TM has a max of 21 days to return to parliament with a response duing which time the government cannot be vnoc as long as it complies with the speakers requests
Why do you say the government cannot get VONCed during that time? The EUWA doesn't repeal any part of the FTPA. The EUWA doesn't say it has to be the government at the time the motion is defeated that makes the statement within 21 days.
Those 21 days are solar days.
Some of the other stipulations in the Act use Commons sitting days or Lords sitting days (terms defined in s13(16)), but this one doesn't. So that will be by 1 January then.
What do you put the chances of the deal being ratified after a significant change?
I other touted options like no deal since I don't think the Irish genuinely want to go into the abyss.
I think there is no chance of a significant change. If there was a better solution, why wouldn't the two sides have found it already? I think it is possible that there could be some kind of further fudge on the backstop, sufficient to provide cover for some MPs to change their minds, but I don't expect it to be anything more than that.
I think they wouldn't have found it already because the EU both arrogantly and accurately thought they didn't need to
Is that not logical?
That assumes No Deal is a sustainable end state for the UK. The EU presumably believes not. I don't think so either. Leavers need Brexit to be at least tolerable, even if it's never going to be an actual success.
It is a sustainable end state. Its a suboptimal one, but its sustainable.
The EU presumably believed we wouldn't vote for Brexit. We did. The EU presumably believed we wouldn't turn down their deal. We might.
Cameron and May both tried to negotiate with the EU and both made the fatal flaw of being obviously unprepared to walk away. There's enough time left for just one more attempt at negotiations, it needs to be led by someone who is completely prepared to walk away. Call their bluff. Deal or no deal.
Points to bear in mind:
- The EU wants the stuff in the Withdrawal Agreement. It will push for that every opportunity and as a condition for agreeing anything at all in the future. It won't say, OK, no deal let's move on. - The EU only needs to make it more attractive for us to sign the deal than not sign it. - The original referendum was won on a tiny majority on a promise of no cost and there is now probably a majority against. The public appetite for a stand off may not be that great.
But it does mean accepting LESS say over what happens to us when taking control was the only point of Brexit.
I think the argument is beyond that
My advice to brexiteers is bank the WDA and determine to take on the EU in the trade deal negotitions
And to remainers accept the deal and look to rejoin in the future
And to the rest us let's get on with our lives and let the government get on with governing
And to think this is all possibe by xmas ensuring we all enjoy Hogmanay to the full
TM has a max of 21 days to return to parliament with a response duing which time the government cannot be vnoc as long as it complies with the speakers requests
Why do you say the government cannot get VONCed during that time? The EUWA doesn't repeal any part of the FTPA. The EUWA doesn't say it has to be the government at the time the motion is defeated that makes the statement within 21 days.
Those 21 days are solar days.
Some of the other stipulations in the Act use Commons sitting days or Lords sitting days (terms defined in s13(16)), but this one doesn't. So that will be by 1 January then.
How about that as a start to the new year, Corbyn off to the palace.
< Also, not all assets are created equally. If we lost €800bn of money market or French government bond business, I doubt we'd notice. On the other hand, that works probably represent the entire London private equity and venture capital space, and we'd definitely notice that.
I suspect financial services will be clobbered under any Brexit scenario, because of regulation and not market access. The EU will discourage activity it doesn't have direct control over to avoid disrupting its systems. Meanwhile UK authorities won't accept rules made by others if they are on the hook for any liability. So activity will move from the smaller regulatory area to the bigger one. There's a reason why New York is a much more important financial centre than Toronto.
Bad for me :-(
Of course instead of banks moving to the continent, continental companies in need of funds might move their Treasuries to the UK.
I forgot to mention this, but in a No Deal scenario we drop out of the - as I've repeated ad nauseum - rules on withholding taxes and double taxation. That makes it extremely unlikely anyone would want their treasury function in London.
I dunno - that seems a fair enough tweet to me. Trump is doing things that are producing Economic benefits - these benefits might be simply blips and essentially accounting irregularities, but I think that's a hard argument to make. Trump is rightly derided for all sorts of things, but he does deserve praise where things are working.
Overall I'd say this tweet is one that I'd agree with. I will balance that against several thousand other counts in reaching my verdict mind.
TM has a max of 21 days to return to parliament with a response duing which time the government cannot be vnoc as long as it complies with the speakers requests
Why do you say the government cannot get VONCed during that time? The EUWA doesn't repeal any part of the FTPA. The EUWA doesn't say it has to be the government at the time the motion is defeated that makes the statement within 21 days.
Those 21 days are solar days.
Some of the other stipulations in the Act use Commons sitting days or Lords sitting days (terms defined in s13(16)), but this one doesn't. So that will be by 1 January then.
It is parliamentary procedure and as long as the government follows the Speakers advice it will not happen. Read the roadmap that lays out the process
< Also, not all assets are created equally. If we lost €800bn of money market or French government bond business, I doubt we'd notice. On the other hand, that works probably represent the entire London private equity and venture capital space, and we'd definitely notice that.
I suspect financial services will be clobbered under any Brexit scenario, because of regulation and not market access. The EU will discourage activity it doesn't have direct control over to avoid disrupting its systems. Meanwhile UK authorities won't accept rules made by others if they are on the hook for any liability. So activity will move from the smaller regulatory area to the bigger one. There's a reason why New York is a much more important financial centre than Toronto.
Bad for me :-(
Of course instead of banks moving to the continent, continental companies in need of funds might move their Treasuries to the UK.
I forgot to mention this, but in a No Deal scenario we drop out of the - as I've repeated ad nauseum - rules on withholding taxes and double taxation. That makes it extremely unlikely anyone would want their treasury function in London.
There is though the parallel of the US banking rules causing much of the US dollar market moving to London in the 70s/80s. The US banks then had to race to buy up every last Ackroyd and and an array of Smithers just to get back in the game.
(PS A&S had a non-US path, but couldn't resist the 'smithers')
< Also, not all assets are created equally. If we lost €800bn of money market or French government bond business, I doubt we'd notice. On the other hand, that works probably represent the entire London private equity and venture capital space, and we'd definitely notice that.
I suspect financial services will be clobbered under any Brexit scenario, because of regulation and not market access. The EU will discourage activity it doesn't have direct control over to avoid disrupting its systems. Meanwhile UK authorities won't accept rules made by others if they are on the hook for any liability. So activity will move from the smaller regulatory area to the bigger one. There's a reason why New York is a much more important financial centre than Toronto.
Bad for me :-(
Of course instead of banks moving to the continent, continental companies in need of funds might move their Treasuries to the UK.
I have always thought that they would use their UK subsidiaries to do the deal in London that the Euro HQ wanted.
Speaking as a former CFO of a multinational business, the main function of treasury is to make sure that all subsidiaries are able to meet payroll and other bills. This means that you need to shift money about between entities as easily as possible. This can be done in one of three ways:
1. You will have a transfer pricing policy that allows services to be done, and paid for 2. You will dividend profits up from subsidiaries to the parent 3. You will have inter company balances as money is lent as necessary
So, say you have a London based TopCo. Right now, because of the rules on no double taxation, and no withholding tax, you can have your German subsidiary lend your Spanish one money to make payroll. But those kind of remittances become very hard to do without protection against withholding taxes, and double taxation. If your German subsidiary transferred money out to another part of the group structure, that looks awfully like paying a dividend without the associated tax. And tax authorities hate that.
(Addendum: In the old days, you'd have your Irish or Cayman Islands subsidiary as the holder of all the IP, which would then use transfer pricing to siphon profits off shore. You'd then loan the money from the tax haven to the parent, and pay dividends or buy back stock or whatever.)
< Also, not all assets are created equally. If we lost €800bn of money market or French government bond business, I doubt we'd notice. On the other hand, that works probably represent the entire London private equity and venture capital space, and we'd definitely notice that.
I suspect financial services will be clobbered under any Brexit scenario, because of regulation and not market access. The EU will discourage activity it doesn't have direct control over to avoid disrupting its systems. Meanwhile UK authorities won't accept rules made by others if they are on the hook for any liability. So activity will move from the smaller regulatory area to the bigger one. There's a reason why New York is a much more important financial centre than Toronto.
Bad for me :-(
Of course instead of banks moving to the continent, continental companies in need of funds might move their Treasuries to the UK.
I forgot to mention this, but in a No Deal scenario we drop out of the - as I've repeated ad nauseum - rules on withholding taxes and double taxation. That makes it extremely unlikely anyone would want their treasury function in London.
*Checks how far down this is the average hard brexiteer's list of priorities. Err found it, item #97 in Steve Baker's thoughts
I dunno - that seems a fair enough tweet to me. Trump is doing things that are producing Economic benefits - these benefits might be simply blips and essentially accounting irregularities, but I think that's a hard argument to make. Trump is rightly derided for all sorts of things, but he does deserve praise where things are working.
Overall I'd say this tweet is one that I'd agree with. I will balance that against several thousand other counts in reaching my verdict mind.
Oil prices rose because of his sanctions on Iran. And increased production in the Permian basin is something he needs to thank geologists for, it's certainly not a consequence of his actions.
I do wonder if I will still be alive when the next non-Brexit thread happens...........
We planted our very first Amelanchier today. I've always wanted one, and our new island fortress retirement home still has a large enough garden to permit trees. We've gone for unexciting picks elsewhere; Prunus, Hawthorn and Ilex.
TM has a max of 21 days to return to parliament with a response duing which time the government cannot be vnoc as long as it complies with the speakers requests
Why do you say the government cannot get VONCed during that time? The EUWA doesn't repeal any part of the FTPA. The EUWA doesn't say it has to be the government at the time the motion is defeated that makes the statement within 21 days.
Those 21 days are solar days.
Some of the other stipulations in the Act use Commons sitting days or Lords sitting days (terms defined in s13(16)), but this one doesn't. So that will be by 1 January then.
It is parliamentary procedure and as long as the government follows the Speakers advice it will not happen. Read the roadmap that lays out the process
I haven't heard of a parliamentary procedure that mandates the Speaker to refuse to allow the opposition to table a motion of no confidence for 3 weeks so long as the Government follows his advice. To which document are you referring when you say "roadmap"?
I dunno - that seems a fair enough tweet to me. Trump is doing things that are producing Economic benefits - these benefits might be simply blips and essentially accounting irregularities, but I think that's a hard argument to make. Trump is rightly derided for all sorts of things, but he does deserve praise where things are working.
Overall I'd say this tweet is one that I'd agree with. I will balance that against several thousand other counts in reaching my verdict mind.
Oil prices rose because of his sanctions on Iran. And increased production in the Permian basin is something he needs to thank geologists for, it's certainly not a consequence of his actions.
Yes, but oil prices fell because of other actions he's taken or not taken. You stick anyone at all in the White House and they'll have some good results, and some bad. Trump's 'goods' suggest he's not the idiot I take him for.
TM has a max of 21 days to return to parliament with a response duing which time the government cannot be vnoc as long as it complies with the speakers requests
Why do you say the government cannot get VONCed during that time? The EUWA doesn't repeal any part of the FTPA. The EUWA doesn't say it has to be the government at the time the motion is defeated that makes the statement within 21 days.
Those 21 days are solar days.
Some of the other stipulations in the Act use Commons sitting days or Lords sitting days (terms defined in s13(16)), but this one doesn't. So that will be by 1 January then.
It is parliamentary procedure and as long as the government follows the Speakers advice it will not happen. Read the roadmap that lays out the process
I haven't heard of a parliamentary procedure that mandates the Speaker to refuse to allow the opposition to table a motion of no confidence for 3 weeks so long as the Government follows his advice. To which document are you referring when you say "roadmap"?
TM has a max of 21 days to return to parliament with a response duing which time the government cannot be vnoc as long as it complies with the speakers requests
Why do you say the government cannot get VONCed during that time? The EUWA doesn't repeal any part of the FTPA. The EUWA doesn't say it has to be the government at the time the motion is defeated that makes the statement within 21 days.
Those 21 days are solar days.
Some of the other stipulations in the Act use Commons sitting days or Lords sitting days (terms defined in s13(16)), but this one doesn't. So that will be by 1 January then.
It is parliamentary procedure and as long as the government follows the Speakers advice it will not happen. Read the roadmap that lays out the process
I haven't heard of a parliamentary procedure that mandates the Speaker to refuse to allow the opposition to table a motion of no confidence for 3 weeks so long as the Government follows his advice. To which document are you referring when you say "roadmap"?
The Opposition can table a Vote of No Confidence at any time - and in no way does it have to be Brexit-related at all!
The key paragraph is this one, echoing a point @Big_G_NorthWales has made:
A key tactic for the Brexit vote is to allow all the other options to be voted on via MPs submitting amendments, and let them fail first, forcing MPs to consider May’s deal as the only realistic option on the table. The Smith argument is that none of the various alternatives command a majority in the Commons.
Alas Mr Smith is no longer my MP, so I can't write to him urging him to vote against May's deal.
As I am now a resident of the Shipley constituency, I don't think my current MP needs any persuasion!
With respect I do not think you appreciate the process under this procedure
I fully understand the process. May argues her case to the nation, and we are then meant to urge our MPs to vote the way we want them to. Well, May has failed to persuade me of the merits of her deal, so I am very happy that my MP will be voting against. That he gets to take his better half into the lobby with him is just icing on the cake.
You have just made my case.
Under the meaningful vote each amendment will be voted on including second referendum, no deal, moving A50, labours wrecking deal, norway etc, and as each falls the final meaningful deal with be on TM deal. In those circumstances the HOC will vote for, as anything else will collapse the markets as all other options are exhausted and no deal is default
The only caveat is of course that if any amendment passed and was attached to the meaningful vote, the attached amendment on the deal would pass
It is not just get my mp to take it down. It is more complex than that
I am not sure it is possible to add an amendment on a second referendum because that would only happen if the vote is carried, and if the vote is carried it means May's deal is implemented (so a second referendum would not be applicable).
I believe it would make the deal subject to a referendum but I stand ready to be corrected
Adding such an amendment would surely make it even less likely to be passed - resulting in defaulting to WTO deal?
Probably but if passed a referendum it is.
And no WTO only happens if the HOC vote for it over TM deal at the end of the meaningful vote
This weekend will be interesting as mps return to their constituencies and chairs and they discuss their voting intention
When apart, MPs and Constituency chairs might use the modern contraptions of the telephone network and the internet and not wait to meet face to face.
On somethimg as important as this they need to see constituents, chairs and members, and talk to their voters
Agree they must table things, without window dressing, or it’ll be curtains for them. Not such a pediment though, once they give things time to bed down. Otherwise their chairs will carpet them.
Comments
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1066689688600281088
Those 21 days are solar days.
Some of the other stipulations in the Act use Commons sitting days or Lords sitting days (terms defined in s13(16)), but this one doesn't. So that will be by 1 January then.
My advice to brexiteers is bank the WDA and determine to take on the EU in the trade deal negotitions
And to remainers accept the deal and look to rejoin in the future
And to the rest us let's get on with our lives and let the government get on with governing
And to think this is all possibe by xmas ensuring we all enjoy Hogmanay to the full
Lets not lose it now
Overall I'd say this tweet is one that I'd agree with. I will balance that against several thousand other counts in reaching my verdict mind.
The thought came in my mind that it could be a good promotion race match
But of course they are in the Primiership. Age playing tricks on me but there we are
(PS A&S had a non-US path, but couldn't resist the 'smithers')
1. You will have a transfer pricing policy that allows services to be done, and paid for
2. You will dividend profits up from subsidiaries to the parent
3. You will have inter company balances as money is lent as necessary
So, say you have a London based TopCo. Right now, because of the rules on no double taxation, and no withholding tax, you can have your German subsidiary lend your Spanish one money to make payroll. But those kind of remittances become very hard to do without protection against withholding taxes, and double taxation. If your German subsidiary transferred money out to another part of the group structure, that looks awfully like paying a dividend without the associated tax. And tax authorities hate that.
(Addendum: In the old days, you'd have your Irish or Cayman Islands subsidiary as the holder of all the IP, which would then use transfer pricing to siphon profits off shore. You'd then loan the money from the tax haven to the parent, and pay dividends or buy back stock or whatever.)
It is the procedure in this case