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

[Chindie]

1 hour ago, Chindie said:

High Lord Arch Heretic Ivan Rogers dismantles the Brexit shambles.

 

1 hour ago, ml1dch said:

The transcript is on the Spectator website as well.

The transcript isn't perfect, it looks like they either got an early draft or Rogers edited it on the fly, and it's far too long to quote, but I'd recommend reading or watching the speech if you can. He eviscerates a lot of the nonsense coming from the debate, particularly the especially lunatic stuff from Brexiteers, but he doesn't have a great deal of hope for the Remain side either.

It's a very good speech, and there's really not much to disagree with in it. I'd recommend our resident Brexiteers set aside the time to read or watch it for sure.

[welnik]

We're not leaving!!!!!

May is a Remainer! She's playing it so the "deal" is so bad it gets voted down, nobody wants no deal, so it will all get kicked into the long grass,  and the blame will go to the EU for not budging ! This is what she wants.

It will get debated in Parliament until everyone is blue in the face and bored, and then it will all be a distant memory,

 

Cheers Nick

[Chindie]

1 minute ago, welnik said:

We're not leaving!!!!!

May is a Remainer! She's playing it so the "deal" is so bad it gets voted down, nobody wants no deal, so it will all get kicked into the long grass,  and the blame will go to the EU for not budging ! This is what she wants.

It will get debated in Parliament until everyone is blue in the face and bored, and then it will all be a distant memory,

 

Cheers Nick

We will leave on March 29th, unless we revoke A50 or request and have agreed by the EU27 an extension by that date. If neither of those happen, we leave, and unless we agree a deal before then, we leave with no deal.

May is a nominally a Remainer, but she's also wedded to ending free movement, and all dies on that alter for her. Her aim is to get her deal agreed, so is running down the clock, upping faux No Deal 'prep', and playing No Deal/No Brexit rhetoric depending on the side she's talking to, in the hope she can threaten Parliament to go with her deal.

Every eventuality that isn't revoking A50 will also lead to years of further negotiations as we try to sort out the future relationship with our biggest trade partner.

[blandy]

24 minutes ago, Chindie said:

May is a nominally a Remainer, but she's also wedded to ending free movement,

Primarily, May is a tory. Her first instinct is to look after the tory party and be nasty to immigrants.

If the UK remains, the tory party will break up. The foaming throbbers in the ERM right wing fringe and many of the party members will eff off to UKIPs or wherever.

If we leave with no deal, the tory party will break up and the damage to the country will be so bad that the tories will not get elected again for a generation.  The remainer tory people MPs and voters and members will permanently abandon their party.

She reckons that "her deal" is the only one that won't wreck the tory party. That's why she's sticking with it. It's anti immigration part is the red meat she and many tories like. The other stuff...meh. Sure the throbbers don't like the backstop, but she reckons they'll swallow it to get Brexit.

In some sense the situation is the same in reverse for Corbyn.

[Chindie]

10 minutes ago, blandy said:

Primarily, May is a tory. Her first instinct is to look after the tory party and be nasty to immigrants.

If the UK remains, the tory party will break up. The foaming throbbers in the ERM right wing fringe and many of the party members will eff off to UKIPs or wherever.

If we leave with no deal, the tory party will break up and the damage to the country will be so bad that the tories will not get elected again for a generation.  The remainer tory people MPs and voters and members will permanently abandon their party.

She reckons that "her deal" is the only one that won't wreck the tory party. That's why she's sticking with it. It's anti immigration part is the red meat she and many tories like. The other stuff...meh. Sure the throbbers don't like the backstop, but she reckons they'll swallow it to get Brexit.

In some sense the situation is the same in reverse for Corbyn.

Agree and disagree.

May is a Tory of course and the party comes before more or less anything. But she was a Remainer (when not walking between the raindrops), and she does appear to have a personal issue with immigration. Even before Brexit she was the one peddling the hostile environment and sending vans around telling people to go home, to an extent even a lot of Tories shied from. Her deal is primarily focused on getting the best result that gets free movement binned, regardless of whether that best result is actually shit. Theres also the new EU financial laws coming in that a few Tories might not like to see the UK be subject to, such as the PMs husband, and the haunted pencil.

I can't see No Deal overly harming the Tories. The excuses are ready, the distortion field is on standby for many voters with Leave leanings (it's the EU's fault)... No Deal will be a disaster but it will be a sharp shock followed by a long slow stumble with plenty of chances for the party to spin all the reasons it isn't Brexit that caused all this (obviously we've seen this already with the anti-Brexit news always being something else to blame). And England likes to vote Tory. No Deal will just be a new challenge in spin. Tory rebels have largely shown themselves to know where their bread is buttered when it comes to the party so even the most staunch Remain MPs I could see grumbling a bit and then get on with the much more important job of ensuring Tory leadership of the country.

Remain won't make a great deal of difference to the Tories either. A few really nuts MPs might peel off to a to renewed UKIP and a few died on the wool voters might jump as well, but the Tories will be fine.

[Genie]

8 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

Airbus are one of my company's biggest customers, in fact they're probably THE biggest customer (I don't know if they or Boeing are bigger)

Everyone around me at work are still all pro Brexit.

Makes no sense.

It’s this bizarre “politicians are all crooked and useless” but then also “it’ll be alright” which suggests politicians will resolve all the issues that a no deal will bring (trade deals, red tape etc).

 

[StefanAVFC]

32 minutes ago, Genie said:

It’s this bizarre “politicians are all crooked and useless” but then also “it’ll be alright” which suggests politicians will resolve all the issues that a no deal will bring (trade deals, red tape etc).

 

Remain politicians are crooked and undemocratic and brexiteers like JRM and Davis are squeaky clean. 

[HanoiVillan]

41 minutes ago, Genie said:

It’s this bizarre “politicians are all crooked and useless” but then also “it’ll be alright” which suggests politicians will resolve all the issues that a no deal will bring (trade deals, red tape etc).

They've reached the limits of 'cynicism towards everyone' as an key belief. 

[StefanAVFC]

Breaking news: No Deal advocating Brexiteers don't understand WTO rules

 

[bickster]

5 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Breaking news: No Deal advocating Brexiteers don't understand WTO rules

 

Even getting rinsed by a High Ranking Agent of the Brexit Broadcasting Corporation

[StefanAVFC]

This bloke is the businessman held up by Brexiteers as why No Deal is a good idea...

https://www.theguardian.com/global/video/2019/jan/25/owen-jones-meets-tim-martin-wetherspoons-no-deal-brexit-poverty-wages-dont-ask-childish-questions-video

Quote

JD Wetherspoon CEO Tim Martin has been touring his pubs to promote his vision for a no-deal Brexit. But why is he so opposed to the EU? Should the elites be leading the debate? And what do his customers think? Owen Jones joins the tour in Southend-on-Sea  

I don't hugely like Owen Jones, but Tim Martin is such a clearing in the woods, jesus.

[Chindie]

I had a Wetherspoons magazine delivered in the post yesterday, advocating No Deal. Straight on the burning pile.

[Stevo985]

20 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Breaking news: No Deal advocating Brexiteers don't understand WTO rules

 

Can someone elaborate on this?

I can honestly say I don't understand WTO rules properly.

Why is it so bad if we go to WTO rules? Or not bad if that's the case...?

(I'm not saying it's not bad, genuinely trying to educate myself)

[blandy]

17 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

No Deal advocating Brexiteers don't understand WTO rules

This whole no deal thing, the throbbers and Theresa May's behaviour is mind blowingly diabolical.

Some things we know are that everyone from the throbbers analysis, to the remainers, from the Gov't analyses and all the rest, from the EU analyses - they all categorically depict that a No Deal Brexit will hit the UK badly. And the EU badly.

The Prime Minister of the UK is refusing to rule out causing or going for something extremely harmful. That action, decisions, choice whatever is fundamentally a dereliction of duty, an abrogation of responsibility. It's just mind-blowingly inconceivable that a PM is behaving in this way. It's a mix of extreme cowardice and indecision, appalling judgement and utter lack of qualities suitable to be a PM. The Country has spent something like 5 billion quid so far preparing for this idiotic eventuality, on her say so. Obviously the country is not remotely prepared and never can be. WTF is this gruesome charachter playing at?

I assume all the latest set of warnings about the catastropork that will ensue are at least part inspired by May asking for them to be made more publicly, rather than in private, as a surrogate for her actually just making a decision. Presumably because she wants to get the throbbers to vote for her plan A, but is too weak-minded to take the responsible decision herself to show some leadership.

How the **** is that woman still PM?

[StefanAVFC]

19 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Can someone elaborate on this?

I can honestly say I don't understand WTO rules properly.

Why is it so bad if we go to WTO rules? Or not bad if that's the case...?

(I'm not saying it's not bad, genuinely trying to educate myself)

So, in a nutshell and my own limited understanding

WTO rules say we have to put the same tariffs on imports for everyone. We can't pick and choose without a FTA.

Meaning, if we want to continue tariff free access to the UK market for the EU after Brexit (nothing changes) then we have to do the same for everyone else.

Meaning, 0% tariffs on India, USA, China etc.

Which is devastating for UK exporters and businesses who produce for the domestic market, as cheap products from everywhere will flood the market.

Also, WTO means other countries can still whack whatever tariffs they want onto anything.

There's also a topic of motivation. If a country gets tariff free access to our market, why do they ever need an FTA?

[blandy]

12 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Why is it so bad if we go to WTO rules

It is very bad.

In essence, WTO rulesa re many and complex. They frame a kind of minimum standard as to how trade has to be conducted between nations. Almost every nation on earth has a range of deals which are better than this minimum framework. The UK as part of the EU has a much, much better set of deals. Stuff we buy and sell across the EU and the world is subjected to much more benign tarriff levels, removal or reduction of quotas and all that kind of thing.

If we got to "WTO rules" we lose all that. Stuff gets more expensive to buy and sell. We are not allowed to sell as much to all kinds of places. Checks getmade on all the stuff we buy and sell to EU countires - the whole thing about queues at borders and rotting produce and JIT supply chains being wrecked.

We could alleviate some of the extra tarriffs by deciding not to impose them on imports, e.g. if WTO rules set import tariffs on sofas at 6%, we could voluntarily set them to nil - but we'd have to do it for everyone, not just someone the UK was trying to do a deal with (e.g. USA). And then there's no incentive for anyone to to any deal with us - we've already given them what they'd want from a negotiated deal, voluntarily. UK sofa makers suddenly get competition from US or chinese sofa makers undercutting prices. Our lot go bust.

Multiply across the whole of farming and industry. Even Minford, the Brexiteers economic forecaster says it would decimate UK manufacturing and farming.

Note: all of the above is not meant to be strictly accurate (as in fact checkable) it's trying to put across the logic/principle in order to explain/answer.

 or use twitter

 

[snowychap]

Come on. Someone surely has to mention MFN when talking about WTO!

 

As in:

What's wrong with dropping on to WTO terms?

MFN, mate, MFN.

Edited January 25, 2019 by snowychap

[Chindie]

20 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Can someone elaborate on this?

I can honestly say I don't understand WTO rules properly.

Why is it so bad if we go to WTO rules? Or not bad if that's the case...?

(I'm not saying it's not bad, genuinely trying to educate myself)

WTO rules are the base level of ensuring 'fair' trade, dictating things like tariff implementation and quotas. The main rule is the 'most favoured nation' rule, which means you can't offer a special deal to one nation and not offer it to everyone else. So say the UK decided to reduce tariffs on, say, milk, for the US to 0%. We would then be required to reduce tariffs to the entirety of the WTO members for milk to 0%. Which would be a disaster.

The quotas side of things is more complicated. The EU is a WTO member and has agreed quotas on things like lamb and diary products with the rest of the world which then apply to all members. When the UK leaves the EU, a proposal has been made that those quotas are divided up on a consumption basis - e.g. the UK takes more lamb from outside the EU than the test of the EU so the lamb quotas would be carved up to reflect that. The other members that would be effected by this have raised objections, basically saying such an agreement **** them over because under the EU basis, they have a quota that operates over a huge market, under the new basis they would have a quota that reduced their market. It's possible this is just seeing an opportunity to grow and attacking it, but either way it could cause issues with what the UK can get agreed under the WTO basis.

The sound bite version of this is going from the EU to WTO basis is like going from the Premier League to the Conference. 

Countries don't use the WTO rules as a corner stone of their trade relationships. They make trade deals instead, because they're far better. And the EU is like, the ultimate trade deal.

[bickster]

25 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Can someone elaborate on this?

I can honestly say I don't understand WTO rules properly.

Why is it so bad if we go to WTO rules? Or not bad if that's the case...?

(I'm not saying it's not bad, genuinely trying to educate myself)

Say we decide that the tariff on Product X from Europe is 0% because we want this good from Europe, we have to offer that 0% tariff to the whole world. So whereas we might desire the European version of the good because of the quality assurance that comes with EU law, we would in effect get our market flooded by cheap other versions of the good from other countries also at 0%. Whereas with a FTD, we could offer that 0% to Europe but impose a tariff of 100% on the rest of the world to discourage the cheap imitation / inferior good. Essentially if you offer a rate to one country / block, you have to offer that rate to everyone!

[Chindie]

It should also be said that things like tariffs aren't the big deal in global trade any more. It's the non tariff barriers that are the big issue, and the WTO says nothing about those. In leaving the EU we would still need to meet EU standards on everything we sold to them. Which is where the issue of making deals outside of the EU and having free frictionless trade with the EU becomes an issue. The EU, rightly, would be concerned that the UK would do a deal with the US say on hormone riddled beef and then import that to the EU, undercutting standards and costs to the detriment of the EU itself. Rinse and repeat for everything.

That then means customs checks which in turn **** over businesses that rely on just in time deliveries, which are now so important to some manufacturers that a change in delivery time is the difference between soaring profits and bankruptcy.