Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What I’m hoping to tell the House of Lords next week about the

1235»

Comments

  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    TOPPING said:



    The UK is not Greece and there are downsides for a fair few people in the EU27 if there is no deal. A constructive, friendly UK that was seen to be reaching out might have had a chance to use that to shape public opinion in other countries so as to put some pressure on governments to strike a deal. But we have carried on being what we have been for a number of years when it comes to the EU: surly and largely hostile in tone. making Boris Johnson the UK's public face abroad might have made sense to Theresa May politically, but the big problem was that it made Boris Johnson the UK's public face abroad.

    No, David Davis, not Boris Johnson, is clearly the face of the negotiations, and Johnson seems so far to have been pretty well marginalised.

    There are two parties to these negotiations. One side has clearly entered them in a reasonably constructive manner wishing to talk about everything and published lots of detail on its stance in the hope of gaining some response from the other. The other side has though insisted on an absurd sequencing for those talks clearly designed to try and push the opposing where at the 11th hour it has little option to accept the gruel on offer and has published next to nothing of substance of its own. Its motivation for that stance seems to me to be more guided by a desire to punish than to reach a rational settlement for the benefit the citizens on whose behalf its unaccountable elites are supposedly acting.

    So, faced with that, I'm quite content that the UK government has now decided to give greater emphasis to planning for a parallel, alternative course that gives it a viable option involving tariffs. That will both by extra leverage that might still avoid that course, and might yet influence elite opinion within EU states facing the prospect of a barriers to their net exports to UK markets.

    Incidentally, what are the options as to how the UK government might use the revenues from import tariffs on EU goods?


    Tariffs on imports and exports, plus queues who knows how long for who knows what kind of produce and products at our ports.

    That'll show the EU.

    Spanish fresh food exports will rot at the ports as they queue to enter. Should the Spanish Government sit back and watch Barnier negotiate this position?
    There are other places the Spanish food can go.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Some questions on Article 50:-

    1. If it can be revoked, on what basis is it said that other countries have to agree to the revocation?

    2. Until March 2019, Britain is a full member of the EU. If Britain were to revoke the Article 50 notification, why wouldn’t we revert to the status quo ante i.e. a full EU member?

    3. Is there any provision in the Lisbon Treaty or elsewhere that permits a country to be expelled? If there is, shouldn’t that be the route used if, say, Britain were to change its mind with other states disagreeing?

    The politics of all this are another matter, of course.

    I wonder whether, if - and I know this is a huge “if” - Britain were to change its mind, the rest of the EU would welcome this. In short, has Britain’s relatively narrow vote to Leave last year, irrevocably changed the rest of the EU’s views on the desirability or otherwise of having Britain as a member. Or is it Britain’s behaviour since the vote? Or a combination of both?

    Of course, Theresa doesn't have the political clout to revoke Article 50 even if she wanted - the Brexit Ultras and the eurosceptic press would rip her to pieces. However, if, say, Boris became PM and admitted that all wasn't going to plan, then he might be able to pull it off - although he'd need to make it clear the resumption of our EU membership was only for a temporary period, whilst we got our act together. (How temporary it actually proved would be another matter, but so what?)
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516

    Cyclefree said:

    Some questions on Article 50:-

    1. If it can be revoked, on what basis is it said that other countries have to agree to the revocation?

    2. Until March 2019, Britain is a full member of the EU. If Britain were to revoke the Article 50 notification, why wouldn’t we revert to the status quo ante i.e. a full EU member?

    3. Is there any provision in the Lisbon Treaty or elsewhere that permits a country to be expelled? If there is, shouldn’t that be the route used if, say, Britain were to change its mind with other states disagreeing?

    The politics of all this are another matter, of course.

    I wonder whether, if - and I know this is a huge “if” - Britain were to change its mind, the rest of the EU would welcome this. In short, has Britain’s relatively narrow vote to Leave last year, irrevocably changed the rest of the EU’s views on the desirability or otherwise of having Britain as a member. Or is it Britain’s behaviour since the vote? Or a combination of both?

    Of course, Theresa doesn't have the political clout to revoke Article 50 even if she wanted - the Brexit Ultras and the eurosceptic press would rip her to pieces. However, if, say, Boris became PM and admitted that all wasn't going to plan, then he might be able to pull it off - although he'd need to make it clear the resumption of our EU membership was only for a temporary period, whilst we got our act together. (How temporary it actually proved would be another matter, but so what?)
    There is zero chance Boris would get away with that. The right wing Tories I know only like him because of his support for Brexit, and don't really trust him.
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 938

    Cyclefree said:

    Some questions on Article 50:-

    1. If it can be revoked, on what basis is it said that other countries have to agree to the revocation?

    2. Until March 2019, Britain is a full member of the EU. If Britain were to revoke the Article 50 notification, why wouldn’t we revert to the status quo ante i.e. a full EU member?

    3. Is there any provision in the Lisbon Treaty or elsewhere that permits a country to be expelled? If there is, shouldn’t that be the route used if, say, Britain were to change its mind with other states disagreeing?

    The politics of all this are another matter, of course.

    I wonder whether, if - and I know this is a huge “if” - Britain were to change its mind, the rest of the EU would welcome this. In short, has Britain’s relatively narrow vote to Leave last year, irrevocably changed the rest of the EU’s views on the desirability or otherwise of having Britain as a member. Or is it Britain’s behaviour since the vote? Or a combination of both?

    "The prominent lawyer Jessica Simor QC, from Matrix chambers, has written to May asking her to release the legal advice under the Freedom of Information Act. Simor says she has been told by “two good sources” that the prime minister has been advised “that the article 50 notification can be withdrawn by the UK at any time before 29 March 2019 resulting in the UK remaining in the EU on its current favourable terms. "
    https://www.markpack.org.uk/151728/theresa-may-pressed-publish-secret-legal-advice-stopping-brexit/
    Presumably as a prominent lawyer she knows in advance that Mrs May will invoke s.42 of the FOIA and refuse to disclose the advice. So this is really just a wind up.
    It is a wind up, but the Lawyer is also correct in her assumption about Art 50. If Notice is given under the Vienna Convention, that notice can be withdrawn unilaterally so long as it is done 'In good Faith', at any time before the notified action is due to take place.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Of course, Theresa doesn't have the political clout to revoke Article 50 even if she wanted - the Brexit Ultras and the eurosceptic press would rip her to pieces.

    They couldn't stop her doing it.

    She is a dead woman walking anyway. They will kill her whatever deal she does, or doesn't, get.

    She could rescue her reputation (and the country) though
  • felix said:

    Creating martyrs never seems to be a good idea.
    The only positive I can take from this is that I hope it provides the UK government a road map of what not to do if the SNP decide to hold an unconstitutional second referendum
    I think the view outside of Spain is very different from the perceptions inside. The chattering classes in the UK are focused on alleged police brutality to a 'brutally oppressed Catalan people under the thumb of a Spanish fascist state'. Inside the country there is a much stronger concern for the rule of law being upheld and a better appreciation of reality.

    The one Spain-wide opinion poll since 1st October shows a fall in support for PP. The one Catalan poll shows a fall in support for parties backing UDI. Make of that what you will. I agree, though, that the mood generally in Spain is very much pro-constitution, if not pro-government.

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,547
    edited October 2017
    Cyclefree said:

    Some questions on Article 50:-

    1. If it can be revoked, on what basis is it said that other countries have to agree to the revocation?

    2. Until March 2019, Britain is a full member of the EU. If Britain were to revoke the Article 50 notification, why wouldn’t we revert to the status quo ante i.e. a full EU member?

    3. Is there any provision in the Lisbon Treaty or elsewhere that permits a country to be expelled? If there is, shouldn’t that be the route used if, say, Britain were to change its mind with other states disagreeing?

    The politics of all this are another matter, of course.

    I wonder whether, if - and I know this is a huge “if” - Britain were to change its mind, the rest of the EU would welcome this. In short, has Britain’s relatively narrow vote to Leave last year, irrevocably changed the rest of the EU’s views on the desirability or otherwise of having Britain as a member. Or is it Britain’s behaviour since the vote? Or a combination of both?

    The politics kills any chance of revocation of Article 50 stone dead in Britain. The rEU doesn't like the idea of the UK chopping and changing. The UK is heading to the Norway purgatory, possibly via descent to WTO hell first. The first is nonsense on stilts, while the second is actively destructive. So client state of the EU is what we will be.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,587
    Danny565 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Scott_P said:

    @RupertMyers: In the absence of any other information it’s very hard to argue with these conclusions https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/917639730229141504

    More interestingly, is there anything to stop us revoking it, and subsequently invoking it again ?

    The ability to do that might (?) significantly strengthen our negotiating position...
    It certainly would - no nonsense about having to beg them for a transition deal.

    But, it's a nonsense. Even if you can find some lawyers who say if might be possible to revoke it, there would never be sufficient certainty to rely on it - and, after all, at the end of the day it's the EU which decides.
    Couldn't it be taken to the ECJ if the EU politicians were to refuse?

    Since one of the very people who drafted Article 50 says it was intended to be revocable...
    Has one other forgotten, and one gone mad ... ?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,587
    Elliot said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Some questions on Article 50:-

    1. If it can be revoked, on what basis is it said that other countries have to agree to the revocation?

    2. Until March 2019, Britain is a full member of the EU. If Britain were to revoke the Article 50 notification, why wouldn’t we revert to the status quo ante i.e. a full EU member?

    3. Is there any provision in the Lisbon Treaty or elsewhere that permits a country to be expelled? If there is, shouldn’t that be the route used if, say, Britain were to change its mind with other states disagreeing?

    The politics of all this are another matter, of course.

    I wonder whether, if - and I know this is a huge “if” - Britain were to change its mind, the rest of the EU would welcome this. In short, has Britain’s relatively narrow vote to Leave last year, irrevocably changed the rest of the EU’s views on the desirability or otherwise of having Britain as a member. Or is it Britain’s behaviour since the vote? Or a combination of both?

    Of course, Theresa doesn't have the political clout to revoke Article 50 even if she wanted - the Brexit Ultras and the eurosceptic press would rip her to pieces. However, if, say, Boris became PM and admitted that all wasn't going to plan, then he might be able to pull it off - although he'd need to make it clear the resumption of our EU membership was only for a temporary period, whilst we got our act together. (How temporary it actually proved would be another matter, but so what?)
    There is zero chance Boris would get away with that. The right wing Tories I know only like him because of his support for Brexit, and don't really trust him.
    If he formed a Government of all the ChancersW* ?

    (*Surely might command a majority in the HoC ?)
  • A pretty safe rule of thimb in this crisis is that the Spanish authorities and the Partido Popular government in Madrid will always do what the Catalan separatists want them to do. So a decision to arrest Puigdemont would make absolute sense.

    Of course, if he were left to put UDI into practice he couldn't do it. His government would be humiliated and the separatist coalition would fall apart. But that would require a degree of level-headed pragmatism - seny as the Catalans call it - that the Spanish nationalist PP does not possess.

  • Cyclefree said:

    Some questions on Article 50:-

    1. If it can be revoked, on what basis is it said that other countries have to agree to the revocation?

    2. Until March 2019, Britain is a full member of the EU. If Britain were to revoke the Article 50 notification, why wouldn’t we revert to the status quo ante i.e. a full EU member?

    3. Is there any provision in the Lisbon Treaty or elsewhere that permits a country to be expelled? If there is, shouldn’t that be the route used if, say, Britain were to change its mind with other states disagreeing?

    The politics of all this are another matter, of course.

    I wonder whether, if - and I know this is a huge “if” - Britain were to change its mind, the rest of the EU would welcome this. In short, has Britain’s relatively narrow vote to Leave last year, irrevocably changed the rest of the EU’s views on the desirability or otherwise of having Britain as a member. Or is it Britain’s behaviour since the vote? Or a combination of both?

    The first two questions are really unanswerable by anyone except the ECJ. There are no clauses within Article 50 (or elsewhere in the treaty) that allow for it to be revoked but of course that doesn't mean it definitely cannot. It would all come down to what the ECJ decided.

    Your third question is more straightforward. There are no provisions within the existing treaties upon which the EU is based for a member to be expelled. They can have certain rights suspended but since the whole basis of the EU is a series of international treaties no one member can be expelled without the whole treaty being considered to have been negated. Apparently the idea of having an expulsion clause like that of the UN was considered but rejected during drafting of the Lisbon treaty.

    This is a very good briefing paper from the European Central Bank on withdrawal and expulsion from either the Eurozone or the EU.

    https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scplps/ecblwp10.pdf
  • eristdoof said:

    Nigelb said:

    My hope on all this is that it turns out a little like the Y2K forecast apocalypse...
    everyone is unprepared for the deadline, but sufficiently prepared to avert massive damage.

    At this point, who knows ?

    The Y2K apocalypse was avoided because a lot of people worked hard at eliminating it.

    If we did nothing we would have been lambasted for failure.

    If we succeeded we would be lambasted for scare-mongering.

    It was an no-win scenario but nonetheless, a lot of remediation work was needed.
    I agree with the general point, but the Y2K bug was very over-hyped. Business chiefs heard of the problem and feared being sued for negligence and so got the business lawyers involved. This led to every bit of work done using a computer being checked and signed for. Those with a just a little bit of nous about coding and software knew what could be vulnerable and what measures needed to be taken. The extent of the risk was nowhere near as extreme as was made out.
    There is a fairly comprehensive list of things that went wrong because of Y2K out there.

    It includes - two abortions in Sheffield, unexplained alarm at a nuclear power plant in Japan and some trains in Norway being put on the previous months schedule.

    It happened, albeit on a much reduced scale, as companies did something about it.
    There were certainly issues with safety systems on both ships and oil rigs as well.
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 1,612
    Cyclefree said:

    Some questions on Article 50:-

    1. If it can be revoked, on what basis is it said that other countries have to agree to the revocation?

    2. Until March 2019, Britain is a full member of the EU. If Britain were to revoke the Article 50 notification, why wouldn’t we revert to the status quo ante i.e. a full EU member?

    3. Is there any provision in the Lisbon Treaty or elsewhere that permits a country to be expelled? If there is, shouldn’t that be the route used if, say, Britain were to change its mind with other states disagreeing?

    The politics of all this are another matter, of course.

    I wonder whether, if - and I know this is a huge “if” - Britain were to change its mind, the rest of the EU would welcome this. In short, has Britain’s relatively narrow vote to Leave last year, irrevocably changed the rest of the EU’s views on the desirability or otherwise of having Britain as a member. Or is it Britain’s behaviour since the vote? Or a combination of both?

    The treaty is silent on revocation so it would go to the ECJ, who would rule whichever way Brussels tells them to. If ECJ ruled that revocation was allowed it would not require the other countries to consent - it is a matter of law. There is no provision for a country to be expelled from the EU - the most you can do is invoke Article 7 and suspend their voting rights. In theory, is A50 could be withdrawn then we would just revert to the status quo as if it had never been invoked.

    What might be interesting is if the UK get dragged to the finish line in negotiations and the EU try and screw us at the last minute with threats of a cliff-edge, whether the UK does indeed have advice that a50 can be revoked and threaten to do just this. The problem is that the ECJ is a political court, not a legal one, so you can assume they will rule Brussels way.
  • TwistedFireStopperTwistedFireStopper Posts: 2,538
    edited October 2017
    Scott_P said:

    Of course, Theresa doesn't have the political clout to revoke Article 50 even if she wanted - the Brexit Ultras and the eurosceptic press would rip her to pieces.

    They couldn't stop her doing it.

    She is a dead woman walking anyway. They will kill her whatever deal she does, or doesn't, get.

    She could rescue her reputation (and the country) though
    I think any PM that just said " Sorry, fellas, Brexit is just gonna be too hard to sort out and might turn into a shitshow, so we're revoking Article 50 pronto" would rightly be absolutely hammered, and the country would be in turmoil. I think there'd have to be a second referendum on whatever deal we finally get, but then that too opens up a seething can of worms.
    Bluntly, I think Brexit was the right idea but implemented by an absolute bunch of cock monkeys on all sides.( for the avoidance of doubt, that's the EU and the British establishment)
    I don't know where we we go next. I'm almost of the opinion that we should just do it, get out after the Article 50 period, and see what happens, but then part of me thinks we should try and stop in, but on some fantasy renegotiated terms. Tricky.
    I think a large majority of the population like the economic idea of the EU, but not the political project idea. WilliamGlenn says that you can't have one without the other, and he's probably being proved correct.
  • European Union's Chief Brexit Negotiator Michel Barnier has warned Britain that leaving the EU is "not a game"
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961

    European Union's Chief Brexit Negotiator Michel Barnier has warned Britain that leaving the EU is "not a game"

    Well the EU should stop treating it like one then.
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 1,755
    JonathanD said:

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/10/britain-could-join-nafta-trade-alliance-us-canada-mexico-post/

    Britain could join a formal trade alliance with the US, Canada and Mexico if Britain is unable to secure a post-Brexit deal with the EU under plans being considered by ministers.

    The Telegraph understands that the Government is examining the possibility of joining the North American Free Trade Agreement, known as Nafta, as part of its planning for a “no deal” scenario.

    Joining Nafta would enable the UK to boost its trade with three of the world’s economic powerhouses, which have a combined Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of £17.2 trillion, compared with the EU’s GDP of £15.7 trillion.

    Good idea. Cheaper and less salmonella-infested chicken, too.
    Where does the Nafta parliment sit ? Do they have 2 like the EU and is there a Nafta court of justice ?
    Washington. And yes, its called ISDS.
    The International Sheep Dog Society?

    https://www.isds.org.uk/
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    European Union's Chief Brexit Negotiator Michel Barnier has warned Britain that leaving the EU is "not a game"

    He’s using May’s line to slap down Sturgeon.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    Can you imagine how Malc would react if Theresa sent the Police to arrest Nicola! :open_mouth:
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,281
    edited October 2017
    Year of Next GE - 2022 just matched at 3.75 - shortest ever price.

    2022 price has been coming in steadily in recent weeks and has now just gone favourite - albeit that market is fairly illiquid. Back/Lay prices:

    2017 - 30/40
    2018 - 3.8/3.9
    2019 - 3.75/3.85
    2020 - 10/13.5
    2021 - 9/18
    2022 - 3.5/4.3
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited October 2017
    Well, exactly.

    However, that legal interpretation flies directly in the face of Article 50(3):

    The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

    For that reason, although IANAL, I think the chance that the ECJ would decide that the UK could override that unanimity is close to zero. It can't both be true that an extension requires unanimity, and that the UK can extend it unilaterally. Since the treaty says the former, and says nothing about the latter, the latter must be wrong.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,547
    FF43 said:


    The politics kills any chance of revocation of Article 50 stone dead in Britain. The rEU doesn't like the idea of the UK chopping and changing. The UK is heading to the Norway purgatory, possibly via descent to WTO hell first. The first is nonsense on stilts, while the second is actively destructive. So client state of the EU is what we will be.

    And the essential of where we are with Brexit is that Leavers and the government haven't acknowledged that their vote to leave the EU will inevitably take the UK from participating member of the EU to rule taking client of it. The mess we are in, the government is in and the blame attached to the EU are entirely due to that inexplicable result.
  • GIN1138 said:

    Can you imagine how Malc would react if Theresa sent the Police to arrest Nicola! :open_mouth:
    I've always said Alex Salmond should have been arrested for seditious treason.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    felix said:

    Creating martyrs never seems to be a good idea.
    The only positive I can take from this is that I hope it provides the UK government a road map of what not to do if the SNP decide to hold an unconstitutional second referendum
    I think the view outside of Spain is very different from the perceptions inside. The chattering classes in the UK are focused on alleged police brutality to a 'brutally oppressed Catalan people under the thumb of a Spanish fascist state'. Inside the country there is a much stronger concern for the rule of law being upheld and a better appreciation of reality.

    The one Spain-wide opinion poll since 1st October shows a fall in support for PP. The one Catalan poll shows a fall in support for parties backing UDI. Make of that what you will. I agree, though, that the mood generally in Spain is very much pro-constitution, if not pro-government.

    On that poll you refer to the lead is unchanged with the uptick for Ciudadanos who at the moment are pushing a harder anti-independence line than Rajoy. The other 3 parties are all down on the previous GAD 3 poll - with the PSOE down the most.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Spanish_general_election.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    Well, exactly.

    However, that legal interpretation flies directly in the face of Article 50(3):

    The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

    For that reason, although IANAL, I think the chance that the ECJ would decide that the UK could override that unanimity is close to zero. It can't both be true that an extension requires unanimity, and that the UK can extend it unilaterally. Since the treaty says the former, and says nothing about the latter, the latter must be wrong.
    Half. (The idea of revoking and re-invoking.)

    So we revoke - hurrah we're in the EU. We re-invoke - hurrah we're leaving the EU.

    And that - together with contingent timeframes, transition periods, burning crosses in North East Somerset - puts us in the realm of PM Starmer and that, if nothing else, will prevent any bolleaux about Tezza embarking upon a hokey-cokey with the EU.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    A pretty safe rule of thimb in this crisis is that the Spanish authorities and the Partido Popular government in Madrid will always do what the Catalan separatists want them to do. So a decision to arrest Puigdemont would make absolute sense.

    Of course, if he were left to put UDI into practice he couldn't do it. His government would be humiliated and the separatist coalition would fall apart. But that would require a degree of level-headed pragmatism - seny as the Catalans call it - that the Spanish nationalist PP does not possess.

    Not certain but I think any decision on arrest would be done by the Constitutional court rather than the Spanish government. this was the case with the declaration that the referendum was illegal. For perhaps understandable historical reasons - most spanish have a strong sense of the rule of law - at least outside Catalonia - and even there among most ordiany folk.
  • TOPPING said:

    And that - together with contingent timeframes, transition periods, burning crosses in North East Somerset - puts us in the realm of PM Starmer and that, if nothing else, will prevent any bolleaux about Tezza embarking upon a hokey-cokey with the EU.

    Indeed, but those whose wishful thinking leads them to believe that Article 50 can be revoked unilaterally are also wishfully hoping that there will be some kind of Blairite/LibDem government in place in time to pull the communication cord*.

    * For younger readers who might be puzzled by this phrase:

    https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/communication-cord
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:


    The politics kills any chance of revocation of Article 50 stone dead in Britain. The rEU doesn't like the idea of the UK chopping and changing. The UK is heading to the Norway purgatory, possibly via descent to WTO hell first. The first is nonsense on stilts, while the second is actively destructive. So client state of the EU is what we will be.

    And the essential of where we are with Brexit is that Leavers and the government haven't acknowledged that their vote to leave the EU will inevitably take the UK from participating member of the EU to rule taking client of it. The mess we are in, the government is in and the blame attached to the EU are entirely due to that inexplicable result.
    "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it." (Niels Bohr). And anyone who is not shocked by how fecked we are, has not understood how fecked we are.
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400

    Scott_P said:

    Of course, Theresa doesn't have the political clout to revoke Article 50 even if she wanted - the Brexit Ultras and the eurosceptic press would rip her to pieces.

    They couldn't stop her doing it.

    She is a dead woman walking anyway. They will kill her whatever deal she does, or doesn't, get.

    She could rescue her reputation (and the country) though
    Bluntly, I think Brexit was the right idea but implemented by an absolute bunch of cock monkeys on all sides.( for the avoidance of doubt, that's the EU and the British establishment)
    This is too easy a get out. The current problems have nothing to do with the competence of the negotiators. The problem is that we have a country divided down the middle as to what direction to take and where Leave promised no economic cost of leaving.

    If the Brexiteers were prepared to accept the consequences of what they voted for, Leaving would be easy.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    And that - together with contingent timeframes, transition periods, burning crosses in North East Somerset - puts us in the realm of PM Starmer and that, if nothing else, will prevent any bolleaux about Tezza embarking upon a hokey-cokey with the EU.

    Indeed, but those whose wishful thinking leads them to believe that Article 50 can be revoked unilaterally are also wishfully hoping that there will be some kind of Blairite/LibDem government in place in time to pull the communication cord*.

    * For younger readers who might be puzzled by this phrase:

    https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/communication-cord
    Do we get owls also?
  • NEW THREAD

  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315

    brendan16 said:



    And chicken coated with exactly the same thing we coat our children in when they go to the local swimming baths.

    the 'same thing' that kills the bugs, right? and stops swimming pools being an absolute disease pit? Right?

    Yes - it's chlorine!

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited October 2017
    JonathanD said:

    Scott_P said:

    Of course, Theresa doesn't have the political clout to revoke Article 50 even if she wanted - the Brexit Ultras and the eurosceptic press would rip her to pieces.

    They couldn't stop her doing it.

    She is a dead woman walking anyway. They will kill her whatever deal she does, or doesn't, get.

    She could rescue her reputation (and the country) though
    Bluntly, I think Brexit was the right idea but implemented by an absolute bunch of cock monkeys on all sides.( for the avoidance of doubt, that's the EU and the British establishment)
    This is too easy a get out. The current problems have nothing to do with the competence of the negotiators. The problem is that we have a country divided down the middle as to what direction to take and where Leave promised no economic cost of leaving.

    If the Brexiteers were prepared to accept the consequences of what they voted for, Leaving would be easy.

    Deep, deep down in the minds of some of the government is the nagging little voice, very faint, that the reason they entered politics was to make the country a better place and improve peoples' lives.

    Is what is the drag on an otherwise shockingly harmful move to WTO.
  • PaganPagan Posts: 259
    People are perhaps jumping to wrong conclusions about food from the headline figure of a third of our food is imported. They forget we also export food.

    For example Fish from 2014

    Fish caught or farmed in the uk 666,000 tonnes
    Fish exported 499,000 tonnes (323,000 tonnes to the eu approx)
    Fish imported to the uk 721000 tonnes (231,000 tonnes from eu)

    So on the fish front if we stopped being able to import and export fish from the eu in a timely manner then we would have a 100,000 tonne surplus of fish for home consumption.

    Yes britain may have to change our fish tastes but we wouldnt be going hungry.

    It is also a mystery why import/export time restrictions prevent us from importing/exporting to the eu when we manage to import 490,000 tonnes from countries which we have existing border controls to and export 166,000 tonnes to countries we have border controls with.

    At worst our range of choices is restricted but no shortage
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,861

    eristdoof said:

    Nigelb said:

    My hope on all this is that it turns out a little like the Y2K forecast apocalypse...
    everyone is unprepared for the deadline, but sufficiently prepared to avert massive damage.

    At this point, who knows ?

    The Y2K apocalypse was avoided because a lot of people worked hard at eliminating it.

    If we did nothing we would have been lambasted for failure.

    If we succeeded we would be lambasted for scare-mongering.

    It was an no-win scenario but nonetheless, a lot of remediation work was needed.
    I agree with the general point, but the Y2K bug was very over-hyped. Business chiefs heard of the problem and feared being sued for negligence and so got the business lawyers involved. This led to every bit of work done using a computer being checked and signed for. Those with a just a little bit of nous about coding and software knew what could be vulnerable and what measures needed to be taken. The extent of the risk was nowhere near as extreme as was made out.
    There is a fairly comprehensive list of things that went wrong because of Y2K out there.

    It includes - two abortions in Sheffield, unexplained alarm at a nuclear power plant in Japan and some trains in Norway being put on the previous months schedule.

    It happened, albeit on a much reduced scale, as companies did something about it.
    This is not inconsistent with what I wrote. The Y2K bug was a real problem but many of the things that needed to be checked double checked and signed off were not just unnecessary but obviously unnecessary to anyone who knew anything about the problem.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,861
    brendan16 said:

    brendan16 said:



    And chicken coated with exactly the same thing we coat our children in when they go to the local swimming baths.

    the 'same thing' that kills the bugs, right? and stops swimming pools being an absolute disease pit? Right?

    Yes - it's chlorine!

    Do you like the taste of the chlorinated water in the swimming pool?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    eristdoof said:

    brendan16 said:

    brendan16 said:



    And chicken coated with exactly the same thing we coat our children in when they go to the local swimming baths.

    the 'same thing' that kills the bugs, right? and stops swimming pools being an absolute disease pit? Right?

    Yes - it's chlorine!

    Do you like the taste of the chlorinated water in the swimming pool?
    Get yourself over to the other thread. Not super busy but where people are congregated!
This discussion has been closed.