[Oldmanmatt]

On the occasions I've heard Rees-Mogg speak I've actually found myself quite impressed by him. Eloquent, articulate, thoughtful. That doesn't mean I agree with him, but I don't think he's evil.

I am given to understand, Joe Stalin was affable (to the point of jovial), articulate and so on...

[Ru]

Isn't also the case that we will owe some or all of the £39 billion regardless as it is for existing commitments rather than a bribe for a future deal? Obviously in a no deal scenario we could walk away but brand Britain would take a knock, and the next time we try to buy a sofa on HP we'll find we need to go to Brighthouse instead

We have existing obligations to pay sums to the EU as part of our membership. The agreements to pay those sums are contingent on membership and likely silent about what happens in the event of Brexit. The EU would argue that it is implicit that they are payable anyway. In acceptance of that position we (the UK) has agreed to pay a sum, touted as 39 billion, in instalments as part of the terms of the withdrawal agreement. I don't know how much of the agreement will survive a failure to agree all terms of the withdrawal agreement - I don't believe that the terms have been made public. What would likely happen in the event of no agreement and the UK reneging on any agreement to pay up is that the matter would be decided by the International Court of Arbitrage in litigation lasting, probably, many years. As the full amount would likely end up payable in the end, in a lump sum, the money may have to be held in the equivalent of escrow or at least ring-fenced, meaning that it would be unusable anyway.

[Will Hunt]

With regards leadership of the Tory party, can anybody think of a shitter job to be landed with at the moment? I can't really see anybody with anything to loose throwing their hat into the ring (step forward, Boris Johnson).

Come to think of it, Boris as PM would be bloody interesting. Save face and go all out for Brexit, or do a U-turn and preserve the party? Decisions decisions.

[Fultonius]

In Moggs case I just think he is a despicable human being.

I don't think this sort of language is useful at all, and is one of the problems with his whole debate. Recognise his motives and ideals are different to yours, and as such he holds different opinions on the subject, but casting people as evil or despicable does nothing to forward the debate.

How we can reconcile all this I don't know. I just want us to reconcile it in a peaceful, grown up, 'British' sort of way, remembering that we haven't had any serious civil violence in our country since the 1700s. Whereas other countries in Europe have had civil wars in the last 30 years.

Erm, Northern Ireland? Or were you conflating England with Britain?

[Oldmanmatt]

I have not looked into his policy position as (like you) I find him entirely disagreeable, but I had assumed that he would be in favour of lower taxes and deregulation, etc. as in his mind that’s what will drive the country on to glory? (With the almost accidental side effect of healthily lining his pockets of course)

It goes beyond choosing the best path to prosperity for all. His (and most Tories) voting record is one of someone actively denying provision for those most in need even when there is minimal /negligible cost to the rest of us/the economy. Why do that unless you are a massive cunt? Occam's Razor, innit?

Can I posit “Just World syndrome” on that one?

I feel like my general observation of those Authoritarian Conservatives I’ve come across, is their espoused piety. From May to JRM, they wear their “FAITH” as badge of utter integrity, assume divine guidance and (however secretly or even subconsciously) believe those less fortunate “brought it on themselves”. They reap their just reward, whilst the unworthy are punished.

Religion, ultimately, precludes the possibility of random chance, everything is part of a plan.
(This is true of almost any spiritual belief system).
Ergo, what ever they desire, is born of God’s will and beyond question. They see themselves as right, to a degree any Athiest or Agnostic or, even, doubting Thomas; would find inconceivable.

[Oldmanmatt]

In Moggs case I just think he is a despicable human being.

I don't think this sort of language is useful at all, and is one of the problems with his whole debate. Recognise his motives and ideals are different to yours, and as such he holds different opinions on the subject, but casting people as evil or despicable does nothing to forward the debate.

How we can reconcile all this I don't know. I just want us to reconcile it in a peaceful, grown up, 'British' sort of way, remembering that we haven't had any serious civil violence in our country since the 1700s. Whereas other countries in Europe have had civil wars in the last 30 years.

Erm, Northern Ireland? Or were you conflating England with Britain?

Everyone forgets that one.
Bit tricky, what with us being an “Occupying power” type thingy (I’m not saying we shouldn’t be, just that whichever way you slice it, we invaded Ireland and took the land by force. Whether or not the now long established population of the North deserve their current status or not, is a question I have no ability to answer. Though my sympathies lie with those from this side of the water, who died or suffered to preserve their “freedom”).

Of course, we appear to be heading for a rerun of that conflict. It’s already heating up, throw in some awkward border issues and tough economic conditions and the current trend for violent rhetoric/fake news and...

Whoomph!

[A Jooser]

...

2. There will be no "widely used WTO structures" after Brexit that the UK can use. It has no agreed WTO membership terms.

... Tell me what it takes to agree new trading terms and how that process can be achieved before April next year... the leader of the WTO has said he doesn't know either...

It takes Britain’s 719-page draft 'schedule', which replicates the concessions and commitments applicable to the UK as part of the EU today, being circulated as one of two confidential draft membership agreements among the WTO’s 164 members. The schedule will be considered to be approved if there are no objections from other members. It may be done and dusted in three months.

The process started a little over a week ago...
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-wto/britain-and-eu-formally-start-splitting-wto-membership-agreements-idUKKBN1KE2LJ

From what I've seen, the leader of the WTO has always been clear there would be no 'gap' in the UK's membership of it after leaving the EU and the ease of negotiating a new schedule would rest on the approach taken. This video from early last year...




 

[A Jooser]

I do however worry about the impact of widespread STIs on care homes across our land.

STIs? Sexually Transmitted Infections?! Someone needs to educate residents about the forms of prophylactic protection available. 

[Ru]

It takes Britain’s 719-page draft 'schedule', which replicates the concessions and commitments applicable to the UK as part of the EU today, being circulated as one of two confidential draft membership agreements among the WTO’s 164 members. The schedule will be considered to be approved if there are no objections from other members. It may be done and dusted in three months.

Yes, the EU and the UK agreed to split the current quotas with objections raised by Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Thailand, Uruguay, Brazil and the USA. The EU then disagreed with the transitional arrangements the UK was proposing in terms of self representation in the WTO. New Zealand have insinuated that they will not agree the quotas until the final terms of the withdrawal agreement are reached with the EU, which obviously creates a difficulty for us using WTO terms to mitigate against no-deal. The official New Zealand government response also takes the position that the UK will still be in the customs union until 2020 and therefore there is no urgency to negotiations. The USA and Canada want to renegotiate UK food standards as part of any agreement on quotas which cannot be done until after the end of a transitional period if a withdrawal agreement is reached, may take primary legislation to achieve and is contrary to the UK's withdrawal bill. As far as I'm aware, and I would be very relieved to be corrected if I'm wrong, the WTO has no internal arbitration process that covers this scenario and there are no precedents for reaching agreements in these circumstances. 3 months to resolve that lot is a little optimistic in my view.

Also interesting, isn't it, that many of these objections require agreement to be made on things that probably can't be achieved in that time frame or put the UK into a catch 22 situation. It's almost as if all the countries that we hope to rescue us with free trade agreements after Brexit are using the opportunity to back us into un-winnable negotiations.

[Rocksteady]

In Moggs case I just think he is a despicable human being.

I don't think this sort of language is useful at all, and is one of the problems with his whole debate. Recognise his motives and ideals are different to yours, and as such he holds different opinions on the subject, but casting people as evil or despicable does nothing to forward the debate.

How we can reconcile all this I don't know. I just want us to reconcile it in a peaceful, grown up, 'British' sort of way, remembering that we haven't had any serious civil violence in our country since the 1700s. Whereas other countries in Europe have had civil wars in the last 30 years.

Erm, Northern Ireland? Or were you conflating England with Britain?

Everyone forgets that one.
Bit tricky, what with us being an “Occupying power” type thingy (I’m not saying we shouldn’t be, just that whichever way you slice it, we invaded Ireland and took the land by force. Whether or not the now long established population of the North deserve their current status or not, is a question I have no ability to answer. Though my sympathies lie with those from this side of the water, who died or suffered to preserve their “freedom”).

Of course, we appear to be heading for a rerun of that conflict. It’s already heating up, throw in some awkward border issues and tough economic conditions and the current trend for violent rhetoric/fake news and...

Whoomph!

Rightly or wrongly I just didn't consider The Troubles as a Civil War, despite being of Irish descent.

A quick Wikipedia tells me.c.3500 people died over the course of The Troubles.
Yugoslav war caused 135,000 deaths.
Obviously things get much worse if you look a little further back to Spanish Civil War with 500,000 deaths.

Civilization is only a thin veneer over savagery I feel- I guess I'm saying we should all bear that in mind and try to treat opposing views with a due sense of proportion.

[Oldmanmatt]

True, it wasn’t and isn’t as intense as the others you mentioned.
However, you are forgetting the War for Indepenence and the ensuing Irish Civil war, which doubles your quoted number.
But, the casualties (killed and wounded) from “The Troubles”(ie after 68) are closer to 50K iirc.

Not trying to be a dick, but considering how small that province is, it’s had a disproportionatly negative impact on the UK as a whole and seems likely to continue on current impressions (with the Good Friday agreement looking something akin to the 1918 Armistice with Germany, to future historians? I hope not, but..,).

Sadly, this is not even off topic, as it is at real risk of being reignited as a result of Brexit  negotiation failure.

[A Jooser]

Yes, the EU and the UK agreed to split the current quotas with objections raised by Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Thailand, Uruguay, Brazil and the USA...

Ru, what you say may be correct, but I can't find any news reports from the past week showing there is any major issue with the progress of the UK's draft WTO schedule and as far as I can tell the objections of most of the countries you mentioned were raised months ago, prior to the drafts being submitted. Perhaps the objections have already been taken into account by the UK?

As I understand it post-Brexit both the UK and the EU will be trading at the WTO under new schedules requiring TWO draft schedules to be submitted. It's how the quotas have been split up between the UK and the EU that's the problem. As far as I can tell from these New Zealand news reports https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/07/31/173095/govt-warns-of-potential-retaliation-over-brexit-tariff-plans & https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/105859499/new-zealand-government-pushes-out-warning-of-brexit-trade-war-risk it is the quotas in the EU's draft schedules which Kiwi's are unhappy about not necessarily the UK's. It seems the EU have used it as an opportunity to change its quota commitments. The criticism in the reports is clearly leveled at the EU with barely a mention of the UK.

If any country objects to the UK's draft schedule it doesn't seem a big deal as far as I can tell; I found a very good thread on Twitter ( https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1023488987170828288 ) about the matter by a former WTO negotiator from Australia who says: "...what does it mean for the UK? It's annoying but not apocalyptic. Any WTO Member can block certification of a draft schedule forever, but the UK can trade just fine with an uncertified schedule."

All I can say is, if this was really as problematic as you suggest I would expect to see multiple negative articles and op-eds about it in the likes of The Guardian, the Evening Standard, Independent, etc. There aren't any. I really don't see Tregiffian's confidence in the WTO arrangements as misplaced.

[tomtom]

But what are we going to sell under WTO terms?

Why would anyone buy anything from us instead of from an EU country - where they have a cheaper (and easier to administer) alternative (for example?). As in Matts video - are we going to ship Quashqi’s from Sunderland to Australia??

[Ru]

The point is that no-one knows how problematic it will be but commentators continue to assert that there will be no problems. It has also been asserted that the WTO option is straightforward and well understood, which is not true. This is the legal position:

The WTO agreement is silent on whether a member can assert its rights before its schedules have been agreed. On a strict interpretation the UK can therefore assert WTO rights in any event, however this may/will lead to political or diplomatic difficulties if importing countries are forced to trade in accordance with settled schedules when the UK does not. I suppose the UK could unilaterally offer to trade using draft or even reduced volumes in the short term to mitigate this. Longer term the schedules need to be agreed. Where schedule commitments dont clash with EU volumes of goods the UK can transpose the EU terms, but where they do clash disagreements inevitably arise as the total aggregate volumes need to be renegotiated. There is no precedent for resolving these disagreements and no arbitration process within the WTO agreement. It is also unclear whether the other WTO members have any veto. The agreements do not cover the UKs situation but there are provisions for renegotiation under GATT and GATS and one of the articles (IV?) of the WTO agreement which might be applicable.

The spectre in the background is that some members use WTO schedule disagreements as a lever to reopen other aspects of trade, such as standards, as appears to be happening with the US and Canada.

So whilst it might all work out reasonably in a no-deal scenario, it might not, and there is no clarity in how disagreements might pan out.

The fact that mainstream press has not published articles about this doesn’t mean that everything is fine, it means that currently there’s no drama.

Posting on my phone so apologies for errors.

[Yossarian]

I’m really starting to miss the days of Dead fit girls who go climbing...

[petejh]

You don't get to post and then say "no, no" I don't want to engage. Either be quiet or say what you mean and expect to be challenged (or perhaps agreed with, you never know). Sorry Pete, but you've come across as an arsehole on this.

?? Bit uncalled for. I thought I made it clear I only posted in reply to Matt's asking 'any flaws', to make a witty retort (aka unfunny joke). Not any engagement in any so-called 'debate'.

Some people need to chill out. No need to be a dick just because the world seems to be falling apart. It's always been so.

[petejh]

The point is that no-one knows how problematic it will be but commentators continue to assert that there will be no problems.

On a strict interpretation the UK can therefore assert WTO rights in any event, however this may/will lead to political or diplomatic difficulties if importing countries are forced to trade in accordance with settled schedules when the UK does not.

So whilst it might all work out reasonably in a no-deal scenario, it might not, and there is no clarity in how disagreements might pan out.

'Commentators continue to assert that there will be no problems.'
I don't know what media channels you follwo Ru but this is simply untrue. There are endless commentators predicitng problems ahead.

'.. however this may/will lead to political or diplomatic difficulties'
Haha.. just apply this sentance to Brexit, full stop. In fact you can probably apply it to anything in life - from your household dynamic to geopolitics - that requires a change from a status quo that someone would prefer remained unchanged.


'So whilst it might all work out reasonably in a no-deal scenario, it might not, and there is no clarity in how disagreements might pan out.'
See 'life'.

[petejh]

Rightly or wrongly I just didn't consider The Troubles as a Civil War, despite being of Irish descent.

I was directly involved in both (NI 1993 - 2001), Bosnia (1995). They were both civil wars imo.

[tregiffian]

I confess to being the standard Leave voter, older (70+), poorly educated (red brick BA General Studies - how low can you go?). I am privileged to have assistance both in this matter and occasionally over the years on the cliff from a young hotshot who did the spadework on his day off. Cheers A Jooser.

[Ru]

'Commentators continue to assert that there wbe no problems.'
I don't know what media channels you follwo Ru but this is simply untrue. There are endless commentators predicitng problems ahead.

It was just a diplomatic way of referring to to the WTO option is fine crowd in general. There have been many articles in the Telegraph and Express that espouse this view with zero understanding. I wind myself up by reading them. There is a peach on the Express site today that suggests that the UK would be better off under WTO if we could remove all the other barriers to trade. Which is true, but no more helpful than suggesting that someone would be better off not working if they could remove all the  barriers to someone giving them a million quid.

'.. however this may/will lead to political or diplomatic difficulties'
Haha.. just apply this sentance to Brexit, full stop. In fact you can probably apply it to anything in life - from your household dynamic to geopolitics - that requires a change from a status quo that someone would prefer remained unchanged.

'So whilst it might all work out reasonably in a no-deal scenario, it might not, and there is no clarity in how disagreements might pan out.'
See 'life'.

Generally I try and avoid potential problems before they happen unless the alternative is demonstrably worse. Whilst everything you say is true it exhibits a degree of fatalistic nihilism that I don’t share.

[petejh]

Not fatalistic nihilism Ru, though I can perhaps see how that label is easier to quickly be dismissive of than the label of ‘optimist’.
I’m optimistic that our country - one of the few among the current EU 28 - can do just as well, or better, out of the EU as it does in the EU. Without most of the negative consequences portrayed by the doom-mongers. 

Aptly you mention it, because to me it actually seems more fatalistic to remain in the EU and accept situation normal no change - i.e. an elected government which can never really be held directly accountable and have its feet held to the fire for what happens in its jurisdiction. The EU is a fine idea and institution. I just don’t believe they should ever have been allowed the power to govern member states to the extent they now do. Better as mostly a free trade organisation - trade, standards, harmonisation all good things and came out of a desire to avoid future major conflicts.

[Ru]

I didn’t say you were nihilistic, I said your statement exhibited a degree of it. But if it helps, I’m equally dismissive of optimism.

I agree with you about the EU in general, where we differ is that you think its worth rolling the dice to get out, being optimistic about the outcome, I don’t becuse I’m not optimistic about the outcome. Or to be more accurate, I think the risks outweigh the benefits.

[Oldmanmatt]

Optimism.

Hmmm.


Whas’dat den?


Is that, like, thinking that the vast majority of people (anywhere) are actually good at heart, will band together for the common good and the impression that most are absolute fuck-nuggets is false?

No, nobody could believe that; surely?

[petejh]

I agree with you about the EU in general, where we differ is that you think its worth rolling the dice to get out, being optimistic about the outcome, I don’t becuse I’m not optimistic about the outcome. Or to be more accurate, I think the risks outweigh the benefits.

Which is fine. I accept that argument completely. IMO there isn’t much more to the whole debate than that really.

Matt, that picture is reductionist. There can be a world full of in your words fuck-nuggets and still be good outcomes. I don’t see the two - ‘majority of fuck-nuggetry’ and ‘positive outcomes’ - as being necessarily exclusive.
Although I agree FNs are annoying but someone has to do it.

[i.munro]

I agree with you about the EU in general, where we differ is that you think its worth rolling the dice to get out, being optimistic about the outcome, I don’t becuse I’m not optimistic about the outcome. Or to be more accurate, I think the risks outweigh the benefits.

Well the risks are very clear and huge and there is also a very clear and very large cost.
By cost I mean things we know, with certainty, that we will lose  and are already paying in terms of lost jobs, collapsing currency falling immigration.  I  have yet to hear of any benefits, potential or otherwise and  would be very happy to do so.