advertisement


Oh Britain, what have you done (part ∞+13)?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well now.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...it/?WT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_iosshare_Ar3f7sz5yF7w

Philip Hammond told business leaders that the “threat” of a no-deal Brexit could be taken “off the table” within days and potentially lead to Article 50 “rescinded”, a leaked recording of a conference call reveals.

The Chancellor set out how a backbench Bill could effectively be used to stop any prospect of no deal. He suggested that ministers may even back the plan when asked for an “assurance” by the head of Tesco that the Government would not oppose the motion.
Click to expand...
 
May has asked for the cooperation of all other parties to do a deal, and all other parties have demanded the removal of the possibility of a no deal Brexit as the price for doing so. In some cases AT LEAST this. Which should please the Brexiteers no end.

Should be fun.
 
TheDecameron said:
You keep going back to your past example, I’m talking about the present. I’m sure the 14,000 Ford employees and the many more in their suppliers are concerned when the company publicly say no deal will be catastrophic for their UK manufacturing. The country can’t afford your ideological Brexit.
Click to expand...

Well, you know what they say about ignoring the lessons of history. Ford has been perfectly happy for the EU to be an enabler in terms of it exporting jobs in the past, why should the same not happen in the future. Anyway, all that apart, the UK is a large market for Ford - its 3rd largest by country ranking after the US and China, half as big again as Germany. It may well be in their interest to bring jobs back into the UK after Brexit. Then again, who knows. The car industry is beset by challenges far more fundamental than Brexit, and Brexit is already in the nascent stages of being used as a useful strategic smokescreen.

Brexit is far less ideological than remain, for the EU is primarily based on ideology, and dated ideology at that. There has never been a Brexit, so, despite all the dire warnings of imminent catastrophe (if we voted to leave, let alone actually left), nobody really knows what effect it will have. It is all hypothesis and conjecture. The evidence of the effects of EU ideological hubris are all around you. It is verifiable, empirical fact.
 
Having skimmed through the last 20 pages here, I'm struck by how little consideration there is of the EU's position, as if the only thing that matters is the next parliamentary manoeuver in Westminster.

The only scenario with legal existence at the moment is "UK leaves on March 29" - the WA has just been voted down and everything else requires the UK government to formally cancel Art. 50 or to convince the EU to stop the clock. In both cases the move has to pass muster in Brussels or Luxembourg. The CJEU said the UK can unilaterally cancel Art. 50 before March 29, but it can't just stop the clock before coming back with new demands, even if these were slightly less barmy than the previous ones. Reasons that would presumably qualify would be a GE (oops), a referendum (no time to organize before 29/3), a vote in Parliament putting a definitive end to the Brexit project (not enough votes). None of these seem very likely.

What then? The red lines on both sides produced the current withdrawal agreement that Britain hates so much. Removing one or more of these red lines could, perhaps, be enough to persuade the EU to agree to a suspension (not cancellation) of Art. 50. Who is going to force May to remove one or two of her red lines?

The WA is a transition agreement. It is designed to let the UK leave in an organized way, so that the discussion about the future relationship can then start. All discussions about Canada ++, Norway+, take place afterwards as they require lengthy debate and painful compromises for British politicians on all sides. The EU has been adamant about this sequencing right from the very beginning. It is silly to assume it will roll over and play dead now. Britain is going to have to confront the lies and wishful thinking that continue even after 2.5 years of Brexit "debate". A referendum might help at the end of this process, but certainly not at the beginning. Nobody can even agree on what the question(s) would be.

Tory rebels will not vote for a GE. Who (within Labour or the Conservatives) is going to lead the opposition to a no-deal Brexit and persuade Tory rebels to try other options, and the EU to stop the clock? How can Parliament make enough progress before March 29 (10 weeks), when May still seems bent on obstruction?
 
Tony L said:
Superb news if even remotely true. Who’d have guessed a Tory could be a more effective opposition than the actual opposition?

PS Sit back and watch Labour gammon vote against it!
Click to expand...
Well, Labour demanded it as a condition of their participation in negotiations, so I doubt they'll vote against it.
 
PsB said:
Having skimmed through the last 20 pages here, I'm struck by how little consideration there is of the EU's position, as if the only thing that matters is the next parliamentary manoeuver in Westminster.

The only scenario with legal existence at the moment is "UK leaves on March 29" - the WA has just been voted down and everything else requires the UK government to formally cancel Art. 50 or to convince the EU to stop the clock. In both cases the move has to pass muster in Brussels or Luxembourg. The CJEU said the UK can unilaterally cancel Art. 50 before March 29, but it can't just stop the clock before coming back with new demands, even if these were slightly less barmy than the previous ones. Reasons that would presumably qualify would be a GE (oops), a referendum (to time to organize before 29/3), a vote in Parliament putting a definitive end to the Brexit project (not enough votes). None of these seem very likely.

What then? The red lines on both sides produced the current withdrawal agreement that Britain hates so much. Removing one or more of these red lines could, perhaps, be enough to persuade the EU to agree to a suspension (not cancellation) of Art. 50. Who is going to force May to remove one or two of her red lines?

The WA is a transition agreement. It is designed to let the UK leave in an organized way, so that the discussion about the future relationship can then start. All discussions about Canada ++, Norway+, take place afterwards as they require lengthy debate and painful compromises for British politicians on all sides. The EU has been adamant about this sequencing right from the very beginning. It is silly to assume it will roll over and play dead now. Britain is going to have to confront the lies and wishful thinking that continue even after 2.5 years of Brexit "debate". A referendum might help at the end of this process, but certainly not at the beginning. Nobody can even agree on what the question(s) would be.

Tory rebels will not vote for a GE. Who (within Labour or the Conservatives) is going to lead the opposition to a no-deal Brexit and persuade Tory rebels to try other options, and the EU to stop the clock? How can Parliament make enough progress before March 29 (6 weeks), when May still seems bent on obstruction?
Click to expand...
They keep saying they'll renegotiate if presented with something less mad, and they've indicated they're prepared to delay things.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...and-france-signal-willingness-to-delay-brexit
 
Seanm said:
Well, Labour demanded it as a condition of their participation in negotiations, so I doubt they'll vote against it.
Click to expand...

That was a double-bluff from Corbyn. He's been aiming for hard Brexit since the day after the referendum. Cunning b*stard.
 
Swamp Thing said:
May has asked for the cooperation of all other parties to do a deal, and all other parties have demanded the removal of the possibility of a no deal Brexit as the price for doing so. In some cases AT LEAST this. Which should please the Brexiteers no end.
Click to expand...

You'd have thought the smart thing to do would be to start the discussion with no red lines and demands. This is just another example of politicians failing to collectively get to grips with the issue and not having any respect for their position as publicly elected representatives.

In my opinion there should be no extension to A50 as they all need to start grasping the principle of having to work to a deadline. Human beings don't function properly unless there is an element of risk involved. Same with the EU, they also need to accept the consequences of a deadline.
 
TPA said:
You'd have thought the smart thing to do would be to start the discussion with no red lines and demands. This is just another example of politicians failing to collectively get to grips with the issue and not having any respect for their position as publicly elected representatives.

In my opinion there should be no extension to A50 as they all need to start grasping the principle of having to work to a deadline. Human beings don't function properly unless there is an element of risk involved. Same with the EU, they also need to accept the consequences of a deadline.
Click to expand...
The other factor of course is public opinion. Those wanting Brexit were promised the moon on a stick and others had no real conception of what ‘walking away and telling the E.U. to whistle’, would actually mean in reality. They are telling their MPs to gerronwithit.These beliefs are still present and have actually hardened in some cases. Add that into the madness at Westminster.
 
TPA said:
You'd have thought the smart thing to do would be to start the discussion with no red lines and demands. This is just another example of politicians failing to collectively get to grips with the issue and not having any respect for their position as publicly elected representatives.

In my opinion there should be no extension to A50 as they all need to start grasping the principle of having to work to a deadline. Human beings don't function properly unless there is an element of risk involved. Same with the EU, they also need to accept the consequences of a deadline.
Click to expand...
Many of them are very happy about the deadline: Brexiteers because they hope to crash out with no deal, May's lot because they hope that fear of that happening will get the rebels on board. And many of them are quite happy to accept the consequences, which include personal enrichment.

They're not children, or students, or squabbling middle managers who need their heads knocked together: they are as you say elected representatives, and they represent radically opposed values and interests. For one quite large group known as the Conservative Party those values and interests run the gamut from sadism to carpetbagging and the only way to deal with them is to get rid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top