prose.)

Presented with the awful possibility that Davis would lead his “people”, Johnson has decided that he will help Barnier, Merkel and Selmayr all he can by removing himself from government.

Britain is going into the most complicated negotiations since 1945. They pretty much have to be concluded by October. Instead of concentrating on them, is the Tory party proposing to fill up the summer with a leadership election? Of course not, say I.

But there I go again showing my ivory tower elitism by believing the Tories will behave like a rational political party in a moment of national crisis. I need to get with the times. What the hell, let it rip, why not call a leadership election? Even if Johnson, Davis or Rees Mogg wins, the result won’t change the balance of power in parliament, which has no majority for a hard Brexit. But, and this is the crucial point, it will make the right wing feel better, and that’s all that matters to it.

After the Chequers summit Rupert Harrison, a former aide to George Osborne, described how May had beaten her opponents (for so she seemed to have done at the time).

Chequers outcome a classic example of something we used to say a lot: plan beats no plan. Until Brexiteers have an alternative plan (and hard to see how they can) that isn’t going to change
— Rupert Harrison (@rbrharrison) July 8, 2018

The poor man did not realise that the absence of a plan had never stopped the Brexit movement. As I have pointed and will keep pointing out until it is banged into the heads of everyone who writes about Brexit, Dominic Cummings, Johnson, Gove and Davis’s commander in chief at Vote Leave, admitted that there could be no plan. Brexiters did not agree among themselves what Brexit meant. In any case offering concrete proposals would allow the public to see how shallow and ill-thought through Brexit was. (Or as Cummings said, a plan would “provide an undefendable target and open an unwinnable debate.”)

Read David Davis’s resignation letter, than read it again . There is no alternative strategy for the very good reason that there never has been one and never will be one until the Brexiters level with the people of Britain, and with themselves, and say we can either be wholly out of the EU and poorer or in the EU and richer. And that they will never do.

Behold ladies and gentlemen your potential leaders, and fear the consequences of following them to, well, who knows where.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/we-dont-know-where-brexiteers-are-going-no

Misology -- It's a bitch
Poll: Greatest PS Troll Hunter of all time

0

The Countdown begins. on 20:22 - Jul 9 with 1212 viewsShaky


Misology -- It's a bitch
Poll: Greatest PS Troll Hunter of all time

0
The Countdown begins. on 20:47 - Jul 9 with 1195 viewsGowerjack

The Countdown begins. on 20:17 - Jul 9 by Shaky

We don’t know where Brexiteers are going now. And neither do they
By Nick Cohen

Spectator, 9 July 2018

In happier days when Britain was not on the brink of disintegration, David Davis told me a story about the 19th century French politician Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin. Little did I suspect that soon he would be living it.

The Francophiles among you will recall the apocryphal tale of Ledru-Rollin enjoying his lunch at a Parisian café when a revolutionary crowd stormed past. Ledru-Rollin leapt from his seat and cried

“There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader.”

Where were they going? He did not know. What was his plan? He did not have one.

True believers in Brexit are revolting, and not without cause. They were assured that we could have Brexit without tears; tear up economic and legal arrangements going back almost half a century without suffering a huge dislocation. Anyone who said otherwise was a liar, paid by the EU to promote “project fear”.

It used to be said that a conservative was “a liberal who had been mugged by reality”. Today the converse applies. Reality mugged the cabinet at Chequers on Friday and it agreed to a compromise. (I should not need to add that the compromise won’t work. The options facing Britain are full alignment with the EU – in which case, why leave? – or a complete break – in which case, chaos.)

Alas, there are politicians reality cannot lay a glove on, however hard it tries. Having agreed with his colleagues on Friday, Davis heard the rumbling of the tumbrils in the offices of the Sun, the stamping of feet on the Tory backbenches.

There go his people, he thought. He must follow them, for he is their leader.

Or is he?

This morning I wrote
If you think that he puts career before country,* then Johnson has to resign. He can’t allow Davis to outflank him on the Brexit right, and be left in the middle, neither a leaver nor a remainer, mistrusted by all.
*And I do.
— Nick Cohen (@NickCohen4) July 9, 2018

So it has proved.
Furious supporters of Brexit now have two leaders running after them. (Three if you include Rees Mogg. Four if you include Steve Baker, but to include him you must first know who he is.)

Where are they going?

We don’t know.

Even by the unforgivably self-indulgent standards of the Tory right, they are not going towards a leadership election. Are they? Seriously? Consider the timetable. On Friday, the cabinet agreed to support the prime minister. On Saturday “allies” of Boris Johnson – and in Westminster a politician’s closest ally often turns out to be himself – briefed Tim Shipman of the Sunday Times. The Foreign Secretary thought May’s plan was “a big turd”. (I hope you appreciate Johnson’s mastery of the English language, incidentally, and can see why he was one of the most acclaimed journalists of his generation.)

Would he resign, then? When presented with a “big turd” the only honourable, and indeed hygienic, course is to flush yourself out of the cabinet.

Not so fast, his “allies” continued, “The only people who would benefit from Johnson leaving the cabinet would be [Michel] Barnier, [Angela] Merkel and [Martin] Selmayr.” As a true patriot who wanted nothing more than to protect Britain from its enemies, Johnson would eat whatever shit May served him (if I may deign to imitate the great stylist’s prose.)

Presented with the awful possibility that Davis would lead his “people”, Johnson has decided that he will help Barnier, Merkel and Selmayr all he can by removing himself from government.

Britain is going into the most complicated negotiations since 1945. They pretty much have to be concluded by October. Instead of concentrating on them, is the Tory party proposing to fill up the summer with a leadership election? Of course not, say I.

But there I go again showing my ivory tower elitism by believing the Tories will behave like a rational political party in a moment of national crisis. I need to get with the times. What the hell, let it rip, why not call a leadership election? Even if Johnson, Davis or Rees Mogg wins, the result won’t change the balance of power in parliament, which has no majority for a hard Brexit. But, and this is the crucial point, it will make the right wing feel better, and that’s all that matters to it.

After the Chequers summit Rupert Harrison, a former aide to George Osborne, described how May had beaten her opponents (for so she seemed to have done at the time).

Chequers outcome a classic example of something we used to say a lot: plan beats no plan. Until Brexiteers have an alternative plan (and hard to see how they can) that isn’t going to change
— Rupert Harrison (@rbrharrison) July 8, 2018

The poor man did not realise that the absence of a plan had never stopped the Brexit movement. As I have pointed and will keep pointing out until it is banged into the heads of everyone who writes about Brexit, Dominic Cummings, Johnson, Gove and Davis’s commander in chief at Vote Leave, admitted that there could be no plan. Brexiters did not agree among themselves what Brexit meant. In any case offering concrete proposals would allow the public to see how shallow and ill-thought through Brexit was. (Or as Cummings said, a plan would “provide an undefendable target and open an unwinnable debate.”)

Read David Davis’s resignation letter, than read it again . There is no alternative strategy for the very good reason that there never has been one and never will be one until the Brexiters level with the people of Britain, and with themselves, and say we can either be wholly out of the EU and poorer or in the EU and richer. And that they will never do.

Behold ladies and gentlemen your potential leaders, and fear the consequences of following them to, well, who knows where.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/we-dont-know-where-brexiteers-are-going-no


An excellent well reasoned article.

Plastic since 1974
Poll: Is the Ressurection

0

The Countdown begins. on 21:03 - Jul 9 with 1174 viewsShaky

What could possibly go wrong?


Misology -- It's a bitch
Poll: Greatest PS Troll Hunter of all time

0
Login to get fewer ads


The Countdown begins. on 21:05 - Jul 9 with 1165 viewsShaky


Misology -- It's a bitch
Poll: Greatest PS Troll Hunter of all time

0
The Countdown begins. on 21:58 - Jul 9 with 1136 viewscwm02

The Countdown begins. on 20:58 - Jul 6 by LeonWasGod

Yep, it won’t be the EU’s fault if we get a bad deal. They’re not kicking us out. And we know what the rules are of being in the EU and of having access (or not) to bits of it when we leave.

The fault will be chasing unrealistic terms for future relationships (worth a try I suppose- if May could pull it off she’d be a hero). But mostly it will be this:



We should never have gone into the referendum without a clear view of what Brexit would look like.


David Cameron was at fault for this. He made the referendum because he was pressurized to do make it happen (shouldn't have promised one in 2008) and he threw the kitchen sink to get people to vote Remain but it backfired. If he really didn't want to leave the EU he shouldn't have had a referendum.

David Cameron should have been prepared for both scenarios before the referendum. Plan ahead, but when he didn't get the result he wanted, he buggered off and put someone even worse in charge.
[Post edited 9 Jul 22:00]
-1
The Countdown begins. on 23:32 - Jul 9 with 1081 viewslonglostjack

The Countdown begins. on 21:58 - Jul 9 by cwm02

David Cameron was at fault for this. He made the referendum because he was pressurized to do make it happen (shouldn't have promised one in 2008) and he threw the kitchen sink to get people to vote Remain but it backfired. If he really didn't want to leave the EU he shouldn't have had a referendum.

David Cameron should have been prepared for both scenarios before the referendum. Plan ahead, but when he didn't get the result he wanted, he buggered off and put someone even worse in charge.
[Post edited 9 Jul 22:00]


Now you’re talking Cwm. Let’s be honest he went down in history as the Prime minister who nearly broke up the UK by holding a referendum on Scottish independence. Twaat decided to hold another one to beat his political enemies and screwed up big time.
[Post edited 9 Jul 23:36]

Poll: Have our US owners improved Swansea City Football Club?

2
The Countdown begins. on 01:41 - Jul 10 with 1039 viewswobbly

The Countdown begins. on 16:40 - Jul 9 by sherpajacob

Parliament is sovereign, have you not been following.

A general election has far far more weight than a binary single issue advisory referendum.

if UKIP had won a majority at a GE they would have taken the UK straight out of the EU without a referendum on the back of the GE mandate.

The fact that they never won any MPs, indicates how high membership of the EU is as an issue amongst most people.

The really dangerous constitutional argument is the plebiscite, will of the people, mob rule one.


There is an entire body of political theory that disagrees with you. That’s the joy of our constitution but it is nowhere near as clear as you suggest.

Competing legitimaticies has been a problem for a long time. Even arch remainer Lord Pannick who is a bit of a scholar on constitutional law is not clear. If you are a student of Burke then there are lots of interesting views on the primacy of MPs which supports your view. But it certainly isn’t definitive.
0
The Countdown begins. on 09:17 - Jul 10 with 954 viewsLeonWasGod

The Countdown begins. on 20:06 - Jul 9 by Shaky



Harsh, but true
0
The Countdown begins. on 09:22 - Jul 10 with 949 viewsLeonWasGod

The Countdown begins. on 21:58 - Jul 9 by cwm02

David Cameron was at fault for this. He made the referendum because he was pressurized to do make it happen (shouldn't have promised one in 2008) and he threw the kitchen sink to get people to vote Remain but it backfired. If he really didn't want to leave the EU he shouldn't have had a referendum.

David Cameron should have been prepared for both scenarios before the referendum. Plan ahead, but when he didn't get the result he wanted, he buggered off and put someone even worse in charge.
[Post edited 9 Jul 22:00]


Abso-feckin-lutely. And let's not forget that he also weakened the UK's standing in Europe by taking the Conservatives out of the main euro party that have influence to form a new party of misfits that has little influence. (Doesn't matter what you're view on Brexit, this all occurred before Brexit was an option). And he did this to buy the votes of backbenchers for his leadership bid. That in the end he didn't need.

The bloke was a self-serving prick of the highest order, and not a very bright one seemingly.

If the country had any sense, instead of arguing over the number on the side of a bus we'd be uniting against these buffoons and kicking them into touch.
2
The Countdown begins. on 09:34 - Jul 10 with 941 viewsShaky

The Countdown begins. on 21:58 - Jul 9 by cwm02

David Cameron was at fault for this. He made the referendum because he was pressurized to do make it happen (shouldn't have promised one in 2008) and he threw the kitchen sink to get people to vote Remain but it backfired. If he really didn't want to leave the EU he shouldn't have had a referendum.

David Cameron should have been prepared for both scenarios before the referendum. Plan ahead, but when he didn't get the result he wanted, he buggered off and put someone even worse in charge.
[Post edited 9 Jul 22:00]


You don't think it was incumbent on the people setting their hair on fire over the need to withdraw from the EU to put forward some sort of plan for how this might be achieved, Quim?

Bunch of whinging babies, the lot of you. Never your fcuking fault, is it?

Misology -- It's a bitch
Poll: Greatest PS Troll Hunter of all time

0
The Countdown begins. on 10:47 - Jul 10 with 912 viewsBatterseajack

The Countdown begins. on 09:34 - Jul 10 by Shaky

You don't think it was incumbent on the people setting their hair on fire over the need to withdraw from the EU to put forward some sort of plan for how this might be achieved, Quim?

Bunch of whinging babies, the lot of you. Never your fcuking fault, is it?


Never the voters fault mun
-1

The Countdown begins. on 10:48 - Jul 10 with 912 viewsKerouac

The Phase 1 Deal: Costly EU demands on regulatory alignment could prevent us securing trade deals elsewhere
By Martin Howe QC


"Our government on our behalf is offering to pay the EU around €45-50 billion of money that we don’t legally owe, to submit to our courts and our Parliament being overruled by a wholly foreign court after we have left the EU, and to commit to keep our regulation in agriculture and possibly other fields “aligned” with the EU in order to resolve the Irish border issue. This is all so that we can reach the nirvana of having not an actual trade deal, but just talks about a trade deal.

It is clear that we do not legally owe these vast sums to the EU. Indeed it is probable that in law we have a net credit in our favour (as per this analysis of the UK’s potential financial liabilities).

The fact that we do not owe the money does not necessarily mean that it is wrong to agree to pay some money. I would advise a client as part of a settlement to agree to pay money that is not owed, if the overall benefits of a settlement, including the benefit of achieving a harmonious and beneficial future relationship with the other party, were sufficient to warrant the payment.

But if you are going to agree to pay a large sum of money that you do not owe, you need to look carefully at what is the value of the benefit you will get in return. The benefit is supposed to be the trade agreement that we will negotiate with the EU once we move on to the stage of actually talking to them about our future relationship. But no one has actually looked at what the EU will realistically offer in the way of a trade agreement, and demonstrated that it would really be worth €40-45 billion, or indeed that it would be worth paying any money at all for what will be on offer.


Open or closed free trade agreement?

The key question about any trade deal with the EU is whether it will be open or closed. An open trade agreement is one which allows goods and services to be exported between the parties if they satisfy certain standards, but does not restrict the right of either party to allow in goods and services from third countries. The most that an “open” trade agreement should say about goods and services from third countries is that if they are let in on easier terms than laid down in the trade agreement, then exporters from the other party to the trade agreement should also have the right to export their goods and services on those easier terms (a “most favoured nation” or MFN clause).

By contrast, a closed trade agreement will specify that goods and services that meet a certain standard may be traded between the parties, but will prohibit the parties from allowing in goods and services from third countries which do not meet that standard. While such an agreement will facilitate trade between the parties, it does so at the cost of restricting trade with third countries and preventing the importation of goods and services from outside which are cheaper or better than those available within. This is particularly so where the standards adopted are artificial and really designed to shield domestic producers from competition rather than being truly necessary to safeguard the interests of consumers.

The paradigm example of a “closed” trade agreement is the EU’s internal market (the actual accurate Treaty name for what is often referred to as the “single” market). That is based on harmonising detailed and prescriptive rules and regulations for all kinds of goods and services. While this assists in facilitating free trade between countries within the internal market, it does so at the expense of driving up costs, and more importantly it restricts trade with third countries whose exporters are required to comply with the rules. In addition, and unlike a closed free trade agreement where the common standards are mutually agreed, a country which joins the EU internal market from outside must submit to the EU unilaterally imposing changes and further rules on it with which it must comply.

These features of a closed trade agreement restrict unilateral trade liberalisation, but more importantly will render it difficult or sometimes impossible to conclude beneficial trade agreements with third countries. For example, you may be unable to offer a third country access to your own market for its insurance companies on the basis of home country regulation, because you are bound to apply a prescriptive set of rules under the trade agreement to any insurer who does business on your market. The third country will then be most unwilling to agree a trade deal under which your insurers can access their market on the basis of home country regulation.

The government rightly rejects seeking continued UK membership of the EU internal market for this reason, as well as for the reason that internal market membership would necessarily also involve continued free movement of persons.

So what will be on offer from the EU under a free trade agreement which gives preferential access to the internal market? A lot of light was cast on this question by a lecture given by Michel Barnier on 20th November 2017 (emphasis added):
“The UK will, of course, have access to the Single Market. But this is different from being part of the Single Market. And a good deal on our future relationship should facilitate this access as much as possible. And avoid a situation where trade would happen under the WTO rules for goods and services. To achieve this, there is a third key: we need to ensure a level playing field between us. This will not be easy. For the first time ever in trade talks, the challenge will be to limit divergence of rules rather than maximise convergence. There will be no ambitious partnership without common ground in fair competition, state aid, tax dumping, food safety, social and environmental standards. It is not only about rules or laws. It is about societal choices – for health, food standards, our environment and financial stability. The UK has chosen to leave the EU. Does it want to stay close to the European model or does it want to gradually move away from it?”
He went on to link these issues to the ratification of the UK’s future partnership with the EU. Those who choose to ignore these comments do so at their peril. It is clear that the EU will not be willing to conclude a free trade agreement with the UK unless we accept wide ranging obligations across our own internal market, and also necessarily as regards imports from third countries. Of particular significance are the references to “food safety” and “food standards”.

The EU has no legitimate interest in the standards of food eaten by UK consumers after we have left the EU. The references to these issues are pure protectionism: to lock in the highly profitable UK food market for EU producers and to exclude competition from outside. We are a net food importing nation with a strong interest in having low food prices – which would be of particular benefit to the many low-income families who voted Leave. Our consumers have spent the last 45 years paying prices for food inflated well above world levels, with the benefits of our captive market going mainly to EU producers outside the UK.

It is obvious that the EU want to maintain this situation as far as possible and will ruthlessly use a free trade agreement with the UK as a lever to achieve that objective. If we accede to such restrictions, the problem is not just that our consumers will carry on paying well over the odds for their food for the long-term future. It will also severely damage or destroy the prospects of concluding free trade agreements with major trading partners, such as the USA and Australia, both of whom have very important agricultural export interests.

The Irish border issue is not about the peace process – it is about Ireland’s wish to maintain exports into a protected UK market

This is what the row over the Irish border is about. The Irish government present this as concern for the Northern Irish peace process. It is nothing of the kind. Both the Irish government and their EU27 backers are cynically exploiting the issue as a lever to drive the UK to agree to follow EU agriculture rules after we have left, in order that Irish and other EU27 producers can continue to exclude competition from the rest of the world from the lucrative UK food import market.

That the UK government has agreed to “maintain full alignment” with EU Internal Market and Customs rules as a condition of accessing talks on trade is sheer madness. The “spin” seems to be that as a result of the intervention by the DUP, the actual scope of this commitment (i.e. which Internal Market and Customs Union rules, and what exactly “alignment” means) has been rendered so ambiguous and unclear that, like Humpty-Dumpty, the UK can declare that these words mean what the UK says they mean, neither more nor less – and that what they mean is very little.

This is a dangerous game. Let us quote the actual paragraph in the Phase 1 Agreement:
“49. The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom’s intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU-UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.”

There is no doubt that the EU will insist that this means what they want it to mean, which is that the UK has unconditionally accepted a wide-ranging obligation to keep our regulations on agricultural and other goods in line with EU regulations and also to keep external tariffs in line – otherwise what can the reference to the Customs Union possibly mean? They will insist on such terms being inserted into any free trade agreement on offer to us, and we will have gravely undermined our negotating ability to avoid the imposition of such terms.

It is obvious that the EU will use the same tactic of forcing the UK up against the clock which has worked so brilliantly in causing the negotiating collapse by the UK which led to the Phase 1 agreement. They will push the trade negotiations to late 2018, and say that a trade agreement, and the promised but not legally secured transition period, will only be available to the UK if we accept their terms for a free trade deal however unpalatable to us.


The End Game: a Vassal-State Brexit without the benefits of either ‘Leave’ or ‘Remain’

The referendum campaign involved two opposed visions for Britain’s future. Under the first, favoured by the Remainers, the UK would stay in the European Union, participate in its councils, and – to the extent possible – seek to shape its future development in line with the UK’s interests.

Under the second vision, favoured by the Leavers, the UK would leave the European Union and take back control of its laws, borders and money, and would trade with the world outside the restrictive constraints of the EU’s customs union and common commercial policy.

Each of these visions is internally consistent, and has its pros and cons. The British people, however, voted decisively against the first and in favour of the second vision.
But where we stand today, we are in grave danger that neither vision will be achieved. Instead, we are in peril that a third scenario will come about, one not favoured by either side. That is for the UK to cease its formal membership of the EU, thereby losing its vote on EU laws, and its ability to influence – or if necessary veto – future Treaty changes. But at the same time we would remain subject to continued EU control of our tariffs and external trade policy, and continued EU control of a huge range of market-related internal laws.

We would have changed our relationship with the European Union from being a Member State into being a Vassal State: a mere rule taker who must comply with laws devised, interpreted and enforced by foreigners and by foreign institutions. This would have the gravest economic and political consequences.

The economic consequence is that it would make it impossible for us to benefit from the freedoms which we will enjoy as a result of leaving the European Union. We would be unable to reduce the very high duties and non-tariff barriers which the EU’s policies oblige us to impose on basics such as food and clothing.We would be severely hampered or prevented from concluding free trade agreements with non-EU markets.

Such a vassal-state Brexit would inevitably lead to Brexit being dubbed a failure, when the truth would be that Brexit had never been tried.

But the political consequences would be even more dire. Such an outcome would be – and would be seen to be – a clear betrayal of the promise made to all who voted in the referendum that their decision would be implemented. There could be nothing more corrosive to the already strained trust of millions of people in our political system, or more likely to produce an explosion of frustrated anger.


Can we escape the trap?

Far from it being worth paying the money in the Phase 1 agreement in order to reach a beneficial free trade agreement with the EU, it is increasingly and glaringly clear that the only free trade agreements on offer from the EU are likely to be ones which it would be worth paying good money not to belong to. And it seems that in order just to reach the stage of having talks with the EU about future trade that are likely to prove worthless, our government is willing to compromise the independence of our courts and the sovereignty of our Parliament over our laws, and to give a commitment about aligning our regulation with the EU’s which – even if unclear – will endure even if no trade agreement is reached.

The only possible escape from the deep trap which we have dug for ourselves is to prepare actively for a no-deal exit in March 2019, and to be willing to execute that plan if the EU insists (as it will) on terms in a trade agreement which interfere with our ability to trade independently of the EU."

Poll: Who would you most like to see banned?

0
The Countdown begins. on 11:22 - Jul 10 with 890 viewsKerouac

The Countdown begins. on 09:34 - Jul 10 by Shaky

You don't think it was incumbent on the people setting their hair on fire over the need to withdraw from the EU to put forward some sort of plan for how this might be achieved, Quim?

Bunch of whinging babies, the lot of you. Never your fcuking fault, is it?





Pipe down disco clown

Poll: Who would you most like to see banned?

0
The Countdown begins. on 11:38 - Jul 10 with 883 viewsShaky

The Countdown begins. on 11:22 - Jul 10 by Kerouac




Pipe down disco clown


The politics of Brexit have caught up with hard reality
Chequers and its aftermath show it is time to end plays to the domestic audience
By David Allen Green

FT, 10 july 2018

The past few days have been significant for the UK’s intended departure from the EU, for at last the politics of Brexit have caught up with the hard law and policy realities.

For two years there have been two separate and distinct Brexit processes. The first is the domestic negotiations between Theresa May and the prime minister’s political supporters in government, parliament and the media. The second is the negotiations between Britain and the EU within the framework provided by Article 50.

Until now, when the two have touched on each other, there has been enough vagueness and political agility to push them apart again, if only for a while. But the Chequers meeting on Friday, with its agreed proposal, and the subsequent resignation of three pro-Brexit ministers — David Davis, Boris Johnson and Steve Baker — indicates that a clash, which may or may not lead to reconciliation, cannot be delayed any longer.

At home, Mrs May has to keep her government together, and to maintain support from backbenchers and the mainly pro-exit popular press. Almost every Brexit move she has made, every expedient, is understandable (if not justifiable) in this domestic political context. Each of her speeches and ministerial appointments were for internal political consumption. The “red lines” of no freedom of movement and no jurisdiction for the EU courts were plays to the audience.

In Brussels, the government kept doing enough for the Brexit negotiations to continue. The UK gave in on the sequencing of negotiations and on post-Brexit financial contributions. And, having no alternative, the country gladly accepted the offer of a standstill (though called a “transition”) period. It even accepted the December joint paper on the terms of withdrawal, without appreciating the implications for the Irish border issue. Each of these climbdowns was represented to the UK media as a triumph.

But at some point there had to be a reckoning. And as the law and policy issues being dealt with in the exit negotiations are more concrete than the superficial politics of Westminster and Fleet Street, it was always the latter that would have to give way.

The Chequers proposal has been summarised in a three-page document, with a longer white paper expected to be published this week. The summary is the first official UK document about Brexit properly to engage with its problems. The position set out on goods and tariffs has the merit of recognising there are issues to be resolved in respect of the Irish border, and cross-border supply chains more broadly. The acceptance of a continuing role for EU jurisprudence is sensible and welcome.

Assuming the white paper accords with this summary then at least Britain has a negotiating position for a deal. The proposal is unlikely to be accepted by the EU. There is nothing serious about services and freedom of movement, and the mention of a “mobility framework” may as well be about a Zimmer frame, as it means nothing at law. But it is a start, even if some 15 months after the Article 50 notification was made.

Because the cabinet must now address substantial matters, it is unsurprising that there have been ministerial resignations. Creative ambiguity can only take so much reality. There is finally something a pro-Brexit politician can be against. The resignations are a sign that the government is at last approaching the tasks at hand.

Although there is still a risk of there being no deal, there are other possibilities now Brexit is taking a definite shape. There is a heightened chance that there may be an extension of the Article 50 period or of the transition period, or even of a revocation of the Article 50 notification itself. Such outcomes are still unlikely, as parliament is determined to fulfil the supposed “mandate” of the referendum result.

But there is still a mismatch between domestic politics and the Brexits that are on offer. The fact that one has caught up with the other does not mean it will be simple for Brexit politics to yield to Brexit law and policy reality. This would require leadership and transparency: two qualities absent in Mrs May’s approach to Brexit.

The white paper will be crucial. It needs to be endorsed at home and credible for the EU27 — and neither can be taken for granted. Already the resigned ministers and Tory backbenchers are saying that it cannot be supported. The EU27 are being more conciliatory, but they are waiting to see what the paper says and will not be swayed by the three-page summary.

If the white paper fails either of the tests of Westminster or Brussels, there will be a significant problem. There is little time left for any alternatives. And there certainly has been no detailed or practical plan from pro-Brexit supporters.
If the white paper does pass the tests, it will be only the start of a mature negotiation. Britain would be expected to give way on services and freedom of movement. Pretty soon, Brexit would be in practice if not in pure legal form indistinguishable from EU membership but without the representation or influence. A Brexit in name only.

This is the prospect now before the UK: a Brexit not worth the time or effort, and not accommodating the demands of Brexit supporters in the media and politics. The alternatives are no Brexit, a delayed Brexit or no deal (for which the UK has made no real preparation). Brexiters are like the dog that caught the car. Now the dog must work out what to do next.

David Allen Green, a contributing editor of the Financial Times, is a journalist and a practising lawyer

https://www.ft.com/content/6cd2421c-838b-11e8-a29d-73e3d454535d

Misology -- It's a bitch
Poll: Greatest PS Troll Hunter of all time

-1

The Countdown begins. on 11:52 - Jul 10 with 876 viewsKerouac

"The alternatives are no Brexit, a delayed Brexit or no deal (for which the UK has made no real preparation). "

- That's funny because the government has been claiming all along that they were making detailed plans for 'no deal'.
I know that David Davis and his department will have done so.

Is this a tacit admission that the 'Remainers' in the cabinet have been LYING to the public and not cooperating with these 'no deal' plans?...e.g. Phillip Hammond.

If so it is clear that they will have to be removed from office forthwith at the next General Election and a Brexit cabinet that can be trusted installed. (Could even be a cross-party Brexit cabinet)

Poll: Who would you most like to see banned?

0
The Countdown begins. on 11:59 - Jul 10 with 871 viewsShaky

The Countdown begins. on 11:52 - Jul 10 by Kerouac

"The alternatives are no Brexit, a delayed Brexit or no deal (for which the UK has made no real preparation). "

- That's funny because the government has been claiming all along that they were making detailed plans for 'no deal'.
I know that David Davis and his department will have done so.

Is this a tacit admission that the 'Remainers' in the cabinet have been LYING to the public and not cooperating with these 'no deal' plans?...e.g. Phillip Hammond.

If so it is clear that they will have to be removed from office forthwith at the next General Election and a Brexit cabinet that can be trusted installed. (Could even be a cross-party Brexit cabinet)


Brexiters have been making detailed plans for a hard Brexit alright; setting up a Dublin office (JRM), moving to Malta (Ashcroft), etc, etc.

They pissed the bed and are now preparing to piss off themselves if and when it all goes down the shitter.

Misology -- It's a bitch
Poll: Greatest PS Troll Hunter of all time

0
The Countdown begins. on 13:57 - Jul 10 with 839 viewscwm02

The Countdown begins. on 09:34 - Jul 10 by Shaky

You don't think it was incumbent on the people setting their hair on fire over the need to withdraw from the EU to put forward some sort of plan for how this might be achieved, Quim?

Bunch of whinging babies, the lot of you. Never your fcuking fault, is it?


Yet here you are whinging about the fact you lost the Brexit vote.

And it is neither Remain or Brexiteer voters that at fault. It's up to the government to deliver the results of the referendum, regardless of where he/she stands.
-1
The Countdown begins. on 14:23 - Jul 10 with 820 viewsShaky

The Countdown begins. on 13:57 - Jul 10 by cwm02

Yet here you are whinging about the fact you lost the Brexit vote.

And it is neither Remain or Brexiteer voters that at fault. It's up to the government to deliver the results of the referendum, regardless of where he/she stands.


i am arguing rationally that the decision to leave was moronic. Furthermore I am right.

You're the one pulling your hair out, Quim, cos you can not bear to hear the mountains of overwhelming evidence about how stupid you have been, and how dishonest and incompetent the Brexiter leaders have been.

Misology -- It's a bitch
Poll: Greatest PS Troll Hunter of all time

0
The Countdown begins. on 14:32 - Jul 10 with 811 viewscwm02

The Countdown begins. on 14:23 - Jul 10 by Shaky

i am arguing rationally that the decision to leave was moronic. Furthermore I am right.

You're the one pulling your hair out, Quim, cos you can not bear to hear the mountains of overwhelming evidence about how stupid you have been, and how dishonest and incompetent the Brexiter leaders have been.


All points I said you haven't been able to replay to and your long rambling paragraphs came lacked any substance, the graphs you produced are based on ifs and speculation.

Also dishonesty and incompetence has come from the government making a simple issue complicated and lacked a clear plan, it has nothing to do with Brexit what so ever.
[Post edited 10 Jul 14:36]
-2
The Countdown begins. on 14:35 - Jul 10 with 806 viewsShaky

The Countdown begins. on 14:32 - Jul 10 by cwm02

All points I said you haven't been able to replay to and your long rambling paragraphs came lacked any substance, the graphs you produced are based on ifs and speculation.

Also dishonesty and incompetence has come from the government making a simple issue complicated and lacked a clear plan, it has nothing to do with Brexit what so ever.
[Post edited 10 Jul 14:36]


The government's job is to govern in the interests of and on behalf of the its people.

Taking a decision that will cripple the country's economy is not consistent with mission.

Grow the fcuk up.

Misology -- It's a bitch
Poll: Greatest PS Troll Hunter of all time

0
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© FansNetwork 2018