I agree @JimmyJeffers. Stop focussing on legitimate concerns and start believing in blind optimism like @peteblue
Current Affairs EU In or Out
- Thread starter micknick
- Start date
- Status
At the time there was a strong sense that we could be the first domino to fall, which was in part underpinning the concern many had about global affairs (which were idiotically branded ww3 by fools and then lapped up by Joe), but thankfully Britain has made such a dogs breakfast of things in the intervening time that any thoughts of an exodus have evaporated. Even the likes of Italy want to stay in, despite widespread dissatisfaction with the EU.
As a self-confessed lover of competence however, I'm sure you're not about to double down and support those who have shown such overwhelming evidence of their ineptitude over the past 3 years. That would be silliness hardly worthy of a man of your experience.
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
There are several things to do, Leave, do an Eu trade deal, grow our economy around the world.
The first one has been an unmitigated disaster, fully played for by the EU and Remainers alike. There are lessons to be learnt for anyone else who wishes to try it. The next stages are what G&F will be looking at. If we succeed they will jump.
A similar thing happened with joining the AIIB, the USA didn’t want any Western economies to join and no one did. Then the U.K. decided that it would. G&F immediately followed suit....it’s what happens.....
That's the AIIB headed up by former Lib Dem Danny Alexander, right?
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
He doesn’t head it up, that’s done by the Chinese, but he does hold quite a senior position. Danny Alexander, by the way, was one of the very few Liberals for whom I had respect.....
tim cahill
Player Valuation: £50m
I think once we have left other countries’ eyes will be fixed on us and use it as an example of what not to do. It would only be a matter of time until we rejoin.
I must complain posting photos of me on herelol
Carl O'Ancelotti
Player Valuation: £20m
Good for you. Of course my comment was a generic one and not about any particular individual or their personal family circumstances, so I'm not sure why you have taken it that way. Perhaps it struck a raw nerve.
I doubt your generation will also be grateful for the consequences of the no deal Brexit that you so desire, particularly the inevitable break up of your own country.
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
BBC....
The government is in "pretty good shape" to cope with a no-deal Brexit, the head of civil service has said.
Speaking at an event organised by the Institute for Government, Cabinet Secretary Sir Mark Sedwill said there had been "a lot of preparation".
He said: "We have got the government in pretty good shape and public services in pretty good shape for it".....
The government is in "pretty good shape" to cope with a no-deal Brexit, the head of civil service has said.
Speaking at an event organised by the Institute for Government, Cabinet Secretary Sir Mark Sedwill said there had been "a lot of preparation".
He said: "We have got the government in pretty good shape and public services in pretty good shape for it".....
summerisle
The rain, it raineth every day
He's changed his tune, no doubt looking to keep his job.
UK’s top civil servant issues stark no-deal Brexit warning as Commons deadlock continues
The UK's top civil servant has given ministers a grim forecast of how the country could be affected by a no-deal Brexit after MPs once again re...
www.politicshome.com
orchard
Player Valuation: £60m
Haha, here come the leaks....
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
He's changed his tune, no doubt looking to keep his job.
UK’s top civil servant issues stark no-deal Brexit warning as Commons deadlock continues
The UK's top civil servant has given ministers a grim forecast of how the country could be affected by a no-deal Brexit after MPs once again re...
My thoughts entirely.....
I thought this in the Economist was very educational, not least the fact that if we lurch out without a deal we subsequently negotiate future arrangements with the EU under a different article that is much harder to get approval through. I'm sure @Joey66 , @peteblue et al knew all of this, but I'm not entirely sure the 10 candidates do, or they're fond of keeping their light under a bushel.
"Fully ten leadership candidates faced a first ballot of Conservative mps as we went to press. In hopes of being one of the final two to go through to a vote by party members, they are vying to promise the most extravagant tax and spending plans. But the immediate challenge for the winner, who will take office in late July, will be Brexit, which is due to happen three months later. And here the promises vary from instant renegotiation of Britain’s exit deal to withdrawing with no deal at all.
The timing is tight. Parliament is likely to go into recess just after the new prime minister is installed, and the European Union will go on holiday. mps come back in September, but for less than two weeks before their party conferences. Brussels will be preoccupied with getting a new commission approved by the European Parliament by November 1st. A summit of eu leaders on October 17th-18th will come just a fortnight before the Brexit deadline.
The eu has made clear that it will not reopen the withdrawal agreement, which includes the backstop to avert a hard border in Ireland. Even so, most Tory leadership candidates promise a swift renegotiation, and many are talking of a time limit to the backstop. Although a new prime minister would be listened to politely, it is fanciful to expect the eu to abandon the Irish—especially for a mistrusted hardliner such as Boris Johnson, the early favourite. That raises the chances of no-deal.
And here two misconceptions kick in. The first is the claim that Parliament is sure to prevent a no-deal Brexit. A majority of mps have voted against the idea. In March backbenchers even took control of the agenda to call for an extension. The speaker of the Commons, John Bercow, is willing to change the usual rules if necessary. Somehow or other, the argument goes, Westminster would stop a prime minister who is bent on leaving without a deal.
This may turn out to be correct, but it is not a certainty. No-deal is the default option in the absence of other action before October 31st. Any further extension of the deadline also requires the unanimous approval of eu governments. Charles Grant of the Centre for European Reform, a think-tank, believes they may agree, but adds that some exasperated leaders just want Brexit out of the way, deal or no deal.
Hardline leadership candidates like Dominic Raab have suggested suspending Parliament until November to stop it interfering. The attorney-general is reported to have called this unconstitutional but not illegal. Yet most candidates have condemned it as too anti-democratic to be a serious proposal. What is more, suspension is a royal prerogative, and no serious leader would want to draw the queen into political controversy.
Still, there are limits to what mps can do. The March gambit—taking over the parliamentary timetable to pass a law demanding another extension—relied on there being legislation or an amendable motion before mps. Brexiteers believe they can avoid both. On June 12th Labour lost by 11 votes an attempt to secure a day to try to block no-deal by law. It may have another go, but a new prime minister could deny it the necessary debating time.
The nuclear option might be a vote of no confidence in the prime minister. Yet any such vote is likely only in late October, after the eusummit. It might not be carried, as Tory mps fear an election (see article). Even if it were, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act allows 14 days for a new prime minister to try to form a new government. If no one could do so, the outgoing prime minister could defer the date of a new election beyond October 31st. Hannah White of the Institute for Government, another think-tank, concludes that, though mps may do their utmost to stop no-deal, a determined prime minister might thwart them.
This brings in the second big misconception, which is that no-deal would soon lead to friendly talks on a speedy free-trade agreement similar to Canada’s, during which both sides could agree not to impose trade barriers. This is highly unlikely. A no-deal Brexit in October would be acrimonious, especially if a new prime minister refused to pay the £39bn ($50bn) that Britain has agreed it owes. That would scupper hopes for a series of “mini-deals” to reduce disruption, as some candidates promise.
Any bid to start trade negotiations would see the eu putting all the demands in the withdrawal agreement back on the table as preconditions. It would also be impossible to exploit the rules of the World Trade Organisation that can allow trade barriers to be avoided. The wto’s non-discrimination provisions permit this only if both parties agree and are well on the way to forming a new customs union or free-trade deal, neither of which would be the case after a no-deal Brexit.
No-deal also has serious legal implications. Britain would become a third country. That not only implies tariffs and non-tariff barriers, but also falling out of most of the eu’s regulatory agencies. Membership of the Europol crime-fighting agency would lapse, as would eligibility to use the European Arrest Warrant. Replacing any of these would be time-consuming.
And there is a treaty obstacle. So far Brexit negotiations have come under Article 50, allowing a deal to be agreed by a majority of eugovernments and approved only by the European Parliament. Once Britain is a third country, any negotiations would fall under a different provision, probably Article 218, which requires not just unanimous agreement but also ratification by all national and several regional parliaments. After Britain had repudiated the negotiated withdrawal agreement, the temptation for one of these bodies to reject any replacement deal would be large.
The risk of a no-deal Brexit under a new prime minister is greater than many think, and the consequences more serious. Any would-be Tory leader should acknowledge this. The worry is that many of them don’t even seem to realise it."
Source: https://www.economist.com/britain/2...-are-misleading-people-about-a-no-deal-brexit
"Fully ten leadership candidates faced a first ballot of Conservative mps as we went to press. In hopes of being one of the final two to go through to a vote by party members, they are vying to promise the most extravagant tax and spending plans. But the immediate challenge for the winner, who will take office in late July, will be Brexit, which is due to happen three months later. And here the promises vary from instant renegotiation of Britain’s exit deal to withdrawing with no deal at all.
The timing is tight. Parliament is likely to go into recess just after the new prime minister is installed, and the European Union will go on holiday. mps come back in September, but for less than two weeks before their party conferences. Brussels will be preoccupied with getting a new commission approved by the European Parliament by November 1st. A summit of eu leaders on October 17th-18th will come just a fortnight before the Brexit deadline.
The eu has made clear that it will not reopen the withdrawal agreement, which includes the backstop to avert a hard border in Ireland. Even so, most Tory leadership candidates promise a swift renegotiation, and many are talking of a time limit to the backstop. Although a new prime minister would be listened to politely, it is fanciful to expect the eu to abandon the Irish—especially for a mistrusted hardliner such as Boris Johnson, the early favourite. That raises the chances of no-deal.
And here two misconceptions kick in. The first is the claim that Parliament is sure to prevent a no-deal Brexit. A majority of mps have voted against the idea. In March backbenchers even took control of the agenda to call for an extension. The speaker of the Commons, John Bercow, is willing to change the usual rules if necessary. Somehow or other, the argument goes, Westminster would stop a prime minister who is bent on leaving without a deal.
This may turn out to be correct, but it is not a certainty. No-deal is the default option in the absence of other action before October 31st. Any further extension of the deadline also requires the unanimous approval of eu governments. Charles Grant of the Centre for European Reform, a think-tank, believes they may agree, but adds that some exasperated leaders just want Brexit out of the way, deal or no deal.
Hardline leadership candidates like Dominic Raab have suggested suspending Parliament until November to stop it interfering. The attorney-general is reported to have called this unconstitutional but not illegal. Yet most candidates have condemned it as too anti-democratic to be a serious proposal. What is more, suspension is a royal prerogative, and no serious leader would want to draw the queen into political controversy.
Still, there are limits to what mps can do. The March gambit—taking over the parliamentary timetable to pass a law demanding another extension—relied on there being legislation or an amendable motion before mps. Brexiteers believe they can avoid both. On June 12th Labour lost by 11 votes an attempt to secure a day to try to block no-deal by law. It may have another go, but a new prime minister could deny it the necessary debating time.
The nuclear option might be a vote of no confidence in the prime minister. Yet any such vote is likely only in late October, after the eusummit. It might not be carried, as Tory mps fear an election (see article). Even if it were, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act allows 14 days for a new prime minister to try to form a new government. If no one could do so, the outgoing prime minister could defer the date of a new election beyond October 31st. Hannah White of the Institute for Government, another think-tank, concludes that, though mps may do their utmost to stop no-deal, a determined prime minister might thwart them.
This brings in the second big misconception, which is that no-deal would soon lead to friendly talks on a speedy free-trade agreement similar to Canada’s, during which both sides could agree not to impose trade barriers. This is highly unlikely. A no-deal Brexit in October would be acrimonious, especially if a new prime minister refused to pay the £39bn ($50bn) that Britain has agreed it owes. That would scupper hopes for a series of “mini-deals” to reduce disruption, as some candidates promise.
Any bid to start trade negotiations would see the eu putting all the demands in the withdrawal agreement back on the table as preconditions. It would also be impossible to exploit the rules of the World Trade Organisation that can allow trade barriers to be avoided. The wto’s non-discrimination provisions permit this only if both parties agree and are well on the way to forming a new customs union or free-trade deal, neither of which would be the case after a no-deal Brexit.
No-deal also has serious legal implications. Britain would become a third country. That not only implies tariffs and non-tariff barriers, but also falling out of most of the eu’s regulatory agencies. Membership of the Europol crime-fighting agency would lapse, as would eligibility to use the European Arrest Warrant. Replacing any of these would be time-consuming.
And there is a treaty obstacle. So far Brexit negotiations have come under Article 50, allowing a deal to be agreed by a majority of eugovernments and approved only by the European Parliament. Once Britain is a third country, any negotiations would fall under a different provision, probably Article 218, which requires not just unanimous agreement but also ratification by all national and several regional parliaments. After Britain had repudiated the negotiated withdrawal agreement, the temptation for one of these bodies to reject any replacement deal would be large.
The risk of a no-deal Brexit under a new prime minister is greater than many think, and the consequences more serious. Any would-be Tory leader should acknowledge this. The worry is that many of them don’t even seem to realise it."
Source: https://www.economist.com/britain/2...-are-misleading-people-about-a-no-deal-brexit
Where are the Lib Dems Brucie you have Chuka now he will throw you away when it suits him -
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
There is absolutely nothing new in there at all. And yet again it is written in a way that only shows how difficult things will be for the U.K. and completely ignores the fact that the EU similarly will not have a free trade deal with its largest trading partner and that the introduction of tariffs favour the U.K. The ‘negotiations’ that have so far taken place have been completely one sided, with a remainer bias from our civil service. That will now change. Either we do a deal or we don’t, whatever it is we will live with it and prosper.....
- Status