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

[Awol]

@peterms I’m not saying May is being manipulated, I’m saying she is the manipulator, ably assisted by the civil service. 

[peterms]

4 minutes ago, Awol said:

@peterms I’m not saying May is being manipulated, I’m saying she is the manipulator, ably assisted by the civil service. 

Hmmm.  I think of manipulators as people with imagination, creativity, in some cases empathy and insight.  She appears stolid, wooden, inflexible, unresponsive.  I can't imagine her manipulating her way to a rebate from Virgin Media.  Perhaps I've been taken in by her 1960s office building facade personality.

[Awol]

3 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

With apologies for the copy-and-paste...

I expect that in a practical "what do the EU actually do about this in two weeks time" sense, you basically do two things:

First, you go full Trump and do Article XXI of GATT (a different article to one to the one that Farage bangs on about):

...nothing in this Agreement shall be construed . . . to prevent any contracting party from taking any action which it considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests . . . taken in time of war or other emergency in international relations

It's not a long-term solution, but works until someone important kicks off about it. And you're unlikely to have the US kicking off about something that Ireland wants. Diaspora etc. So you suspend your checks on the immediate border until you're actually concerned about the UK deviating from the current regulatory standards.

Second, you state that any UK-sourced product used by Irish businesses needs to be able to demonstrate that full tariffs have been paid and full regulatory compliance has been met (with the burden of proof being on the Irish business), with spot checks and penalties for non-compliance.

Basically prevent it being in the interest of Irish companies to source goods of any sort from the north or the rest of the UK.

Pretty horrible solution for everyone involved. And that paragraph above basically shits all over the the spirit of the Belfast Agreement. But crucially not the legality of it.

But then they're having to clear up someone else's dopey mess, so there's bound to be mess to be cleared up. And as long as the world knows that the blame is situated in Westminster, not Brussels or Dublin then they make do.

I reckon that’s broadly correct. It’s difficult to know what the UK would do about applying tariffs to imports from the Irish Republic because in a no-deal May & Hammond would be out. If we assume reciprocal rates, then large parts of Irish agriculture is on the fast track to insolvency. Dublin can’t make unilateral deals with the UK and so huge pressure is  then exerted on Brussels to move into a mindset of resolve the issue with the UK, rather than winning a battle. 

Obviously I’m not trying to convince you, only to highlight that with an executive in London that is actually committed to getting this done, things would start to look different. We’re not in that place & are very unlikely to be, so this is pretty academic anyway. FWIW I reckon we’re on a track to revoke, with the silver lining of exploding the Conservative party. 

[snowychap]

6 minutes ago, Awol said:

It’s difficult to know what the UK would do about applying tariffs to imports from the Irish Republic because in a no-deal May & Hammond would be out. If we assume reciprocal rates

With the caveat already expressed (about trusting government proclamations), the temporary tariff regime for no deal Brexit was published three weeks ago:

Quote

Government has this morning (Wednesday 13 March) published details of the UK’s temporary tariff regime for no deal, designed to minimise costs to business and consumers while protecting vulnerable industries. The government is publishing this approach ahead of the vote in Parliament on No Deal to ensure MPs are fully informed.

This regime is temporary, and the government would closely monitor the effects of these tariffs on the UK economy. It would apply for up to 12 months while a full consultation and review on a permanent approach to tariffs is undertaken.

British businesses would not pay customs duties on the majority of goods when importing into the UK if we leave the European Union without an agreement.

Under the temporary tariff, 87% of total imports to the UK by value would be eligible for tariff free access.

Tariffs would still apply to 13% of goods imported into the UK. This includes:

• a mixture of tariffs and quotas on beef, lamb, pork, poultry and some dairy to support farmers and producers who have historically been protected through high EU tariffs
• retaining a number of tariffs on finished vehicles in order to support the automotive sector and in light of broader challenging market conditions. However, car makers relying on EU supply chains would not face additional tariffs on car parts imported from the EU to prevent disruption to supply chains
• in addition, there are a number of sectors where tariffs help provide support for UK producers against unfair global trading practices, such as dumping and state subsidies. Tariffs would be retained for these products, including certain ceramics, fertiliser and bioethanol
• to meet our long-standing commitment to reduce poverty through trade, the government currently offers preferential access to the UK market for developing countries. To ensure that access for developing countries is maintained, we would retain tariffs on a set of goods, including bananas, raw cane sugar, and certain kinds of fish

And from the link within that quote:

Quote

Northern Ireland

If the UK leaves the EU with no deal on 12 April 2019, the UK government would not introduce any new checks or controls on goods at the land border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.

The temporary rates of customs duty (tariffs) on imports would not apply to goods crossing from Ireland into Northern Ireland.

 

Edited April 6, 2019 by snowychap

[ml1dch]

5 minutes ago, Awol said:

FWIW I reckon we’re on a track to revoke, with the silver lining of exploding the Conservative party. 

Sidebar - would you take that, if offered as a "result of this battle"?

Nothing stopping anyone who still wants it from trying again...

[Awol]

@snowychap thanks for posting that. My point was in a no-deal scenario May and Hammond would be gone really, really fast. What happens then is anyone’s guess, but in those circumstances I wouldn’t take anything with the Treasury’s fingerprints on it as likely future policy. 

[Awol]

2 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Sidebar - would you take that, if offered as a "result of this battle"?

Nothing stopping anyone who still wants it from trying again...

Honestly? I’d rather stay in than sign that god-awful treaty, & I’m pretty firmly for Leave... It’s the roadmap for an absolute national disaster, and as you say we’d still have the right to leave the EU. 

By any objective measure the Conservative party deserves to dissolve over this farce, probably spawning two new parties. I’d say the same about Labour, too. The misalignment of public opinion and party structure is greater than I’ve ever known it. BIAD and start again. 

 

 

[snowychap]

Just now, Awol said:

@snowychap thanks for posting that. My point was in a no-deal scenario May and Hammond would be gone really, really fast. What happens then is anyone’s guess, but in those circumstances I wouldn’t take anything with the Treasury’s fingerprints on it as likely future policy. 

Would they? How?

Hammond is in his position at the behest of May and May is there until she either resigns or there is a vote of no confidence in the government which actually passes and triggers the resulting aftermath according to the FTPA (or everyone gets together and calls an eelection).

Either way, the plans as above (standard caveat applies) would be the ones introduced on no deal day 1.

[ml1dch]

Just now, Awol said:

By any objective measure the Conservative party deserves to dissolve over this farce, probably spawning two new parties. I’d say the same about Labour, too. 

Well, it's nice to know that we can at least reach common ground on that.

Shall we both go and sign up for our Change UK membership now? 

[Awol]

Just now, snowychap said:

Would they? How?

Hammond is in his position at the behest of May and May is there until she either resigns or there is a vote of no confidence in the government which actually passes and triggers the resulting aftermath according to the FTPA (or everyone gets together and calls an eelection).

Either way, the plans as above (standard caveat applies) would be the ones introduced on no deal day 1.

If the cabinet, or a substantial minority (say 10+ ministers) say ‘you go or we do’ she’d be forced to resign. There’s already 18 gapped junior ministerial posts she can’t fill. Add 10 cabinet ministers and there’s no government. 

If, for example, Macron said no to a long extension but that he’d sign off on 4 weeks for both sides to do final no-deal prep’ then she's out the next day. Her Parliamentary and wider party now hate her after the Corbyn stunt. 

Tbh it’s all so fluid who can really say how various scenarios play out? It’s seems likely to me that nothing at all is set in stone. 

[peterms]

3 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Shall we both go and sign up for our Change UK membership now? 

Identify as CUKs?  Each to his own,  I suppose.  Diversity is strength.

[Awol]

3 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Well, it's nice to know that we can at least reach common ground on that.

Shall we both go and sign up for our Change UK membership now? 

Yeah, Chukka for President - Anna for weights and measures. 

 

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

I’m not going to argue the toss with you but having followed this process obsessively it’s been well explained by the professional commentariat. 

I haven't agreed with pretty much anything you've written on here in the last 24 hours, but this is the single most perplexing statement of all. 

[VILLAMARV]

[snowychap]

1 minute ago, Awol said:

If the cabinet, or a substantial minority (say 10+ ministers) say ‘you go or we do’ she’d be forced to resign. There’s already 18 gapped junior ministerial posts she can’t fill. Add 10 cabinet ministers and there’s no government. 

If, for example, Macron said no to a long extension but that he’d sign off on 4 weeks for both sides to do final no-deal prep’ then she's out the next day. Her Parliamentary and wider party now hate her after the Corbyn stunt. 

Tbh it’s all so fluid who can really say how various scenarios play out? It’s seems likely to me that nothing at all is set in stone. 

Forced to resign in favour of whom?

She is the Prime Minister and there is certainly an argument that she has a duty to remain in post until or unless she can advise the Monarch that there is someone else who could command the confidence of the House of Commons.

If you mean that she would be PM in name only whilst the Tories are rolling through another leadership campaign then that could well be the case but I'd say that even in that situation she wouldn't be PPM in name only.

She'd still press ahead and do things that were in her power to do (i.e.. implement already announced government policy) even if it went against the wishes and directions of others.

And if this leadership campaign threw up someone from the Brexit wing of the Tory party (or someone more beholden to them), why would people on the other side of the Tory party allow the new PM and team to ride roughshod over already implemented policy? For party unity? If it takes the kind of mass threat (or action upon a threat) that you've put forward to get her to loosen her grip then I'd say Torty party unity is done (at least within this parliamentary term) and any new PM would have the same level of difficulty (if not more) with implementing their desired policy changes.

I agree that nothing is set in stone and forecasting what will happen is a mug's game but working out the means by which a particular possible scenario could come about is definitely possible - though that's not to say that my thoughts above are anything other than me thinking things through and questioning just how we would get to a completely different short-term poliicy on no deal (anything vastly different longer term is much more possible and likely, I'd imagine).

[imavillan]

7 minutes ago, Awol said:

Yeah, Chukka for President - Anna for weights and measures. 

 

jeez

Chuka Umunna, Anna Soubry (and the rest of the defectors) will be history at the next general election.

They are just the people you need on the bench of magistrates or high court judge when you are in the dock and as guilty as night follows day and want to go home at the end of proceedings.

Bunch of wet lettuces....

 

[Awol]

2 minutes ago, imavillan said:

jeez

Chuka Umunna, Anna Soubry (and the rest of the defectors) will be history at the next general election.

They are just the people you need on the bench of magistrates or high court judge when you are in the dock and as guilty as night follows day and want to go home at the end of proceedings.

Bunch of wet lettuces....

 

Soubry’s just a drunk James O’Brien. 

[Seat68]

Never more have I felt like saying oh **** off on a VT thread than this. But I won't, so I didn't. 

[imavillan]

24 minutes ago, imavillan said:

jeez

Chuka Umunna, Anna Soubry (and the rest of the defectors) will be history at the next general election.

They are just the people you need on the bench of magistrates or high court judge when you are in the dock and as guilty as night follows day and want to go home at the end of proceedings.

Bunch of wet lettuces....

 

 

21 minutes ago, Awol said:

Soubry’s just a drunk James O’Brien. 

I kind of get Chuka doing one from Labour as Lambeth voted to remain....so he has a certain amount of legitimacy in spouting out for remain.

However, Anna Soubry is a one woman crusade who's constituency of Broxtowe voted 55 to 45 to leave and she is trying her hardest not to do what her constituents voted for. (as are many other MP's)

What i think is wrong is that for any defector (of any party) can just changes ship and course in mid flight.

The vast, vast majority of voters vote for the party and the policies, not the individual. Therefore in my book, for anyone who defects, there should be a bye election.

Simplistically, It just seems wrong to me that i can vote for somebody/a party who says xxxxx and thats what i agree with then changes to yyyyyy.....thats not what i voted for !!!!!

 

Any way, the upshot is, and regardless of your stance in this, the MP's from all parties have not followed on from 1, the referendum result and 2, what they voted for themselves in triggering article 50 by 498 votes to 114

 

Edited April 6, 2019 by imavillan

[imavillan]

7 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

Never more have I felt like saying oh **** off on a VT thread than this. But I won't, so I didn't. 

do you want to take that back to the people?????

Edited April 6, 2019 by imavillan