The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[bickster]

6 minutes ago, Awol said:

Geopolitically it cements a newly liberated (for want of a better word) UK back into the US orbit, a process already taking place in the defence arena - first carrier air group on HMS QE likely to be from the USMC for a deployment to the Pacific. 

Oh good more war and terrorist attacks whilst eating junk food

Should have called it HMS Greenham Common then, sad that the newest shiniest ship in the Royal Navy is... an American Airfield

[tonyh29]

16 minutes ago, Awol said:

Geopolitically it cements a newly liberated (for want of a better word) UK back into the US orbit, a process already taking place in the defence arena - first carrier air group on HMS QE likely to be from the USMC for a deployment to the Pacific. 

I thought that was just a temp arrangement until the RAF get their f-35's hence why we've had pilots on US carriers carrying out training  ?

[Awol]

13 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I thought that was just a temp arrangement until the RAF get their f-35's hence why we've had pilots on US carriers carrying out training  ?

Hence "first" but USMC likely to operate from QE class platforms frequently into the future even after our own carrier air is stood up. Nothing wrong with that and RN assets may operate from their properties platforms too, it's all about interoperability.  

[Chindie]

Reiterating a position suggested back in Jan, the German car industry has said, rather than coming begging to flog Beemers for our glorious sterling, they first and foremost want to maintain the integrity of the single market. Because of course they do.

[Awol]

On 07/07/2017 at 17:09, Enda said:

 

BBC

I'd imagine the time this gets formally singed ye're not going to be part of it, unfortunately.

Jap Ambo to UK on Radio 4 suggested all they have agreed (in 4 years and 3 months) with the EU is a framework for more detailed discussions that will take years of negotiation to complete. Also said a post Brexit bilateral FTA between UK & Japan may even happen first given how long the EU takes over such deals. 

/amused. 

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, Chindie said:

Reiterating a position suggested back in Jan, the German car industry has said, rather than coming begging to flog Beemers for our glorious sterling, they first and foremost want to maintain the integrity of the single market. Because of course they do.

How utterly predictable. 

[HanoiVillan]

The Institute for Government have put together a nice graphic which compares what May said she wanted in the Lancaster House speech with the currently-existing 'off-the-shelf' models of other countries and their actual political and trade relationships with the EU:

The first thing to note is that none of the options exactly match what May says she wants, but then we kind of knew that already. 

So the question becomes which option seems likely to be the best match. Given the centrality of immigration to the debate, both the Norway and Switzerland models seem to be off the table, so the best match is probably the Turkey option (which is the one Phil Hammond is clearly angling towards). It gives control over immigration, and allows tariff-free trade with the EU, and it would lead to less disruption in Norn Iron, which would please the DUP. Also, very importantly, it would end contributions to the EU budget, which would be a good sell to Tory voters. 

The downsides are that we won't have access to the single market for services and that we won't be able to negotiate trade deals with third countries, so Disgraced Former Defence Secretary Liam Fox's department would be useless. However, in reality, we could only hope to make up a tiny fraction of trade lost by leaving the single market for goods with trade deals with other countries, and most of those potential trade deals will come with costs that are at least as unappetising for the government as 'not having control over trade deals' (eg the Indian government's insistence that any trade deal is conditional on a massive increase in visas issued to Indian nationals). 

Of course, the retort to this is that whatever deal we eventually agree won't be an exact copy of any of these models, and that's true. However, the basic trade-off (the more control you have (top right), the less access you have (bottom right)) is not going to change. 

EDIT: link for Institute of Government report: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/brexit-explained/brexit-explained-options-uk’s-trading-relationship-eu

Edited July 9, 2017 by HanoiVillan

[Chindie]

They'll bend over backwards to give us exactly what we want, or they'll sell less cheese and prosecco and well made cars. And we'll just sell more jam to India and the streets will be paved with gold sir. And when they say yes we'll still sell insurance to Burma and then we'll all eat off golden plates and we won't have silverware, it'll be platinumware sir. And we will make even more money by wiping away needless regulation, but not the bits you like, only the pointless ones Brussels makes us have that drag Britain down sir, not the common sense ones that do have an effect on profit when we get right down to it but we'll work out how to keep those and get rid of them... Oh what about working with Europe who requires such regulation, you say? No need to worry sir! They will bend over backwards for good British accountancy and good British cheddar and good British engineering products, we won't have to worry about silly regulation they make the plebs in Former Eastern Commistan do to keep em honest, no sir. What's that? How do we get tariff and barrier free trade with the EU as well as make our trade deals, because then we could act as a neat importing house to avoid tariffs for the rest of the world? Don't worry about that sir, how complicated can it be?

[Enda]

12 hours ago, Awol said:

Jap Ambo to UK on Radio 4 suggested all they have agreed (in 4 years and 3 months) with the EU is a framework for more detailed discussions that will take years of negotiation to complete. Also said a post Brexit bilateral FTA between UK & Japan may even happen first given how long the EU takes over such deals. 

/amused. 

The same Japanese Ambassador that said you'd lose jobs unless you stayed in the Single Market, yeah?

[Chindie]

Bit a storm brewing today over leaving Euratom (it must be bad, its got Europe in the name).

A decision, like most things Brexit, completely moronic. Threatening investment in the British nuclear industry, the ability to benefit from collective research, and even the ability to buy nuclear materials unless we sort a new treaty out fast - we apparently only have 2 years of materials left.

Morons.

[HanoiVillan]

57 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Bit a storm brewing today over leaving Euratom (it must be bad, its got Europe in the name).

A decision, like most things Brexit, completely moronic. Threatening investment in the British nuclear industry, the ability to benefit from collective research, and even the ability to buy nuclear materials unless we sort a new treaty out fast - we apparently only have 2 years of materials left.

Morons.

I'm wondering if Brexiteers are becoming a little concerned about parliamentary arithmetic. The story here goes that Ed Vaizey published a letter/article (I can't remember which) in the Telegraph this morning saying that Brexit wasn't about Euratom, and subsequently more than 8 Tory MP's have retweeted, shared or favourited the story, so now it seems like there's no parliamentary majority for leaving the organisation. 

My concern, if I were a Brexiteer, would be that, just maybe, there are quite a few MP's who will say in public that they are very much in favour of Brexit, but who might find themselves finding convenient reasons not to vote for this, that or the other provision, making it very difficult for much to go ahead. 

Maybe I'm way out on this. 

[chrisp65]

No, sorry but we have to stand firm on this.

We are currently employing foreign nuclear experts whilst we have kids in Northampton and St Ives without jobs.

Wake up!

[HanoiVillan]

3 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

we have kids in . . . St Ives without jobs.

I blame the person whose bright idea it was to send hundreds of Grenfell families over there. 

[Davkaus]

Plenty of entrepreneurial, ambitious young adults in Northampton selling drugs. The unemployed could learn a thing or two.

[Chindie]

24 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I'm wondering if Brexiteers are becoming a little concerned about parliamentary arithmetic. The story here goes that Ed Vaizey published a letter/article (I can't remember which) in the Telegraph this morning saying that Brexit wasn't about Euratom, and subsequently more than 8 Tory MP's have retweeted, shared or favourited the story, so now it seems like there's no parliamentary majority for leaving the organisation. 

My concern, if I were a Brexiteer, would be that, just maybe, there are quite a few MP's who will say in public that they are very much in favour of Brexit, but who might find themselves finding convenient reasons not to vote for this, that or the other provision, making it very difficult for much to go ahead. 

Maybe I'm way out on this. 

I think it's partly this, but perhaps from the other direction. The Remain side using this as a test to see what they can manage to change. David Allen Green has made this point, and also helpfully noted that the only way we would be able to sort this out without carrying on and then fixing out after the fact, is by amending the A50 letter. Which would mean we would need to try to revoke part of it.

Which would require the EU to let us. They might just say scrap it and start again, they might say yes you can change it on the fly this time, or they might say no.

Idiots to a man, every single one of them that is involved in this entire farce.

[Chindie]

Also should be said, this isn't just a problem for nuclear power or weapons. I could see a lot of Green elements shrugging (at best, a lot would cheer) at the idea of nuclear industry getting a kick.

The problem? It also affects cancer treatment.

[snowychap]

2 hours ago, Chindie said:

Bit a storm brewing today over leaving Euratom (it must be bad, its got Europe in the name).

A decision, like most things Brexit, completely moronic. Threatening investment in the British nuclear industry, the ability to benefit from collective research, and even the ability to buy nuclear materials unless we sort a new treaty out fast - we apparently only have 2 years of materials left.

Morons.

 

[Chindie]

Ah yes. The sound of Pandora moaning upon discovering the contents of the box had a mind of their own.

[snowychap]

11 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Ah yes. The sound of Pandora moaning upon discovering the contents of the box had a mind of their own.

But there's always hope.

[magnkarl]

1 hour ago, Chindie said:

Also should be said, this isn't just a problem for nuclear power or weapons. I could see a lot of Green elements shrugging (at best, a lot would cheer) at the idea of nuclear industry getting a kick.

The problem? It also affects cancer treatment.

Why don't we hit two birds (sorry, lifeless rocks), with one stone for the Greens and use the materials from the nuclear missiles to power our power plants? That way we'll get rid of trident (and Diane Abbott rejoiced) and slowly but surely burn out our nuclear industry too! It's like a green, wet dream come true!

 

(tongue in cheek)