Brexit Phase Two - Trade

Interesting perspective on the problems that May faces.

Front Bench: The Chequers agreement is far from the last word on Brexit – the challenges will come thick and fast
Tory rebels have ruled out backing amendments emanating from Labour’s front bench, but there is already one for each bill on the table put forward by Tory arch-Remainers Ken Clarke and Anna Soubry. Labour’s new stance could free its MPs to back these amendments. Soubry tabled her amendment to the customs bill yesterday; it would require the Government to “secure tariff-free access to the EU, including the potential to participate in a customs union with the EU.”

Defeat at this stage could be catastrophic enough to topple the PM, something which may act in May’s favour by putting off potential Tory rebels. One MP told the FT that soft-Brexit Tories were “holding their powder dry in the hope that the PM gets a grip on the Moggsters”. Nevertheless, May is worried enough that she has reportedly pushed back the vote on the customs bill to beyond Easter.
Which ultimately is why I think May will get the bill through parliament. Pro-EU MP's will shout and scream rebellion in the hopes of forcing May into an much of a pro-EU settlement as they can, but they ultimately won't risk bringing the government down.

The sole exception to that will be Clark (and maybe Soubry) trooping through the opposition lobbies. Clark will almost certainly retire at the next GE. I wonder if Soubry feels strongly enough to end her political career by being the co-author of an amendment that could bring May's government down.

Wordsmith
 
Interesting perspective on the problems that May faces.

Front Bench: The Chequers agreement is far from the last word on Brexit – the challenges will come thick and fast


Which ultimately is why I think May will get the bill through parliament. Pro-EU MP's will shout and scream rebellion in the hopes of forcing May into an much of a pro-EU settlement as they can, but they ultimately won't risk bringing the government down.

The sole exception to that will be Clark (and maybe Soubry) trooping through the opposition lobbies. Clark will almost certainly retire at the next GE. I wonder if Soubry feels strongly enough to end her political career by being the co-author of an amendment that could bring May's government down.

Wordsmith
But the point is that the truth is now out. That Blair dismantled Customs in order to comply with the Projected Lisbon Treaty 3 years later and that the Setting up of UKBA was if anything ultra vires, because it was not down to the UK to provide it. It will be almost 15 years since the demise of my old department on the altar of PC and lies. This was a ploy to ensure we could never leave and then some Pratt put in article 50. I'm ever so pleased with the way the cookie crumbled and will share some Schadenfreude with AY.
 
I respect democracy as a better alternative to other political systems. The abuse or fumbling use of a democratic system to yield harmful results is another matter. The referendum on EU membership is a fine example and was actually anti-democratic. We voted in a government that advised remain... This was overturned by idiots who had no idea of the consequences. One can see the reliability of so called democracy when looking at the USA... It amounts to how many fools you can persuade.

How would you feel about unqualified strangers voting on the treatment that you receive?
I'd feel as I do now obviously, because my treatment is already subject to it in a way. From the people via parliament to various bodies such as NICE, there will be decisions based on age and cost, for example. Having said that, I think it's a poor comparison - a hypothetical scenario versus a justifiable vote about self determination.

In complex matters, which are supposedly too difficult for us ordinary folk, I do what I always do, strip things back to basic principles. So for me the basic principle was self-determination and about whether I thought the idea of a USE had merit. For me, a vote based on economics could have been contrary to my basic principles. I voted not about what might be best for me but on what I thought was right.

As it happens, I think that qualifying majorities are a good thing, based on a basic set of 4 people. Any one of them has to persuade a majority of the others to his point of view, in order to win the day. This translates to a requirement for a 75% majority. If that were actually the case, the result would have been different and I'd be on the losing side.

But my principled democracy would have been satisfied and I'd accept the verdict. I'd know that my opinion was one of many, wrong to some others and possibly a wrong one anyway. I've no problem accepting the notion that I'm probably wrong a lot of the time..
 
An "opinion" by some people should not govern the well being of others.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Patients do not specify their treatment. If that was true I would demand sex with a nubile nurse to cure a cold.
Patients do, to an extent. And I can provide examples if necessary.

An opinion of some people should govern the well-being of others if we wish to live in an ordered society where all contribute to the whole. I think you'd be quite happy if a 'Remain' opinion held sway and governed our well-being.
 
I've not forecasted what will happen. I think your wishful thinking is getting in the way of reading things.
I've pointed put the pound is low, the lowest since a huge banking crisis, UK growth has gone from the highest in the G7 and the Eurozone to the lowest so hardly forecasting.
And let's go back a little longer with all the forecasting and predictions just before the euro was introduced. The economists and experts, especially the US ones, who predicted the euro would probably start failing after 2 years but would probably not last more than 5 years.
So how's that working out some 18 years later?
If you come back in 10 years time you can tell me how it all panned out, not that I'll not be around to see if your wishful thinking actually takes place.
Economic forecasting only exists to give astrology a good name.
The essential flaws in the Euro remain as do the solutions - either return to national currencies or institute a formal system of capital transfers from the richer regions (i.e. Germany) to the poorer ones. The former option would sound the death knell of the Projekt and, in order to do the latter, Germany would have to change its constitution and there would have to be ever-closer union, with particular regard to central control of member nations' budgets and fiscal policy. That is achievable but it's a massive political ask which is as likely to tear the EU apart as bring it together.

The timeline on which this plays out is anybody's guess, as you have pointed out, but the lifespan of the Euro will be measured by the degree of pain Germany is prepared to endure to sustain it and the degree of pain the PIIGS are prepared to endure in order to remain part of the system. Greece was relatively easy to bully, Italy and Spain would be different.

It's not a Brexit/Remain point, it's a systemic issue with the Euro construct which can only be addressed via closer integration unless the rest of Europe somehow achieves German levels of competitiveness.
 
It's not a Brexit/Remain point, it's a systemic issue with the Euro construct which can only be addressed via closer integration unless the rest of Europe somehow achieves German levels of competitiveness.
I've always been struck by the collective myopia of the remain side - both in this thread and in the media - as to the flaws inherent in the EU. More often than not there is a refusal to discuss it - or if discussed, the usual response is "it's only a forecast and forecasts are generally wrong". A rebuttal laid out as a chain of reasoning is rarer than hen's teeth.

Over the years, I've also been struck by the increasingly inflexible mindset in the EU itself. I don't think they consider the endpoint of the journey they've embarked on - the project has become the aim in itself.

There are two explanations for that. They could have been blinded by cognitive dissonance that they can't see the flaws inherent in the project they're now committed to. More worryingly is the thought that they're driving on with the project because they're fully aware of the inherent flaws in the EU and the euro and are racing to finish the project before a serious cascade failure occurs and throws Euope into economic and political turmoil.

Wordsmith
 
I'd feel as I do now obviously, because my treatment is already subject to it in a way. From the people via parliament to various bodies such as NICE, there will be decisions based on age and cost, for example. Having said that, I think it's a poor comparison - a hypothetical scenario versus a justifiable vote about self determination.

In complex matters, which are supposedly too difficult for us ordinary folk, I do what I always do, strip things back to basic principles. So for me the basic principle was self-determination and about whether I thought the idea of a USE had merit. For me, a vote based on economics could have been contrary to my basic principles. I voted not about what might be best for me but on what I thought was right.

As it happens, I think that qualifying majorities are a good thing, based on a basic set of 4 people. Any one of them has to persuade a majority of the others to his point of view, in order to win the day. This translates to a requirement for a 75% majority. If that were actually the case, the result would have been different and I'd be on the losing side.

But my principled democracy would have been satisfied and I'd accept the verdict. I'd know that my opinion was one of many, wrong to some others and possibly a wrong one anyway. I've no problem accepting the notion that I'm probably wrong a lot of the time..
Only a fool would refuse the treatment specified by qualified professionals in the field. As the fools who ignored advice from the Prime Minister of a democratically elected government.
 
The problem is not about democracy...the problem is about a referendum on complex subject matter beyond the scope of democracy.
Do you believe that Dianne Abbott and Denis Skinner etc are more capable of making decisions on such issues, rather than the general public who ultimately are most affected by those decisions?

The mechanics of leaving the EU, are of course complex, but the decision to leave or remain was not!

Strangely, you may favour a second referendum on the final deal. This is actually a more complex decision than the initial one to leave!
 

skid2

LE
Book Reviewer
Only a fool would refuse the treatment specified by qualified professionals in the field. As the fools who ignored advice from the Prime Minister of a democratically elected government.
I get the analogy, But there’s a difference, betwee someone professionally qualified doing his job and someone politically qualified trying to save his job.

Still I’m living in hope at getting to see Boris and Rees Mogg run the country, for a while. We need a laugh.
 
Only a fool would refuse the treatment specified by qualified professionals in the field. As the fools who ignored advice from the Prime Minister of a democratically elected government.
Are you suggesting David Cameron was a qualified professional:?
o_O:wtf:
 

skid2

LE
Book Reviewer
I've always been struck by the collective myopia of the remain side - both in this thread and in the media - as to the flaws inherent in the EU. More often than not there is a refusal to discuss it - or if discussed, the usual response is "it's only a forecast and forecasts are generally wrong". A rebuttal laid out as a chain of reasoning is rarer than hen's teeth.

Over the years, I've also been struck by the increasingly inflexible mindset in the EU itself. I don't think they consider the endpoint of the journey they've embarked on - the project has become the aim in itself.

There are two explanations for that. They could have been blinded by cognitive dissonance that they can't see the flaws inherent in the project they're now committed to. More worryingly is the thought that they're driving on with the project because they're fully aware of the inherent flaws in the EU and the euro and are racing to finish the project before a serious cascade failure occurs and throws Euope into economic and political turmoil.

Wordsmith
Apart from the fact that you can’t be blinded by cognitive dissonance. It’s usually described as holding two conflicting views and rationalising holding them. You do the rationalising, it’s your head.

Like disliking black people yet admiring Nelson Mandela, the usual rationale is the way he handled the power change in SA.

The Euro has nothing to do with a psychological condition. It’s an economic fact. It will stand or fall on economic conditions and not on whether some wee Frenchman’s brain isn’t firing on all six.
 
Only a fool would refuse the treatment specified by qualified professionals in the field. As the fools who ignored advice from the Prime Minister of a democratically elected government.
Not really. Quite often, there's a range of options with various risks and benefits. When my stoma needed redoing for a second time, I was offered a reversal instead. I chose to have the stoma redone, as a reversal would have made me worse off. In this case, my knowledge of my own body made me more expert than my consultant. And medicos don't specify treatments, they offer options.

A constitutional decision requires the voice of the electorate, because self determination cannot be exercised on our behalf. You can only vote according to your principles and thoughts and yours have no more merit than anybody else's. An acceptance that other opinions might carry the day is required, lest you show yourself too immature for democracy. But even if you are, your vote still counts. Because democracy gives everybody a vote and each vote has equal weight.
 
Brexit loons should be denyed the ability to reproduce, but alas it's too late as they're all dryed up and throwing the rest of us under the bus to distract themselves from the grim reaper just around the corner
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
Brexit loons should be denyed the ability to reproduce, but alas it's too late as they're all dryed up and throwing the rest of us under the bus to distract themselves from the grim reaper just around the corner
@Joker62 candidate for SPOTY2018 !
 
Brexit loons should be denyed the ability to reproduce, but alas it's too late as they're all dryed up and throwing the rest of us under the bus to distract themselves from the grim reaper just around the corner
You are showing the following symptoms
1] Confused thinking
2] Excessive fears, worries and anxieties.
3] Strong feelings of anger.
4] Strange thoughts (delusions)
You have mental problems
 
Pigeons coming home to roost. Entirely predictable ones. Simply not considered by fantasisits.

That's funny, is it not?
So we leave, and then we get no rebate because we are not in any more, and the transition deal is exactly that, a transition deal, and therefore not subject to a rebate.

It looks like a blinding glimpse of the bleedin' obvious to me, and nothing to worry ourselves about. Hardly the End of Days.

Being from the north you might also like to consider the proposition that pigeons coming home to roost is no substitute for comedy either.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Bacongrills The NAAFI Bar 254
Good CO Brexit 349
ACAB The NAAFI Bar 470

Similar threads

Top