| Chequers Agreement Dead 15:28 - Jul 9 with 3415 views | westwalesed |
With David Davies gone and Boris Johnson gone, and openly going cap in hand to the Opposition to support her plans, Theresa May is going to have to dump the Chequers White Paper or one Minister will go after another...….I don't see any other option now? |  |
| |  |
| Chequers Agreement Dead on 22:04 - Jul 9 with 807 views | majorraglan |
| Chequers Agreement Dead on 15:54 - Jul 9 by peenemunde |
Put an end to this nonsense you say.
Do you really think that would be an end to it.
Millions of very angry people out there now.
The radicalisation has begun. |
I think she is in charge of a vipers nest where the personal ambitions of the few are being prioritised over the national interest. Unless Boris et al can muster the numbers for a no confidence vote, then I believe the status quo will remain. We will have the continued sniping from the hard brexiteers, but I suspect they won’t have the numbers to challenge TM.
In terms of millions of angry people, there will be some unhappy people but the extent will depend on what each individual person who voted for Brexit actually believed Brexit should look like. Some want the hard Brexit while others want a softer Brexit where our businesses can trade as part of a single market and others want to stay in. I suspect that the number of Remainers plus the soft Brexit camp would outnumber the Hard Brexit. TBH it’s a mess. | | | |
| Chequers Agreement Dead on 23:20 - Jul 9 with 751 views | Kilkennyjack |
| Chequers Agreement Dead on 21:21 - Jul 9 by moonie |
As you know, Phil, religion plays a huge part in Irish culture ,and not just wholescale child abuse and discouraging contraception and abortion .
Plenty of shrines in Italy aren't there. God s all over the place,Allah too. |
I was taking the piiss because he was judging other Swans fans.
Nothing to do with any culture.
You are one fecking major dullard. |  |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| Chequers Agreement Dead on 10:40 - Jul 10 with 671 views | Kerouac |
The Chequers Cabinet conclusions — an assessment
Lawyers for Britain Chairman Martin Howe QC has prepared a Chequers Briefing Memo which assesses the details of the Chequers Statement from HM Government . Although the statement is brief and lacks much of the detail which is expected to be in the government’s White Paper to be published next week, some of his key conclusions are:-
1 - "The Chequers proposals would involve the permanent continuation in the UK of all EU laws which relate to goods, their composition, their packaging, how they are tested etc etc in order to enable goods to cross the UK/EU border without controls. All goods manufactured in the UK for the UK domestic market, or imported from non-EU countries, would be permanently subject to these laws.
2 - There would be a general obligation to alter these laws in future whenever the EU alters its own laws, with a mechanism for Parliament to block such changes which is probably theoretical rather than practical.
3 - This would put the EU in a position to fashion its rules relating to goods so as to further the interests of continental producers against UK competitors, when we will have no right to vote on those rules.
4 - The obligation to follow the EU rulebook for goods would gravely impair our ability to conduct an independent trade policy. In particular, it will prevent us from including Mutual Recognition Agreements for goods in trade treaties and this is likely to destroy the prospect of successfully achieving meaningful agreements with some of the prime candidates such as the USA and Australia.
5 - The ECJ jurisdiction proposals would put us in the same position as Moldova, an applicant/supplicant state which is willing to accept binding ECJ rulings on the conformity of its laws with EU law as part of the preparations for its accession. Quite why this is thought to be a suitable model for a country which has left the EU and is the 5th largest economy in the world is unclear. The supremacy of the UK courts over laws in the UK would not be restored, contrary to the claim made in para 6(g) of the Chequers statement.
6 - The new “Facilitated Customs Arrangement” seeks to solve one of the problems of the NCP (collection of EU level tariffs with rebate system on goods destined for the UK market) by imposing on UK-destined goods the administrative burdens of a tracking system. This would (1) increase the likelihood of this system being found in breach of the national treatment principle in GATT Art.III, and (2) apparently extend yet further the timescale for implementation of this Heath Robinson system, locking the UK in the mean time into the EU’s common external tariff, preventing the electorate from benefiting from Brexit in time for the next General Election.
7 - However, there is no indication at least from what has been made public that the FCA has solved or alleviated any of the other problems of the NCP proposal. It is not clear how the problem of rules of origin controls on UK manufactured goods imported into the EU will be addressed in the absence of customs controls on the UK/EU border, or how this issue can be solved in compliance with WTO rules.
8 - These proposals will not be accepted by the EU since in their perception they amount to unacceptable “cherry picking” of the “benefits” of the single market. However the EU is unlikely to reject the UK’s position outright, but will instead keep the UK inside a “lobster pot” where it negotiates rather than prepaing for no-deal. When the negotiation time runs down, the EU will then demand huge last minute concessions in return for not taking away the transition period.
9 - These proposals therefore lead directly to a worst-of-all-worlds “Black Hole” Brexit where the UK is stuck permanently as a vassal state in the EU’s legal and regulatory tar-pit, still has to obey EU laws and ECJ rulings across vast areas, cannot develop an effective international trade policy or adapt our economy to take advantage of the freedoms of Brexit, and has lost its vote and treaty veto rights as an EU Member State." |  |
| |
| Chequers Agreement Dead on 00:06 - Jul 11 with 588 views | Kerouac |
This one goes out to a very dear friend of mine, Warwick...
Chequers. A Trap for the Left by Richard Tuck
7 hours ago by Richard Tuck 269 Views
Written by Richard Tuck
Richard Tuck argues that the key aspect of the Chequers deal is UK adherence to EU state aid rules and competition policy. It is not the Conservative Brexiteers who have been out-manoeuvred by this document: it is the Corbynite Left.
"A great deal of nonsense is already being talked about the document which emerged from Chequers yesterday, but its true significance has not yet been clearly recognised, largely because of a general confusion in the British media over what free trade areas, customs unions, and single markets are. The document says that it wants a FTA with the EU, and that is something which almost every side in the Brexit debate has said at some point they wanted; it is a natural and on the whole desirable successor to our membership of the EU, and as FTAs around the world illustrate, they do not generally undermine national sovereignty (unless you think like Trump). It also says it wants a customs “arrangement”, and many commentators (particularly on the BBC) immediately started talking as if this is a kind of customs “union”, and snidely making fun of the Cabinet Brexiteers for accepting it. But it is actually nothing of the kind. A customs union commits each member country to imposing the same tariffs as the other members of the union on goods coming from countries which are not members. All that is proposed in the Chequers document is that goods entering an independent UK and intended for final use or consumption in the country will be charged whatever tariffs the UK thinks fit. Goods entering the UK with a view to re-shipping into the EU will be charged the EU tariff at the UK border, and the money remitted to Brussels.
On the face of it this is something that an independent country can perfectly well live with. To see this, we only need to ask what the implications would be were every country in the WTO to sign up to such a regime. Who would care if it was a WTO rule that tariffs should be collected in this way? Why should we worry if any time a shipper from the US sent a consignment of goods to the UK for onward shipping to Kenya, the Kenyan tariff was collected at Felixstowe and forwarded to Nairobi, so that the US shipper would pay no dues when it arrived in Mombasa?  It is not so different in principle from the bureaucracy surrounding “rules of origin” for goods moving between countries which have differing tariffs vis-a-vis one another, and that is a perfectly familiar feature of international trade. Even if the arrangement was one-sided, in that the EU would not do the same for goods passing through to the UK (and this would be good to arrange), it is not something to be particularly disturbed by. If something like this is what Labour also meant by “a” customs union (though it is really nothing of the kind), there is little for Brexiteers to worry about.
The real issue in the document is the proposal about regulatory alignment with the EU; but here we can see why a Conservative Cabinet, even with its Brexiteers, approved the document. There is going to be some degree of regulatory alignment over goods, though even here there is an interesting proviso, “covering only those necessary to provide for frictionless trade at the border”, so that companies which do not export to the EU do not in theory have to abide by the regulations. Since exporters into any country from anywhere in the world have to abide by the regulations of the importing country, this also may not be as significant as it seems. But the key passage, with a great deal of significance for UK domestic politics, which leaps out from all this carefully qualified guff in the rest of the document, is the single sentence “The UK would commit to apply a common rulebook on state aid, and establish cooperative arrangements between regulators on competition.” This is key because it is the one area where Conservative Brexiteers’ instincts are quite different from those of Brexiteers on the Left. For the traditional Left, the Common Market and its successors was always seen as dangerous primarily because it enforced market competition, and made traditional socialist measures hard to introduce. And it is this aspect of the EU, and actually this alone, which the Conservative government wishes to continue to set in stone. When Teresa May trailed these proposals in her Mansion House speech in March, Jeremy Corbyn picked up on exactly this aspect, remarking in Parliament that “The Prime Minister’s only clear priority seems to be to tie the UK permanently to EU rules that have been used to enforce privatisation and block support for industry.” But only the Left is likely to care about this: you have to be exceptionally far-sighted, and honourable, to object to this if your economic instincts are all on the Right, even if you otherwise want national independence.
So it is not the Conservative Brexiteers who have been out-manoeuvred by this document: it is the Corbynite Left. But they are hamstrung by the vaguely pro-EU sentiment in the rest of the Labour Party, and will not be in any position to oppose this aspect of some future deal with the EU. The original promise of membership of the Common Market in the eyes of Conservatives — the reason why (among other people) Margaret Thatcher was initially such a keen supporter of it — will have been kept. Indeed, if these proposals are accepted by the EU, including the end of free movement, Thatcher’s dream of an independent UK which would never again suffer from socialist measures will have triumphed. Seen from this perspective, it is not at all surprising that a Cabinet consisting of her children should have agreed to this document." | |
| |
| Chequers Agreement Dead on 00:15 - Jul 11 with 580 views | WarwickHunt |
| Chequers Agreement Dead on 00:06 - Jul 11 by Kerouac |
This one goes out to a very dear friend of mine, Warwick...
Chequers. A Trap for the Left by Richard Tuck
7 hours ago by Richard Tuck 269 Views
Written by Richard Tuck
Richard Tuck argues that the key aspect of the Chequers deal is UK adherence to EU state aid rules and competition policy. It is not the Conservative Brexiteers who have been out-manoeuvred by this document: it is the Corbynite Left.
"A great deal of nonsense is already being talked about the document which emerged from Chequers yesterday, but its true significance has not yet been clearly recognised, largely because of a general confusion in the British media over what free trade areas, customs unions, and single markets are. The document says that it wants a FTA with the EU, and that is something which almost every side in the Brexit debate has said at some point they wanted; it is a natural and on the whole desirable successor to our membership of the EU, and as FTAs around the world illustrate, they do not generally undermine national sovereignty (unless you think like Trump). It also says it wants a customs “arrangement”, and many commentators (particularly on the BBC) immediately started talking as if this is a kind of customs “union”, and snidely making fun of the Cabinet Brexiteers for accepting it. But it is actually nothing of the kind. A customs union commits each member country to imposing the same tariffs as the other members of the union on goods coming from countries which are not members. All that is proposed in the Chequers document is that goods entering an independent UK and intended for final use or consumption in the country will be charged whatever tariffs the UK thinks fit. Goods entering the UK with a view to re-shipping into the EU will be charged the EU tariff at the UK border, and the money remitted to Brussels.
On the face of it this is something that an independent country can perfectly well live with. To see this, we only need to ask what the implications would be were every country in the WTO to sign up to such a regime. Who would care if it was a WTO rule that tariffs should be collected in this way? Why should we worry if any time a shipper from the US sent a consignment of goods to the UK for onward shipping to Kenya, the Kenyan tariff was collected at Felixstowe and forwarded to Nairobi, so that the US shipper would pay no dues when it arrived in Mombasa?  It is not so different in principle from the bureaucracy surrounding “rules of origin” for goods moving between countries which have differing tariffs vis-a-vis one another, and that is a perfectly familiar feature of international trade. Even if the arrangement was one-sided, in that the EU would not do the same for goods passing through to the UK (and this would be good to arrange), it is not something to be particularly disturbed by. If something like this is what Labour also meant by “a” customs union (though it is really nothing of the kind), there is little for Brexiteers to worry about.
The real issue in the document is the proposal about regulatory alignment with the EU; but here we can see why a Conservative Cabinet, even with its Brexiteers, approved the document. There is going to be some degree of regulatory alignment over goods, though even here there is an interesting proviso, “covering only those necessary to provide for frictionless trade at the border”, so that companies which do not export to the EU do not in theory have to abide by the regulations. Since exporters into any country from anywhere in the world have to abide by the regulations of the importing country, this also may not be as significant as it seems. But the key passage, with a great deal of significance for UK domestic politics, which leaps out from all this carefully qualified guff in the rest of the document, is the single sentence “The UK would commit to apply a common rulebook on state aid, and establish cooperative arrangements between regulators on competition.” This is key because it is the one area where Conservative Brexiteers’ instincts are quite different from those of Brexiteers on the Left. For the traditional Left, the Common Market and its successors was always seen as dangerous primarily because it enforced market competition, and made traditional socialist measures hard to introduce. And it is this aspect of the EU, and actually this alone, which the Conservative government wishes to continue to set in stone. When Teresa May trailed these proposals in her Mansion House speech in March, Jeremy Corbyn picked up on exactly this aspect, remarking in Parliament that “The Prime Minister’s only clear priority seems to be to tie the UK permanently to EU rules that have been used to enforce privatisation and block support for industry.” But only the Left is likely to care about this: you have to be exceptionally far-sighted, and honourable, to object to this if your economic instincts are all on the Right, even if you otherwise want national independence.
So it is not the Conservative Brexiteers who have been out-manoeuvred by this document: it is the Corbynite Left. But they are hamstrung by the vaguely pro-EU sentiment in the rest of the Labour Party, and will not be in any position to oppose this aspect of some future deal with the EU. The original promise of membership of the Common Market in the eyes of Conservatives — the reason why (among other people) Margaret Thatcher was initially such a keen supporter of it — will have been kept. Indeed, if these proposals are accepted by the EU, including the end of free movement, Thatcher’s dream of an independent UK which would never again suffer from socialist measures will have triumphed. Seen from this perspective, it is not at all surprising that a Cabinet consisting of her children should have agreed to this document." |
Cool story, bro. 👠|  | | |
| Chequers Agreement Dead on 00:24 - Jul 11 with 574 views | Kerouac |
| Chequers Agreement Dead on 00:15 - Jul 11 by WarwickHunt |
Cool story, bro. 👠|
Author not intelligent enough for you?
Go on, ask me what Richard Tuck does for a living, pretty please. | |
| |
| Chequers Agreement Dead on 00:34 - Jul 11 with 568 views | WarwickHunt |
| Chequers Agreement Dead on 00:24 - Jul 11 by Kerouac |
Author not intelligent enough for you?
Go on, ask me what Richard Tuck does for a living, pretty please. |
I know who Tuck is, thanks | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
