Bt surely we should refuse to accept that judgement.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
Printable View
Bt surely we should refuse to accept that judgement.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
Absolutely, the UK does not want those foreign judges telling them what they can or cannot do.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfella
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travs
Wolves 2 Chelsea 1
Cardiff Who?
Back in 2016 as an armchair watcher of politics and amateur economist I put out some information on Brexit pre-referendum.
I was a regular on the FRA Forum thread as most know, but the only "experts" out there who would have seen the validity of my contributions were often dubbed as cranks, fanatics....
So It's satisfying this last week to see that the May Deal and the re-launch of Project Fear under the guise of Treasury and Bank of England Analysis has attracted the attention of such experts as Paul Krugman and Ashoka Mody.
A Nobel winning Economist and a former Asst Director of the IMF.
Krugman.
"The economics is straightforward. When trade barriers between the UK and the EU go up, British producers will sell less to the EU and will sell more within the UK and to the rest of the world."
Yet we constantly here that it will a loss of trade, without any balancing factors.
The article is here, somewhat buried in the Independent.
It's a very good article. Well worth a read.
And if anyone wants to look back as my old piece, with a little update I added about ayear ago, then feel free.
You can see on this link.
Don't think the frog population are over pleased with euro zone.
Spot on Pat!Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
To vote or not to vote...
.....🙃Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Haven't we had a vote.
Knock the cost of the next one off MPs salary or expenses claims.
So, neither side wants the 'backstop' to come into force for long, if at all and we can also extend the implementation period so why not just bin the backstop, put an absolute limit on the implementation period and then deal or no deal. AT least leaving without a deal gives us some certainty which we can then build upon.
We are being led by a supply teacher who’s lost control.
Maybe some of you guys who live in areas that have not had political strife in centuries, should try discussing the backstop with this bloke.
https://youtu.be/8cZe2ihEZO8
TM mentioned the "deal" with almost every answer yesterday in the Commons. Most are talking about her deal.
But this isn't a deal, it is a two part arrangement.
1. The Withdrawal Agreement sets out in an international treaty how we will hand over a shed load of money which hasn't been set out for us to scrutinise the breakdown. It will move us on 29th March in to what I would call a holding area where we will still be under the EU umbrella but without a say.
Most of what is held in this legal text is costing the UK, or uncomfortable and inconvenient for the UK.
2. The Future Arrangement, set out in a letter of intent. This is really the part where we want meat on the bone.
The ground we give in the Withdrawal Agreement is counter-balanced by the Future arrangement.
But 2 is largely worthless. It will have been put together by a UK PM that might not be around in a few weeks (with a little luck) and an EU that will look at lot different after the Spring with new Commissioners and a new Parliament.
and it has no legal standing.
and if we cannot agree a future arrangement in the period after 29th March we will be held in that holding arrangement indefinitely. Some have suggested that we will be able to break out eventually, but that really is well in to the next decade and will be a time consuming process, mired in legal challenges.
This should be handled like an exchange of contracts in a house purchase. If we accept that the EU cannot sign a deal with a member and has to wait until we are a 3rd country, then at the very least we should have a signature ready Future Arrangement, ready to sign on 230th March with both agreements held by a neutral party for a signing either side of 11:00pm on the 29th.
That seems unlikely to happen, as the EU repeatedly has insisted it would breach it's rules to discuss such detail with a 3rd country.
So my only conclusion now is that we should make ourselves a 3rd country on March the 29th, not sign the Withdrawal Agreement.
Then the EU can satisfy it's own bureaucratic red lines and hold twin track discussions in tandem on our responsibilities for leaving alongside the discussions on our future relationship.
Good points WP, there's a lot of sense in what you're saying there.
Although I don't particularly admire Teresa May as a politician, when she's done and then is ousted by her "colleagues" she deserves a medal for keeping going through this. I think most people would have got to the "OK, you do better - I'm off" stage by now.
The problem in my opinion is not her perseverance but that she keeps making horrendous mistakes. They are numerous but the worst one of all is not to plan for no-deal. We keep hearing from the Government stories of doom if we exit without a deal. But if that is true then why haven't they been making concrete plans to manage it? Surely leaving without a deal was always a possible outcome if the UK couldn't come to an agreement with the EU. By not making proper plans, the Government has made it more likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
I cannot understand what Theresa May hopes to achieve by delaying the vote in Parliament and going back to the EU. They are not going to take the backstop out of the withdrawal treaty, indeed she is not even going to ask them to. A few warm words from the EU about how they don't want it to come into force will not change the legal reality of an international treaty. So all May is doing is kicking the can down the road for a few weeks when the Government should be using the time left available to put the infrastructure in place for a managed no-deal.
I think a managed no-exit is more likely than a managed no-deal. And that's probably Teresa May's opinion too.
I agree, that is more likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
Whenever any country in Europe has voted against the EU, it has always been overturned, either by making the people vote again to make the "correct" decision or ignoring the result completely. I actually thought we would be different, but now I'm beginning to doubt it.
I'm with MR on May's errors. She has made several big errors, going against the advise of (sometimes) more experienced cabinet colleagues and going along with advisors and civil servants.
1. Lack of planning for no deal - most of which will be required anyway.
2. The timetabling
3. The General Election.
4. The December 2017 document that introduced the backstop concept.
5. Chequers - all Brexit legislation has passed until Chequers - nothing since and the Govt went from having 10 or so rebels, to having around 100 including most of those original 10.
There are more, but yesterday morning they were still proceeding with the vote so pulling it is just the latest case.
So quite how any can support her, I don't know, especially when you consider her long tenure as Home Secretary and Windrush and the net migration target.
She lacks competence and judgement and so do key members of her team such as Hammond. The National Insurance issue from a previous budget and this years issue with the gaming machines that led to the resignation of a minister before they back-pedalled.
Back in November 2016 I watched the DEXU Select Committee take evidence from 3 International Trade and Law experts, including one who has worked extensively with WTO.
The WTO bloke said then that under WTO rules the EU and UK can lodge a deal with the WTO that extends the current trading arrangements for a temporary period (he indicated 2-3 years) before other WTO members would get irked and try and do something about it.
Such an extension would be on the understanding that it was to allow time to sign off on a full Free Trade Agreement.
So the answer to me is clear from the UK perspective.
1. We advise the EU that we cannot accept many of the details in the Withdrawal Agreement and so will shelve it until March 30th.
2. We will leave on 29th March without a formal trade deal.
3. We offer unilateral residency rights to EU citizens as set out in the WA.
4. We invite the EU to apply to the WTO to extend the current trading arrangements.
5. We agree to maintain all current standards and regs so that we can enter those talks in full alignment, even though a 3rd country.
6. We roll over current WTO arrangements with 3rd countries - something already more or less done.
7. We start now, setting up the schemes to handle cross border trade remote from the border, at all borders.
Then on March 30th we can start a process of fulfilling the Withdrawal Agreement without some of the unnecessary BS and we can jointly work on the future relationship, should the EU want to talk trade and other alliances with us.
This chestnut keeps coming up. Maybe a bit of facts will help.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
In Ireland during both the Nice and Lisbon referendums, the No campaigners repeatedly argued that the treaties would change Irish laws on abortion, and undermine Ireland’s military neutrality amoung other "vague" critisms. Following the defeats the Irish goverment got the EU to harden up the treaty language in these areas to alay those fears, before going back to the people again. Somehow that is percieved as a "bad thing".
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/20...n-eu-treaties/
"In the second round, however, the arguments changed. The Yes side argued that Europe had listened to the Danish/Irish people and responded with legal guarantees, which were specifically on the themes raised by the No side. With the Edinburgh Agreement, Denmark would have four opt-outs in the fields of European citizenship, economic and monetary union, defence policy, and justice and home affairs. Ireland, on the other hand, gained guarantees concerning its military neutrality with the Seville Declaration after the Nice referendum, and on the Irish commissioner, competency over tax rates, abortion, neutrality, and workers’ rights after the Lisbon referendum."
Now that people actually have an idea of what brexit will look like, as opposed to the fantasy that was peddled during the referendum, what is wrong with asking them again?
But even as a remainer but I am not convienced by the people's vote, because even if brexit was reversed, no way would the UK become a happy member of the EU. It might be better to let it go ahead, and in a generation's time, when they realize what a horrible mistake it was the UK can revisit the decision again.
Patrick, you obviously know more about the Irish referendums than me. But what do you think about the French and Dutch referendums of 2005? In both cases the EU constitution was rejected. The EU went on to create the Lisbon Treaty which was substantially the same thing. This time the French and Dutch electorate did not get a referendum. As Jean-Claude Junker said at the time “If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue’,” And that's just what they did.
Here of course having a referendum on the EU constitution was a 2005 Labour Party manifesto pledge. Once elected they reneged on it.
Suppose Remain had won, would you have been asking for another referendum after two and a half years if there were some things about EU membership we didn't like? If we vote to Remain this time do we go through it all again in a few years time? Let's be honest the people behind the calls for a second vote never accepted the result of the referendum in the first place so the idea that they are only calling it because now we know more of what Brexit entails is risible.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
I think it was very clear what Brexit would look like. The Leave campaign was about taking back control of our laws, borders and money. This means leaving the Single Market and Currency Union. This is still possible, the only problem is that the Government and Parliament are not enacting the result of the referendum.
To demand a new referendum when the vote to leave hasn't even been implemented yet is ridiculous. I agree with the latter part of your comment. Let's wait a generation as was done last time. Once Brexit has been tried, if people want to re-enter the EU at that point then so be it.
If I am being perfectly honest, I though it was an excellent piece of political work. The fact that nobody is screeming about Lisbon would seem to confirm that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
Maybe you should have read/quoted another piece of my post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
I am not convienced - this is one thing we can agree on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
What is excellent about it?Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
The Treaty was a continuation of the centralising trend away form the nation state. Personally I think that is undemocratic particularly when you consider that the EU's Executive is the European Commission, whose members are unelected and can't be removed.
But whether you think it is good or bad is not really the issue, you didn't answer the question. Was it right that the results of the French and Dutch referendums were ignored?
I didn't quote it but I referred to it and said I agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
Good luck with the Tax issue. It looks like those commitments made a decade ago might well be disappearing, especially once the UK leaves, one of the main defenders of the creeping EU influence in to domestic tax affairs of member states.
So... conservative leadership election. What do people think will happen?
I'll go for Teresa May surviving but not by much, but soldiering on anyway saying "now's not the time for change, we need to get my plan approved".
I would have thought that was a given, becasue nither a Brexitier or a Remainer could win.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
When things were better managed all the 48+ who signed a letter of "no confidence" would have been executed...which approach would have eliminated politicking and concentrated minds on the qualities the traitors were rejecting: integrity, tenacity, loyalty, stamina, intelligence, stateswomanship,...Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
To answer that question, I would have to have a deep understanding of what is in the treaty, before I could make an informed decision about wheather getting it in "via the back door" is the right thing or not. Just because the people said something it does not mean it is right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
In fact that is one of my grips. I am a lot of a lefty when it come to health/social care/education. But all of these services are struggling due to lack of monies. I would love to have a goverment with the balls to significantly increase taxes, but any goverment that put that in their manifesto would get hammered, becasue we the population are selfish. We would prefer to have a nice car/holiday/house than pay for some family with a severly disabled child.
Maybe if a lot more people had really understood the pros/cons of EU membership, how fragile the peace is in N.I. and more importantly, what sort of trade deal is realistic, the country would not be in the chaos it is in now.
What might save her are:Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
1. There are a greater proportion of MPs on the Govt payroll now with even a few dozen trade envoys meaning almost half of the Parliamentary Party are in Govt.
2. Most Tory MPs are out of step with the membership and voters. They were Remainers and if they could, would reverse the decision.
They certainly will not want a Brexiteer in charge.
However if May is toppled, a Brexiteer leader is almost inevitable. They will probably agree one candidate. If we get to that point I expect it will be BJ with Davis back in as DEXU Secretary to finish the job off.
I see he has already put out an alternative Withdrawal Agreement today and it seems sensible. It doesn't take us back 12 months, it just seeks to get rid of the main sticking points and keep some options open after 29th March rather than signing them off now.
I think she will survive too, unfortunately.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
You could say that about any election. We don't test people to see how knowledgeable they are before allowing them to vote. The fact is they gave the people the vote so it is totally undemocratic to ignore them because they didn't give the results the elites wanted.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
People knew enough. They knew that they didn't want to be sucked into a Federal state, which is where the EU is headed.Quote:
Maybe if a lot more people had really understood the pros/cons of EU membership, how fragile the peace is in N.I. and more importantly, what sort of trade deal is realistic, the country would not be in the chaos it is in now.
I don't think it is the fault of the people that the EU and Irish Government decided to weaponize the Irish border for their own ends.
As for what is a realistic trade deal I would say a Canada style one is realistic. After all Canada has one.
I think May will survive because nobody else truly wants the job, they would be on a hiding to nothing.
They wish to destabilise her from behind the barricades (so to speak), from a safe distance they can posture, throw abuse and promise the world without having to step up to the line. Nasty school kids in the playground.
Once any deal is done, then she will be ousted immediately and one of the big guns step into the breach to "clear up the mess he didn't cause".
I put Corbyn and Labour party in the same position, actual power right now would be a disaster for them, far better to shout the odds from a safe distance.
But I may be proven wrong very soon!
Maybe it's time for HM The Queen to take charge. Lock Boris in the Tower, execute Jacob R-M and display his head on a spike on London Bridge; and to make sure that no-one else thinks it's time to come out to play, banish Jeremy Corbyn to exile in British Antarctic Territory and confine Nicola Sturgeon in a nunnery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
Absolutely, look at Labour & Corbyn, Five Star in Italy, Trump, Putin, and no end of other mistakes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
What about Stalin? Didn't he share your conviction that society was selfish? And didn't he slaughter millions of his own people in the pursuit of self-sacrifice?Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
I like Rees-Mogg. He's my virtual best mate. When the 48 letters didn't come immediately many were saying he'd fluffed it, that he'd taken the first step and other hadn't followed, but he responded "Patience is a virtue, virtue is a grace,the letters will come." What a Cool Hand Luke response. And they did come.
And although this hopeless prime minister has won the vote tonight it actually represents a terrible outcome for her. She has no power and is just wasting time that the brexiteers desperately need to address the mess she got us into.
CL is "virtual" what those in the real world call fantasy?:)Quote:
Originally Posted by CL
I'm not sure who you are referring to, but I can guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by molehill
You see the Leave supporting Tory MPs have voted through all Brexit legislation. They supported May's leadership as she promised to honour the referendum. They agreed with her set piece speeches, Lancaster House and Florence.
They agreed with the Brexit policy set out in the manifesto.
The original rebs including Clarke, Soubry, Grieve.... were the dissenting few.
The big game changer was Chequers. No DEXU legislation has passed since and not only has this alienated around 150 Tory MPs that were previously onside, it has also alienated the 10 or so Tory rebs,the DUP and the Labour Leavers.
About the only ones still supporting her policy are people on the Government payroll.
Around 50 of those voting confidence in her last night, did so whilst stating they will vote down her agreement.
I haven't a clue where it will go now. But May's deal is a dead duck, even if Mrs May hangs on for a little longer.