Meat Wad

Brexit, WTF

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, LeoV said:

Yes, that was a problem all politicians new as all were in politics when that deal got signed.
They should have been honest about it in the referendum, specially the Tory party is to blame to ignore the NI people.
It should have stated in the nice leaflets they send out, yes we can have a Brexit, but for a real Brexit we will have to exclude NI.
 

very true but how in the hell didnt the remoaners flag this as its an irrefutable major issue as they floated down the Thames on a barge sipping 12 year old Dom..

 

like I said way back both sides presented weak cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Sailabout said:

lots of scaremongering but the WTO boss said trade will continue, it wont come to a grinding halt on day one, then stuff has to be worked out.
Too much cut your nose off to spite your face stuff will hurt everyone EU wide

Irish give up their biggest beef importer, Germans their biggest car importer?
 

Sail all I can think is you have stumbled across Transport Secretary, Chris Grayling stash of crack. To make it simple for you then.

52 minutes ago, Sailabout said:

but the WTO boss said trade will continue, it wont come to a grinding halt on day one, then stuff has to be worked out.

Please provide evidence of that WTO boss quote saying trade will continue unimpeded (and under what terms) where he said it won't come to a grinding halt at the end of March with a No Deal Brexit?

52 minutes ago, Sailabout said:

Irish give up their biggest beef importer, 

Please provide the mechanics of how a truck load of Irish EU beef makes it into the UK either via Northern Ireland or direct at the end of March with a Brexit No Deal?

This article may provide you with some guidance.

https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/irish-beef-exports-will-require-eu-supports-post-brexit-agri-economist/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Sail all I can think is you have stumbled across Transport Secretary, Chris Grayling stash of crack. To make it simple for you then.

Please provide evidence of that WTO boss quote saying trade will continue unimpeded (and under what terms) where he said it won't come to a grinding halt at the end of March with a No Deal Brexit?

Please provide the mechanics of how a truck load of Irish EU beef makes it into the UK either via Northern Ireland or direct at the end of March with a Brexit No Deal?

This article may provide you with some guidance.

https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/irish-beef-exports-will-require-eu-supports-post-brexit-agri-economist/

https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-will-not-cause-uk-trade-disruption-wto-boss-10632803

so the answer is it will all be the same as it was on the 28th according to the WTO

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sailabout said:

very true but how in the hell didnt the remoaners flag this as its an irrefutable major issue as they floated down the Thames on a barge sipping 12 year old Dom..

Overshouted by simplistic shouting from the other side, it was brought up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

I thought so. He said nothing of the fucking sort. And you forgot your truck load of Irish EU Beef.

I give up.

which part of the words, "trade will go on without disruption" couldnt you understand?

OK Jack the UK will starve and run out of German cars, all burgers will be lamb instead of beef, that should make you happy because the EU dont want any country to export anything to the UK as they learnt on Sailing Anarchy they cant?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sailabout said:

which part of the words, "trade will go on without disruption" couldnt you understand?

his words,
2015 bumpy

2016, not bumpy

2017, bumpy https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-wto/wto-chief-says-hes-been-consistent-on-brexit-itll-be-a-bumpy-road-idUSKBN1DR2GH

2018, not a walk in the park https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/no-deal-brexit-uk-trading-wto-under-wto-rules-not-realistic-roberto-azevedo-a8505946.html

 

2018 report; https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news18_e/mark_11oct18_e.htm

Rectifications and modifications of Schedule XIX – United Kingdom

Members acknowledged the difficulty of the Brexit process and called for a mutually acceptable solution that is as close as possible to WTO rules. The lack of compensatory adjustment and the fact that the UK was copying an uncertified EU-28 schedule, which may contain errors, was a concern expressed by delegations.

Members also shared concerns over the approach proposed for determining post-Brexit goods trade commitments as, in their view, they could result in substantial reductions in market access commitments, especially with regards to TRQs, as well as the UK's large farm subsidy claim. Moreover, they went on, the UK proposal does not identify how the EU would be treated in the UK's market access commitments. In the view of these members, these are matters of general and systemic concern, and Brexit should not result in a loss of market access that was established through previously negotiated outcomes.

The European Union took the floor to indicate that it was not in a positon to respond to questions on the UK's proposed goods schedule, which will take effect when the EU's schedule stops applying to the UK.  It also invited members having expressed concerns to engage directly with the UK government. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Sailabout said:

which part of the words, "trade will go on without disruption" couldnt you understand?

I understand perfectly what he said in that interview dated October 2016. Please tell me you have a current day quote from Mr Roberto Azevedo (a Brazilian) the still current WTO DG to support your claim?

Plus what about that truckload of Irish EU beef of yours come the end of March with No Deal? Please don't say it will be broken down into small packages and smuggled across the border in old ladies handbags?

Fuck me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

I understand perfectly what he said in that interview dated October 2016. Please tell me you have a current day quote from Mr Roberto Azevedo (a Brazilian) the still current WTO DG to support your claim?

Plus what about that truckload of Irish EU beef of yours come the end of March with No Deal? Please don't say it will be broken down into small packages and smuggled accross the border in old ladies handbags.

Your saying it wont get in, my view is it will

did Canada USA and Mexico come to grinding halt when trump cancelled NAFTA, no last minute it got renegotiated, maybe there is a parallel there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sailabout said:

Your saying it wont get in, my view is it will

did Canada USA and Mexico come to grinding halt when trump cancelled NAFTA?

If it didn't cause issues, they wouldn't want to renegotiate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, rgeek said:

If it didn't cause issues, they wouldn't want to renegotiate.

agreed, everyone wants to trade except Jack, its just a deal of some sorts away when both sides will be losers so they will want to deal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sailabout said:

Your saying it wont get in, my view is it will

No I asked for evidence of your quote. Nothing more. So just your view now, not Mr Roberto Azevedo current WTO DG. Was he assassinated by a Remainer?

10 minutes ago, Sailabout said:

did Canada USA and Mexico come to grinding halt when trump cancelled NAFTA?

I think that is only because the US is hooked on Tortillas, Cocaine and Maple Syrup.

Please don't forget your truck of Irish EU beef.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irish beef industry sees a catastrophe in no-deal Brexit

15-Jan-2019 By Diana Yordanova

As the British House of Commons prepares to vote on the European Union (EU) withdrawal agreement negotiated by UK Prime Minister Theresa May, the Irish beef sector has been warning that a no-deal Brexit would cause chaos and dramatically undermine Ireland’s beef exports.

https://www.globalmeatnews.com/Article/2019/01/15/No-deal-Brexit-to-undermine-Irish-beef-exports

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But beef smuggling by illegal immigrants could be a new market... there will be no border....

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LeoV said:

But beef smuggling by illegal immigrants could be a new market... there will be no border....

beef smuggling in Ireland has a long history...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sailabout said:

agreed, everyone wants to trade except Jack, its just a deal away

I'm sure it can be worked out but you're going to have to offer more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sailabout said:

beef smuggling in Ireland has a long history...

Where did they smuggle it to? Into a Vegan Healthfarm in Shropshire?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rgeek said:

I'm sure it can be worked out but you're going to have to offer more.

are you speaking from the UK point of view or EU

or should we fix it all here on SA and then tell both sides how to solve it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Where did they smuggle it to? Into a Vegan Healthfarm in Shropshire?

between the 2 Irelands to claim benefits/rebates, easy job if the border goes through your farm, same for tax free fuel and lots of other items

been going on for a very long time, here is a recent headline

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/huge-cattle-smuggling-racket-hit-26235826.html

old news

http://www.irishborderlands.com/living/smuggling/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sailabout said:

or should we fix it all here on SA and then tell both sides how to solve it?

It appears someone is going to have to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Sailabout said:

so the answer is it will all be the same as it was on the 28th according to the WTO

Sail,  can you do me a favour:  1st) Look up stockpiling in the UK now.... and please have a good look, 2nd) When you have done that, explain to me that when everything will be looking so rosy after the 29th, according to you, why do manufacturing businesses and health authorities, spend huge amounts of money, filling  (yes, chock a blocking) UK warehouses with European stuff at the moment.  

I'm clearly missing something here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Sailabout said:

been going on for a very long time, here is a recent headline

Here is a more recent headline

IRISH TIMES 1 April 2019

"It's Just Me Fookin Pork Pie"

A Mr Pat McGroin was taken into custody at the border of the Republic and Nth Ireland today after saying all he had to declare to Customs and Bio Security was a half eaten Pork Pie and some nuts. 

images (13).jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Sailabout said:

agreed, everyone wants to trade except Jack,  its just a deal of some sorts away

 

39 minutes ago, rgeek said:

I'm sure it can be worked out but you're going to have to offer more.

Offer more. I fuckin hope so. Reading Sails posts are currently ranking higher than a Netflix binge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Laser1 said:

Sail,  can you do me a favour:  1st) Look up stockpiling in the UK now...

I'm clearly missing something here.

Laser you're head is attached. You are safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Where did they smuggle it to? Into a Vegan Healthfarm in Shropshire?

I think he's confusing the scots and Irish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, NaptimeAgain said:

 Emily Litella (Gilda Radner) on Brexit, "Never mind."

Actually revoking the article and having a general election might be a reasonable step.

No point in a general election as a show of how the people feel. Corbyn isn’t saying anything different from May, he’s anti Brexit as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, hoppy said:

I'm starting to think that the British couldn't even organise a root in an EU brothel. No wonder British lad wander the streets of Amsterdam drunk, not enough Dutch courage.

Is May legally bound to going through with the brexit?

If not, she should call off the brexit and then go to an election. If she needs a vote in Parliament, table a bill that cans brexit and calls an election. Crew another referendum, because people will vote stay.

One mistake the Tory's made was to not make the Brexit planning and EU negotiation free of party politics with brexit believing representatives from all parties and industry representing British interests. If the best they could negotiate is the current deal, then no one is tared by the bad deal other than the Brexiteers 

 

WTF is to be gained by an election? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

FFI

Someone needs a punch in the guts.

 

Boot in the nuts more like. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, rgeek said:

I think he's confusing the scots and Irish.

Understandable. My best guess is he is drawing upon his experience as a dentist in San Diego having an Irish sounding name? 

1 hour ago, Sailabout said:

did Canada USA and Mexico come to grinding halt when trump cancelled NAFTA, no last minute it got renegotiated, maybe there is a parallel there

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, mad said:

WTF is to be gained by an election

Mad I really wish you hadn't asked Hoppy that question. I've run out of Quaaludes to prepare for his answer :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sailabout said:

Your saying it wont get in, my view is it will

did Canada USA and Mexico come to grinding halt when trump cancelled NAFTA, no last minute it got renegotiated, maybe there is a parallel there

Trump did not "cancel" NAFTA until after a new deal was negotiated and agreed (but not yet ratified), NAFTA is still enforce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

 

 

Fah you're probably think I'm into humping each other's leg repeating this, but it seems The Times might be reading this thread for inspiration. I would linky it but pay walled.

In essence The Times go one step further about this logjam and MP's forming into too many groups and coming up with too many different things under the current Westminster system of respecting individual representation, not in the past acting like sheep controlled by the party.

They do this by naming and shaming MP's who firstly are not debating but providing wooden speeches with short soundbites to put on their electoral social media accounts. They identified former Brexit Secretary David Davis and Tory MP Bernard Jenkins queued up outside on the lawn for the TV cameras to parade their denial of a no deal Brexit doing any damage, simply to extend their personal brands.

Secondly the opposite being MP's who have complained about being vote fodder at the behest of whips in the past, now rising to the occasion to take on responsibilty their party leaders won't through paralysis or obstinance. Labours Yvette Cooper once dull as as a doormat is now a ministerial interrogator reducing the illinformed to silence. Hilary Benn and Tories Dominic Ben grey people of the past are now forcefull speakers. These are the ones who are abrest the complications from fish packing to car parts.

Finally a list of MP's who are not even across the most basic facts you can get from Wikipedia, but put gobblygook into the public arena including their constituency.

For instance Dan Henman of Vote Leave saying nobody is talking about threatening the UK's current place in a single market and like Boris Johnson saying he would vote to stay in that market? Similarly Owen Paterson championing Leave for the referendum now says we can participate in a single market without being saddled with the EU? Davis the former Brexit Secretary saying with no deal the UK could negotiate trade agreements during the 21 months transition? Stunning idiocy when when there is no transition period without a deal. Nadine Dorries another prominent Leaver rejecting May's deal on the grounds it leaves the UK with no voice or votes in the EU Parliament? What did she fucking think leaving meant?

Raab admitting he didn't know much trade went through Dover and Calais? Bridgeman saying Brits would have rights to a Irish passport? That was a good one but maybe the best is reserved for Transport Secretary Chris Grayling having no idea that with no deal, UK road hauliers would have no right to drive through Europe?

These are people wanting the UK and their constituents to take them seriously. Fuck me dead.

Maybe I was wrong about the leaders keel-hauling a few rebels to get the message through about party unity. Maybe leaders included they should all be keel-hauled and then we only have to listen to those who can hold their breath the longest?

Second thoughts can that idea. Rees Mogg who can talk underwater would end up as PM.

You should get a job doing this Jack, a very succinct and accurate description of the current situation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Laser1 said:

I realize it is old news but still baffled by the below and sort of ties in with the above comments.

What I cannot get my head round is that certain areas in the UK relied and benefited big time from EU cash back injections.  Most if not all public construction works, buildings, roads, universities and so on with big bill boards saying 'Only made possible by investment grants from EU', flags flying, etc. were realized with cash from the EU. That money was allocated by the EU to develop poorer regions ..... Not Westminster.

My neck of the woods in UK https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/cornwall-second-poorest-region-northern-617199

Cornwall voted out and the numpties think that the Westminster cavalry will come over the hill with a cart load of dosh..... really?? are they blind, deaf & retarded?

The EU allocates the funds to each European nation to support sustainable economic development and reduce regional wealth disparities - it’s their way of trying to give a boost to the poorest parts of the continent.

But Steve Double, the Brexit-supporting MP for St Austell and Newquay, has previously joined two other Cornwall MPs in insisting that their constituents wouldn't lose out. "The UK will be able to use the money we currently send to the EU each year to cover any funding withdrawn by the EU," Mr Double said.

Hmmm .... I thought that was going to the NHS.

It’s lunacy beyond belief.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, cms said:

You may enjoy laughing at the attached letter from the RMT union to Brittany Ferries. BF employ 100% French crew whereas P&O, Irish Ferries DFDS etc employ people on low wages from other countries. All BF ships are French registered unlike the others. The only UK personnel on a BF ship are sometimes the pianist, the magician and the singers ...

RMT letter to BF.pdf

The level of ignorance is fucking astounding! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hump101 said:

Sorry about the downvote above, Mad. Was using my wife's Ipad without my reading glasses and poked the wrong icon.......

Don’t worry about it, I don’t pay any attention to them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mad said:

You should get a job doing this Jack, a very succinct and accurate description of the current situation

Mate that is very generous of you.

However I must give credit to the seed of my train of thought to @Fah Kiew Tuwho reminded me of the modern Westminster system that a MP's responsibility to their electorate ranked first above party politics. That was in response to my suggestion that a few MP's like some from the Rees Mogg 100 being keel-hauled to restore party unity is what was needed. 

That then led me to the thought that MP's were being given the luxury of forming into too many groups, particularly the Tories and all coming up with too many different answers, both Leave and Remain. It was this in my mind that is causing this modern Westminster system of respecting individual representation to in fact have Westminster shit itself, and as we see today.

The next step of putting some MP's names to both idiocy and some unknowns stepping up and assuming responsibilty that their party leaders can't through either paralysis or obstinance was easy. 

I'm only a distant commentator who while  getting his #1 passport torched by Brexit, Mad you live it and wake up to it every day. That would drive me to drink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LeoV said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6604933/Whitehall-alert-General-Election-civil-servants-draw-contingency-snap-poll.html

Oh no, not again! Whitehall bosses are put on alert for ANOTHER General Election as they order civil servants to draw up contingency plans for Brexit deadlock snap poll

Probably the best thing for the Conservatives. Even if you're a Granny who drove around in a fucking blue Morris Minor with a figurine of Winston bouncing off the rear vision mirror at the last election handing out how to vote cards. They are best voting Labour in with a landslide notwithstanding that nutter Corbyn, if only to restore stability to the country.

That then gives the Tories time to fix their own catastrofuck while in opposition and having no direct Brexit or otherwise responsibilty. 

Afterall how much can Labour really fuck up in one term?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dutch PM Rutte just on tellie, May called, they talked, she does not want a no deal Brexit, they talked possible solutions, but margins in UK parliament are thin to make a deal. Prepare for the worst.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LeoV said:

Dutch PM Rutte just on tellie, May called, they talked, she does not want a no deal Brexit, they talked possible solutions, but margins in UK parliament are thin to make a deal. Prepare for the worst.

Depressingly, I don't think there's even any shared view on what "the worst" might be... for some it is no deal, for others, anything other than no deal, and another group, anything but remain... and so on.

 Broken... decades of intra-party conflict metastising across the nations.

              W.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a government that can’t govern and an opposition that can barely oppose. In 38 years as a Westminster journalist, I can’t recall a time when both main party leaderships performed so badly at the same time. Normally, there’s a see-saw effect; one side benefits from the misfortunes of the other. Now it’s stuck in the middle.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-backbench-mps-control-government-theresa-may-amendments-tory-labour-leaders-a8734346.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone forgets about the Queen. While never reverted to in modern times beyond her receipt of advisory decision making, there is a stick there to belt some Westminster heads with if she was so inclined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Laser1 said:

Another Guy at his best

 

Amusing to listen to a Belgian talk rationally about political division but maybe reflecting on the French / Flemish issues that led to insanities like the dismembering the University of Leuven / Louvain may give a wiser perspective and more empathy for the challenges of Brexit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10-michael-ramirez-creators.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2019 at 10:34 PM, jack_sparrow said:

Well at least the "disappointed' in the US have a crack at a "cure all" at the next Presidential election in November next year. These Brexit clowns going uncontested may well be putting in place a irreversible catastrofuck lasting generations.

The CF has been happening to Europe for a while. Unwinding the mess will be ugly 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

 Afterall how much can Labour really fuck up in one term?

A question I ask myself frequently WRT Australian politics.....

Sorry, got the cat wars to continue in PA ATM....

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LeoV said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6604933/Whitehall-alert-General-Election-civil-servants-draw-contingency-snap-poll.html

Oh no, not again! Whitehall bosses are put on alert for ANOTHER General Election as they order civil servants to draw up contingency plans for Brexit deadlock snap poll

As it’s the Daily Mail, it doesn’t rate high normally.. but somehow I can believe it. 

Living proof you don’t need to invade a country, you can just sew propaganda and have political fuck around games instead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Probably the best thing for the Conservatives. Even if you're a Granny who drove around in a fucking blue Morris Minor with a figurine of Winston bouncing off the rear vision mirror at the last election handing out how to vote cards. They are best voting Labour in with a landslide notwithstanding that nutter Corbyn, if only to restore stability to the country.

That then gives the Tories time to fix their own catastrofuck while in opposition and having no direct Brexit or otherwise responsibilty. 

Afterall how much can Labour really fuck up in one term?

corbyn doesn’t want to win this in anyway, shape or form. He’s hasn’t any ideas or the balls to actually say anything and make a stand, he’s more than happy to just watch May fail, at what ever cost to the country. That way he will always be seen as winner. The Labour Party need a new leader, they do that with an anti Brexit stance and they’ll win. 

Anything else is a complete waste of time.  

If we dissolve parliament would that stop or pause article 50? We can just carry on without a government. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LeoV said:

https://www.politico.eu/article/why-a-uk-general-election-is-more-likely-than-you-think/

MPs that have war-gamed the next few phases of the Brexit drama believe that the government is now penned in, unable to move in any direction without stumbling over a trip-wire that triggers a general election.

So 2 years on and we haven’t agreed on what we want to agree on and we haven’t really had any negotiation with the people we need to negotiate with. 

YCMTSU!!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, hoppy said:

If May canned Brexit, there will be so much bitching in Parliament from the Brexiteers and opportunisticrexiteers and opportunistic politicking by Labour that your government would look like, dare I say, Australia's. On top of that there will be protests on the street by the remaining Brexit supporters. 

By calling an election, May can draw a line in the sand and the next Government can relatively speaking, put Brexit behind them. If the Tory's want a chance of staying in power, then the Brexiteers would have to shut up and let May play the "Tried her best to get a deal from Europe and did the best thing by Britain by cancelling Brexit" card. ....

Hoppy first of all May can't unilaterally stop Brexit, only the Parliament can do that. The existing parliament or a new parliament can't even extend the Brexit date unilaterally. This issue is also not being fought along party lines as you are saying.

To help you understand why here is some background.

Remain or Leave EU Referendum 2016.

The people's vote to leave was 52/48% and unlike normal referendums binds the Government to prosecute the result. This result caught everyone by surprise. Generally older people and those in less prosperous areas of the UK voted to leave. There is no real evidence to suggest this has changed, though many Remainers believe so via more awareness about the ramifications of leaving. However that same argument could apply to Leavers about remaining. 

Political Party Positions. 

At the time of the referendum and now the majority of all parties want to Remain. It is a generalisation but for the two major parties that collected 80% of the vote at the last election, the Remainers constitute at least 70% of the party room. So in essence there is a pro Remain parliament pretending to follow the will of the people who want to leave.

This issue has always and still is being contested outside party lines. This respect of individual members and their electrorates is different to the days when MP's were just sheep that followed the party line.

Prime Minister's & Govt Hold on Position

Having survived a No Confidence Vote last month, under party rules May's position is safe for 12 months or this coming December. She has stated she is not standing at the next election.

While the Government's/May Brexit deal was voted down 230 against on Tuesday, the Government survived a subsequent no confidence vote.

What is Brexit? 

On 29 March 2017, the UK as member of the EU invoked Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) which begins a member state's withdrawal from the EU and two years later cease being a member of the EU or on 30 March 2019. 

Can the UK Cancel Article 50? 

A majority decision of Parliament/House of Commons (not May and not the Government) could cancel Brexit and remain in the EU under current terms. Ordinarily this would involve agreement of all 27 member states of the EU. However the European Court of Justice has ruled the UK can cancel Brexit in advance of 30 March without the permission of the other member states. 

Can the UK Extend Article 50?  

A  majority decision of both houses Parliament cannot extend Brexit. Article 50 states that the UK cannot unilaterally extend the two-year negotiation period. Nor can it “demand” an extension. It can only “ask for” one. The request would then be considered by the European Council, and an extension can only be granted with the unanimous agreement of the remaining 27 member states. Even if all member states could be persuaded, there are difficulties with any extension which runs beyond European Parliaments elections in May. 

Does an Election & New Government Change the Above? 

No.

Brexit Date and Decision Making Timing

No later than 30 March, preferably ASAP for Parliament to agree to a Brexit Deal either Hard or Soft. The default is a No Deal Brexit.

For a newly elected government to be put in place prior to 30 March 2019 with a General Election the result of a no confidence motion (requiring some Tories to join with Labour), that election cannot be held until 14 days after the motion passed plus 25 days after parliament dissolves. Therefore the cuttoff for that vote of no confidence is the end of January or just 12 days away.

A 2nd Referendum would require an extension to the Article 50 date. See above. It would no doubt provide grounds to the EU states to unilaterally agree to an extension up until no later than the EU elections in May. However if the original referendum results remain largely unchanged, it would prove a very destabilising thing for the country. If the referendum was framed on Leave with Deal or Remain, the Leavers would say it is a defacto vote to Remain.

Interestingly this is called the People's Vote, suggesting only robots voted in 2016.

Hoppy the above facts may help you better frame your viewpoints.

1/3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Australia Day advert by Aust meat and livestock industry actually is very Brexit with its 'migration' and 'original' citizens theme. It also drives vegans batshit crazy.

For the illinformed Australia Day is on 26 January, which marks the anniversary of the 1788 arrival of the First Fleet of British ships at Port Jackson/Sydney and full of English rif raf. If you are confused with the French ship that was La Perouse who landed around the same time but didn't colonise as Cook had layed claim on behalf of the Crown 18 years prior. The day is controversial as many in the aboriginal community call it Invasion Day and want the date shifted.

Anyway any you Poms partial to Australian Lamb you won't be getting any this month. Might be good practise for you for after 30 March :-)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Sailabout said:

very true but how in the hell didnt the remoaners flag this as its an irrefutable major issue as they floated down the Thames on a barge sipping 12 year old Dom..

 

like I said way back both sides presented weak cases.

They did. A large proportion of the population wasn't for listening to the 'experts' or factual debate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, hoppy said:

My view has not changed, but the processes required to do what I suggest is clearer.

Whatever.

2/3    ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rgeek said:

They did. A large proportion of the population wasn't for listening to the 'experts' or factual debate.

Well, the financial crash had demonstrated how much expertise the "experts" had, and both campaigns were obviously full of it. It wasn't evident that much *factual* debate was going on. To my mind one of the turning points was when the remain campaign announced that in the event of an out vote there would have to be an immediate emergency budget. That was obvious nonsense, everyone knew it was nonsense, and in the event of course it didn't happen. So the credibility of the stay campaign evaporated, especially with those old enough to compare the promises made at the previous referendum with what actually happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Sailabout said:

very true but how in the hell didnt the remoaners flag this as its an irrefutable major issue as they floated down the Thames on a barge sipping 12 year old Dom..

like I said way back both sides presented weak cases.

 

3 hours ago, rgeek said:

They did. A large proportion of the population wasn't for listening to the 'experts' or factual debate.

Geek absolutely true and my reply here is simply to firstly put more meat on that already fine sandwich of yours and secondly for any pundit who thinks they can show strategic grounds to and or predict the outcome of a General Election and or a 2nd Referendum.

The easiest thing to say today is the Leaver referendum result was weighted in favour towards only three UK population brackets, the disenfranchised, the uneducated and older people. 

1. Disenfranchised. 

This you would bracket under economic and social discontent so then naturally expect Scotland, rust belt Northern England and  Wales to figure prominently in a Leave vote. So every large region of the country except Scotland, Northern Ireland and the odd man out London voted to Leave? In England, every major region outside of London voted to leave. The highest vote for leave was in the West Midlands with 59.11% opting for Brexit. In London, 59.94% voted to remain. In Wales leave voters were dominant with 18 of the 22 areas. Only three, the Vale of Glamorgan in the south, Monmouthshire in the south-east and Ceredigion in west Wales voted to remain. However what also drove that vote?

2. Age

Over-65s were more than twice as likely as under-25s to have voted to Leave. Every pundit I have read glibly says this is a demographic remembering the "good old days". Those pundits must be very young and or can't Google stats from the mid 70's when say a 65 year old today was pounding the pavement looking for a job. Pre Thatcher the country was fucked. Maybe those 65+ year olds now have now forgetten how they rejoiced when the UK joined the EU at that time so they could get a job? The immigration card I suspect had far greater weight behind their decision to leave 

3. Education

A more dramatic split was along the lines of education. 70% of voters whose educational attainment is only GCSE or lower voted to Leave, while 68% of voters with a university degree voted to Remain in the EU. Those with A levels and no degree were evenly split, 50% to 50%.

What made them vote this way?

So how did they vote like they did? The normal expectation with a vote of this kind is to think it is simply propgated by the Media and voters listening or otherwise to their local political representatives either encumbent MP's or aspirants on a borough by borough basis. That clearly didn't happen.

1. Media

This was not the case and irelevant. With very few exceptions the UK media leading up to the Referendum in 2016 were pushing the Remainer case.

2. Political

With variences you would expect in any election at a local level the major parties and some others all promoted a Remainer campaign.

Yet the vote cut right across party lines, with significant division within Britain's main political parties who capture around 80% in any election. Conservatives voted to Leave, 61% to 39%. Labour voters (65%) and Liberal Democrats (68%) largely voted for Remain but significant minorities went for Leave. Only the UKIP, where 95% voted for Leave, and the Greens, where 80% voted for Remain, avoided significant internal party divisions on the vote.

Conclusion

So to what I said at the outset taking the above in mind.

How can any pundit or political operative determine strategic grounds to and or predict the outcome of a General Election and or a 2nd Referendum? They are on drugs if they believe they can do so.

Polls indicate the 2016 Referendum result remains still much the same. Yet the above clearly shows by population it was the pissed off, a large slab of entitled and well off (who arguably are not effected either way). Then dumb cunts and old people with dementia or not liking the colour of their neighbours skin and coming from the pissed off category that delivered up the Leave result. No one else did.

Everyone is quick to critisise politicians who were hog tied and put on the Brexit Bus. But surely isn't it now time people started honestly looking at who actually put them on that bus and why? More importantly is the Brexit Bus really going to deliver what they are looking for regardless of who is driving it?

Stats reference.

https://www.google.com/amp/blog.webkid.io/brexit-maps-charts/amp/

images (16).jpeg

vote1b.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, LeoV said:

Dutch PM Rutte just on tellie, May called, they talked, she does not want a no deal Brexit, they talked possible solutions, but margins in UK parliament are thin to make a deal. Prepare for the worst.

Parliament doesn't want no-deal either and some at least see a route to stop or pause that. Quite an interesting piece on that prospect in this week's Spectator (which editorially would be cool with no-deal).

ERG has boxed themselves into an interesting corner where the only way they can eject May is to side with Labour in no-confidence and surely they won't do that. Rather oddly, it may turn out that the only way they could get what they want is by winning a 2nd referendum.

May's deal is however dead. She seems to be the only one who has not long since recognised that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Around 80 MP are for a No deal, most of them CP.
So for May to make any deal work she risks splitting up the Tory party.
And those 80 just can wait as No Deal is the default.
Stalemate leading to No Deal, or risk a split party.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/foreign-affairs/brexit/house/house-magazine/101200/breaking-brexit-deadlock-tough-choices

Same is true for Labour, half of the labour voters wanted out, so a hard stance one way or the other will be risky for Corbyn.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, LeoV said:

Around 80 MP are for a No deal, most of them CP.
So for May to make any deal work she risks splitting up the Tory party.
And those 80 just can wait as No Deal is the default.
Stalemate leading to No Deal, or risk a split party.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/foreign-affairs/brexit/house/house-magazine/101200/breaking-brexit-deadlock-tough-choices

Same is true for Labour, half of the labour voters wanted out, so a hard stance one way or the other will be risky for Corbyn.

 

 

 

Apparently we have a third party in the UK, we just can’t seem to find them anymore. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mad said:

Apparently we have a third party in the UK, we just can’t seem to find them anymore. 

Quite so. This is a source of grief to me. Vince Cable is not the leader they need at this time, not that an alternative comes to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, LeoV said:

Same is true for Labour, half of the labour voters wanted out, so a hard stance one way or the other will be risky for Corbyn.

 

Labour membership is however strongly remain. Corbyn, always Eurosceptic, was big on the "representing the membership" line until he came to disagree with them. I can't think of a time when leadership of both major parties has been simultaneously so woeful. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dogwatch, agree, typed to fast, one third leave, 2/3 remain. Sorry.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mayor brouht up some good points,

Theresa May needs to become a mediator to help break the Brexit deadlock in Parliament, former prime minister John Major has said.

He wants MPs to be given a vote on all Brexit options, indicating their preference on the way forward.

Mrs May should consider dropping her red lines "in the national interest" and become a facilitator to find out what Parliament wants, he said.

Sir John said the prime minister had been "handed a poisoned chalice" and that things had been "extremely difficult" for her.

"Her position has been all but impossible," he said, adding that Parliament was "running out of time".

If Mrs May does not drop her red lines "in the national interest", then her options are either for the Cabinet or Parliament to decide or for there to be another referendum "now more facts are known than were known in 2016", Sir John argued.

He said while Cabinet is too split to reach an agreement, there is hope that Parliament could reach a consensus, with Mrs May as a mediator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, LeoV said:

Dogwatch, agree, typed to fast, one third leave, 2/3 remain. Sorry.

 

Leo that is Labour split is from time of referendum until last year. It is my understanding it is now more like 70/30 in favour of remain. The 2nd referendum noises within Labour also seem to support that.

I have not seen any recent Conservative numbers beyond last year of around 60/40 Leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dogwatch said:

ERG has boxed themselves into an interesting corner where the only way they can eject May is to side with Labour in no-confidence and surely they won't do that. Rather oddly, it may turn out that the only way they could get what they want is by winning a 2nd referendum.

Or some remain Tories get fed by the party leashed by the ERG and side to the no-confidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Everyone forgets about the Queen. While never reverted to in modern times beyond her receipt of advisory decision making, there is a stick there to belt some Westminster heads with if she was so inclined.

Not a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

 

images (16).jpeg

 

 

Looks like people got confused by the question. They must have thought it said, "Are you doing alright?"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JimC said:

Well, the financial crash had demonstrated how much expertise the "experts" had, and both campaigns were obviously full of it. It wasn't evident that much *factual* debate was going on. To my mind one of the turning points was when the remain campaign announced that in the event of an out vote there would have to be an immediate emergency budget. That was obvious nonsense, everyone knew it was nonsense, and in the event of course it didn't happen. So the credibility of the stay campaign evaporated, especially with those old enough to compare the promises made at the previous referendum with what actually happened.

Ah yeh, cos when you're kicked in the shin the natural reaction is to have your leg amputated at the knee with a blunt instrument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mambo Kings said:

Not a chance.

OK ..what about driving as fast as she likes down M1 in a car with no license plate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect there is a fundamental misunderstanding in the minds of many UK voters of what the WTO actually is.

I see references of defaulting to WTO rules, as if somehow the WTO rules are tariff agreements.  I see quotes out of context from the DG of the WTO as if he somehow can unilaterally impose trade agreements.

Let's clarify. The role of the WTO is to:

1. Provide a place and mechanism for negotiating trade agreements between members.  

2. Administer those trade agreements.

3. Provide a forum for resolving trade disputes

4. Monitor and administer compliance with WTO rules which have been agreed between all members.  These rules do not include pre-set tariffs, nor are they a free trade zone......the rules govern the fair implementation of the trade agreements made between the nation members. It prevents things such as discrimination of goods (ie if two countries agree on a 2% tariff, you cannot impose a hidden tariff by having a laws that make another country's goods more expensive) and tries to prevent unfair dumping and subsidies.  The EU is a member of the WTO and abides by WTO rules. Each member state of the EU is also a member of the WTO and abides by the EU's agreements with other member states of the WTO. WTO rules already apply to the UK and they do not change when the UK leaves the EU 

If and when the UK leaves the EU, it is absolutely right that the WTO will play a critical role in helping the UK establishing new trade agreements with the rest of the world. But it is important to understand that these trade agreements are not already in place. There is no "default" set of global tariffs that will suddenly apply to the UK on a hard Brexit....and the default tariff is certainly NOT zero tariffs.  If the UK does not have a trade agreement with a member nation, then the member nation is free to unilaterally set its own tariff on UK goods pending a fully negotiated trade agreement. No country in their right mind is going to start from a bargaining position of zero. 

Negotiations for new trade agreements between the  UK and the rest of the world following a hard Brexit would likely take place at the WTO (thats where the members have their skilled negotiators and it is the only place where the UK can negotiate agreements with blocks of countries at one time.....the UK does not have time or resources for individual negotiations with over a hundred countries) but the UK will not be in a strong negotiating position.

Currently the UK's delegation at the WTO has proposed to mirror the existing EU schedule with respect to market access for goods and services. No better (sorry Brexiteers), no worse (sorry Remainers) than the current schedule of Tariffs.  However several WTO member nations have objected in two areas. (1) Several WTO members have said that the UK's proposals for agricultural tariffs and quotas are unacceptable and (2) The UK will need to sign its own Government Procurement Agreement and several countries want concessions in this area. 

Bottom line is that the UK has NOT signed new trade agreements with the WTO signatories yet.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further point of order.

The legal deadline may be March 29th but the practical deadline is at least one month earlier. Importers of UK goods are not going to place goods on a ship without custom documentation. 

The US Trade Act of 2002 and the Customs Modernization Act, commonly referred to as the Mod Act, places the onus on importers to complete the documentation demonstrating that the correct duty has been paid. The problem is that this documentation does not exist for the UK. The CBP have not started the process of creating documentation because (i)The 2 countries haven't started to agree what the duty should be  and (ii) You cannot reach that division of the CBP anyway because they are closed due to the Government shut down.

Thankfully the folks at Westminster are not losing sleep because most of them have never actually had to run a business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, IPLore said:

Bottom line is that the UK has NOT signed new trade agreements with the WTO signatories yet. 

Yeah they mix up WTO rules with WTO terms. Almost nobody deals only under the rules, to basic, so you need more agreements, the terms.
http://ukandeu.ac.uk/research-papers/what-would-trading-on-wto-terms-mean/
But it is so east to use it for the Brexiteers.

On the Leavemansleave.EU site;

A WORLD TRADE DEAL IS THE BEST DEAL

2 minutes ago, IPLore said:

The legal deadline may be March 29th but the practical deadline is at least one month earlier.

Auch, I know already money is poured down the drain in stockpiling and IT systems to prepare. But forgot the poor lambs on a boat to the EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One funny detail is that in many WTO agreements there is a clause about origin of manufacturer. Made in the UK. But some products the UK export are partly made out of EU parts. Think cars and machinery. So that makes that on the WTO table the UK once again do not have the upper hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, IPLore said:

I suspect there is a fundamental misunderstanding in the minds of many UK voters of what the WTO actually is.

I'm sure it has been covered upstairs by Leo or Jack but please give it to me like an 8 year old.

Hypothetically 29th March the curtain comes down with a no deal so no more friction-less trade with the EU or anybody else for that matter.    Does that mean that all imports are then liable to import duties under WTO rules on the 30th?

You said nobody starts from zero so how much duty will there be i.e. products on Tesco's shelves that are imported will cost x% more? 

The majority of bacon is produced in Holland so is it a correct scenario that John Smith's £1 pack of bacon will now cost £1,25?  say 20% import duty + clearance and increased transport costs?

If that is correct + a possible further £ devaluation vs the Euro that is going to hurt a shitload of people.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, KC375 said:

Amusing to listen to a Belgian talk rationally about political division but maybe reflecting on the French / Flemish issues that led to insanities like the dismembering the University of Leuven / Louvain may give a wiser perspective and more empathy for the challenges of Brexit.

 

equally amusing to see somebody talking way out of his depth, the "dismembering " -as you call it- of the university of Leuven was totally logical, NOT "dismembering"  would have been the unlogical thing. Little do you know, it's especially funny to see you write that line and next talk about perspective... which you totally don't have, and I'm saying that in a friendly way. You might even track back to the end of world war 1 and the university of Gent going flemish instead of french, the main question was (and is) do you find it logical that in flemish cities the universities are french dominated because in previous eras the nobility was speaking french to distinguish themselves from the flemish plebejans ? would you not revolt to that ?

 

But Verhofstad ... hmmm... could tell stories about that one, not second hand, face to face, but still in gentle mode let me just say the man's drive takes the upperhand over reason and feet on the ground logics, it's called voluntarism, of which dear old Guy has and exess... and no handbrake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Laser1 said:

The majority of bacon is produced in Holland so is it a correct scenario that John Smith's £1 pack of bacon will now cost £1,25?  say 20% import duty + clearance and increased transport costs?

A move to World Trade Organisation (WTO) tariffs after Brexit would mean the UK charging the same import duty to all countries under “most-favoured nation” rules. That would be to the advantage of other countries such as China, the US, Canada and Brazil where production costs are lower.

US pork costs just €0.98 (88p) per kilogram to produce compared to €1.35 (£1.21) per kg in Denmark and €1.56 (£1.40) in the UK, according to the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB).

But US pig farmers are allowed to follow practices banned in the EU including treating animals with the controversial growth stimulant ractopamine. Studies have linked ractopamine with adverse effects in pigs, especially hyperactivity, trembling, and broken limbs.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-no-deal-bacon-butter-denmark-exports-uk-oecd-theresa-may-vote-a8729011.html

SNIP,

Looking at numbers tax will be 8%, so around 10 % more will be the cost after all the chaos of the first months. Would not be surprised if it went to 1.25 for a short while. And when you have a deal with the US, prices will go down again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LeoV said:

A move to World Trade Organisation (WTO) tariffs after Brexit

Leo understands WTO better than most. I know what he meant but he used language that might be misinterpreted.

THERE ARE NO WTO TARIFFS.

WTO does not have a set of pre-formulated tariffs. It only has a set of rules that Tariffs and trade agreements must comply with.

The UK can set its tariffs to 10%, 20%, 30% or 50%   but those tariffs have to comply with certain rules that all WTO members have agreed to.

The most important rule (as Leo points out) is the most favored nation rule which means that (in the absence of a custom union or trade area) a member nation cannot set a different tariff for one country than another.

What does this mean?

1. In the absence of a deal with the EU, the EU must by WTO rules impose the same tariffs and restrictions on UK goods as it does on China and the US.  Goods from the UK which previously were not charged a tariff must be charged a tariff.  On average this may only be approx 3.2% but in some areas it will be 25% .

2. Goods imported into countries from the UK which previously had a free trade agreement with the EU must charge the UK a tariff as high as they charge to countries without a trade agreement.

Combined, it is inevitable that UK exports suffer or else the UK pound goes down to compensate.

3. The UK has a commitment to a frictionless border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.The Good Friday agreement is really important. This is a problem because the UK faces two options (I) Maintain some existing tariffs which safeguard certain UK industries , notably British agriculture, but then is forced to impose the same tariffs on Ireland and breach their commitment to a free and open border or (ii) Fulfill their commitments under the Good Friday agreement which means no tariffs to protect UK industry , which will almost certainly see UK farmers go bust and and a profound impact on the English countryside (which the Brits rightly treasure ) unless the pound goes up to compensate.

In real pragmatic life, there is no such thing as "falling back on WTO terms".  There is no such thing. What would happen in the real world,  is a massive rush of negotiations at the WTO as the UK sought to set up a raft of bilateral trade agreements.

Since (if we are honest) we dont know what those trade agreements will look like, a 2nd referendum seems to me to be almost pointless because nobody would know what they are voting for.  I'm not a Brit so what do I care? But I do sorta feel that they are entitled to know what they voted for in 2016.   The terms should have been established before anyone pushed the big red "Article 50" button.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely this shit fight will just get better/worse, depending on whether you are involved or just a spectator. Leavers are willing to just wait and let the UK crash out. Remainers are willing to change unwritten conventions to kill the whole thing. Neither side is willing to compromise. As it looks like the Remainers will win the EU is happy to not compromise either. They just get to sit back and watch those asshole Brits implode. Then they will get to pick the eyes out of the whole clusterfuck. 

Certainly has turned out to be a much better spectator sport than anyone could have imagined. Will make a great Netflix series in the years to come. A sort of House of Cards without any clever fuckers involved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, IPLore said:

The most important rule  is the most favored nation rule which means that (in the absence of a custom union or trade area) a member nation cannot set a different tariff for one country than another.

I find it a misnomer, I think of it as non discrimination rule.

 

36 minutes ago, IPLore said:

I know what he meant but he used language that might be misinterpreted.

Story of my life, non native speaker :)

WTO tariffs do not exist. Right. But countries under WTO all make deals (schedules) that introduce tariffs. WTO goal is to get them down as low as possible, but does not set rates, that is up to the countries.
UK announced to the WTO that it would take over the EU tariffs applied to 3rd countries. And will do so for a few years till they have better deals. So there comes my 8% from. Even if Hard Brexiteers say they want zero, it will probably not happen the first year. If at all.

https://trade-knowledge.net/commentary/the-uk-submits-schedules-of-post-brexit-goods-tariffs-to-the-wto-what-that-means/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites