[Oldmanmatt]

This:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/27/tory-values-conservative-party-repellent-brexit?CMP=fb_gu

[tomtom]

This:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/27/tory-values-conservative-party-repellent-brexit?CMP=fb_gu

Yes - i read this with interest....

[teestub]

I noticed they decided not to open up the comments (which they usually do) on that opinion piece!

[dr_botnik]

Can I just renege on my previous support for Corbyn. He's a nice lad but really not cut out for this politics malarkey.

Anyway, who keeps tabling these amendments for labour? They're on fire. The first one about taxes totally paved the way for May's deal getting shut down.
Now, this next one blocking a no deal is basically our last chance to get out of Theresea May's shit deal.

As far as I can see, May ain't worried about no deal, she ain't sweating. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if we crash out with no deal, we'll have no access to the aviation authority. And without a regulating body, other countries won't fly to us. So we'll have no flights. I'm betting it'll take less than 24 hours for all the MPs who voted against the deal to suddenly start scrabbling for any deal going. And, as far as I'm aware, the one and only deal going is the one May negotiated. Meaning, unless the no deal amendment gets passed, May just has to sit back with her ace up her sleeve and watch everything crumble? No wonder she hasn't stepped down, yet.

Is there anything I'm not getting right here?

[Will Hunt]

They could just decide to extend/cancel A50. Something that somebody said on here that I didn't understand was that the UK couldn't unilaterally cancel and reinitiate A50 to restart the 2 year clock. I thought we could.

Lots of remainer friends on Facebook are despairing about the last minute nature of things. It may not be nice, but brinksmanship is a necessary and inevitable part of proceedings such as this.

I do think No Deal would be a fascinating thing to watch unfold, in a morbid post-apocalyptic film sort of way. Once the unthinkable had happened, I suspect you'd see regulatory bodies scrambling to maintain what status quo they could. Perhaps their EU and world counterparts would do the same? But these institutions are nothing if not enacters and enforcers of legislation. And if they tried to break the rules, pressure groups could surely just take them to judicial review? So would senior leadership at these institutions risk their careers and give the order to try and break the new rules?

Sorry for the rambling. Need my morning coffee.

[Ru]

Something that somebody said on here that I didn't understand was that the UK couldn't unilaterally cancel and reinitiate A50 to restart the 2 year clock. I thought we could.

No we can't do that. It would be considered an abuse of process with the likely result being that the revocation of A50 would be unlawful. The ECJ specifically ruled on that issue in the A50 case.

[Will Hunt]

Something that somebody said on here that I didn't understand was that the UK couldn't unilaterally cancel and reinitiate A50 to restart the 2 year clock. I thought we could.

No we can't do that. It would be considered an abuse of process with the likely result being that the revocation of A50 would be unlawful. The ECJ specifically ruled on that issue in the A50 case.

Thanks for the gen, Ru. So we can extend A50 by unanimous agreement of the other 27 nations, or we can unilaterally cancel A50 and would then need to wait an acceptable period before deciding to trigger it again?
Did the ruling indicate what that acceptable time period might be? Only after a new "decision", i.e parliamentary vote, occurs?

[tomtom]

It may not be nice, but brinksmanship is a necessary and inevitable part of proceedings such as this.

I think this is a right load of shite (sorry Will - will explain).

This isnt a fucking poker game in a Bond film where they look agressively accross a table at each other until someone gets a nervous twitch that gives their game away...

The EU have been consistent (dare I say logical?) with what can and can't be done - and because of the (ridiculous) self imposed red lines - and self imposed (or self triggered) deadline (A50) the UK is boxed into a corner of very few options. Personally, I think the EU has been pretty generous allowing an arrangement as nebulous as the NI backstop to be allowed.

I'll say this once. ALL of the crap/delays/shit/standoff (whatever you call it) to do with the Brexit negotiations are caused by 60-80 Conservative MP's (and < handful of labour, and the DUP) demanding THEIR vision of Brexit. THEY have defined the red lines, the timetable etc.. Much as I disagree with Brexit and would like to remain - A DEAL that would work (Norway, Canada whatever...) that a majority of MPs' would support could have happened without their demands. AND I think this could have quite convincinly be sold to the population. It is the internal divisions within the Tory party that have driven us towards the 'cliff edge' of a no-preparation/no-transition deal.

That's what really pisses me off. That and how the 60-80 take no ownership of the fuck up they may well cause.
/rant

[Oldmanmatt]

It may not be nice, but brinksmanship is a necessary and inevitable part of proceedings such as this.

I think this is a right load of shite (sorry Will - will explain).

This isnt a fucking poker game in a Bond film where they look agressively accross a table at each other until someone gets a nervous twitch that gives their game away...

The EU have been consistent (dare I say logical?) with what can and can't be done - and because of the (ridiculous) self imposed red lines - and self imposed (or self triggered) deadline (A50) the UK is boxed into a corner of very few options. Personally, I think the EU has been pretty generous allowing an arrangement as nebulous as the NI backstop to be allowed.

I'll say this once. ALL of the crap/delays/shit/standoff (whatever you call it) to do with the Brexit negotiations are caused by 60-80 Conservative MP's (and < handful of labour, and the DUP) demanding THEIR vision of Brexit. THEY have defined the red lines, the timetable etc.. Much as I disagree with Brexit and would like to remain - A DEAL that would work (Norway, Canada whatever...) that a majority of MPs' would support could have happened without their demands. AND I think this could have quite convincinly be sold to the population. It is the internal divisions within the Tory party that have driven us towards the 'cliff edge' of a no-preparation/no-transition deal.

That's what really pisses me off. That and how the 60-80 take no ownership of the fuck up they may well cause.
/rant

It’s not a rant.
It’s a succinct summation and whilst it suffers from the same shortcomings that always beset cramming complicated issues into a few paragraphs; it is no less valid for it.

[dr_botnik]

Couldn't Labour open talks with the EU and get a better draft deal without those silly red lines? It's probably too late now, but could this have been an option? Then we might have had more options on the table when we exit with no deal and scrabble to sign anything that will get the planes flying again?

[TobyD]

I do think No Deal would be a fascinating thing to watch unfold, in a morbid post-apocalyptic film sort of way.

No it really wouldn't / won't. As TT says more or less it's not a frigging film, it's food and medication shortages, massive price rises and transport chaos

[Johnny Brown]

Couldn't Labour open talks with the EU and get a better draft deal without those silly red lines? It's probably too late now, but could this have been an option?

No, that's ridiculous, they're not in power. What could have happened is that May could have formed cross party working groups from the start. That she didn't is one of the major mistakes the Tories made which doomed the deal to failure from the start.

[Will Hunt]

It may not be nice, but brinksmanship is a necessary and inevitable part of proceedings such as this.

I think this is a right load of shite (sorry Will - will explain).

This isnt a fucking poker game in a Bond film where they look agressively accross a table at each other until someone gets a nervous twitch that gives their game away...

The EU have been consistent (dare I say logical?) with what can and can't be done - and because of the (ridiculous) self imposed red lines - and self imposed (or self triggered) deadline (A50) the UK is boxed into a corner of very few options. Personally, I think the EU has been pretty generous allowing an arrangement as nebulous as the NI backstop to be allowed.

No, it's not Hollywood, but it is a negotiation, and I don't think there's any negotiation where both parties walk in and instantly lay all their cards on the table. As you've said, the EU have already compromised by allowing the backstop, who's to say what else they'd allow?

The problem with Remainers' assessments of the situation is that they are always tainted by their own views, i.e TT's post is full of language which paints the government as bungling (not necessarily without truth) and the EU as an impeccably fair negotiating partner (not necessarily entirely untrue).

I do think No Deal would be a fascinating thing to watch unfold, in a morbid post-apocalyptic film sort of way.

No it really wouldn't / won't. As TT says more or less it's not a frigging film, it's food and medication shortages, massive price rises and transport chaos

Something can be fascinating and utter shite at the same time. An unprecedented political situation where a minority government inflicts an act of national self harm in the face of a useless opposition? How can that be anything other than fascinating?

[tregiffian]

Project Fear predictions from Carey, Hammond et al have proved erroneous in the past and for better or worse No Deal remains the default option under statute law. That is, unless Bercow can find some subterfuge later today.

[Teaboy]

Project Fear predictions from Carey, Hammond et al have proved erroneous in the past and for better or worse No Deal remains the default option under statute law. That is, unless Bercow can find some subterfuge later today.

What do you think will happen to the UK and it's economy in the long and short term in a no deal scenario?

[galpinos]

It may not be nice, but brinksmanship is a necessary and inevitable part of proceedings such as this.

I think this is a right load of shite (sorry Will - will explain).

This isnt a fucking poker game in a Bond film where they look agressively accross a table at each other until someone gets a nervous twitch that gives their game away...

The EU have been consistent (dare I say logical?) with what can and can't be done - and because of the (ridiculous) self imposed red lines - and self imposed (or self triggered) deadline (A50) the UK is boxed into a corner of very few options. Personally, I think the EU has been pretty generous allowing an arrangement as nebulous as the NI backstop to be allowed.

No, it's not Hollywood, but it is a negotiation, and I don't think there's any negotiation where both parties walk in and instantly lay all their cards on the table. As you've said, the EU have already compromised by allowing the backstop, who's to say what else they'd allow?

There is often "last minute deals" involved with the EU, I agree, but this is next level. The EU have started writing the withdrawal agreement into EU legislation as if they don't, they won't be able to get it passed in time. We ,the UK, have now missed our internal deadline. If we voted for May's deal tomorrow, we don't have the time to pass the legislation before the 29th of March. That's not brinkmanship, that's incompetence. Why weren't we doing this before Christmas when the vote should have happened? Decisions have been made to protect the Tory Party, not in the best interest of the nation.

The problem with Remainers' assessments of the situation is that they are always tainted by their own views, i.e TT's post is full of language which paints the government as bungling (not necessarily without truth) and the EU as an impeccably fair negotiating partner (not necessarily entirely untrue).

The government are painted as bungling by TT because they are. It's not because he's a remainer, I'm sure plenty of Brexiteers would agree with his opinion. The EU are a "fair" outfit to deal with because they are so consensus and procedure driven, they are predictable and slow moving. They are often clear in their intentions because they have to be.

[Ru]

... and for better or worse No Deal remains the default option under statute law. That is, unless Bercow can find some subterfuge later today.

The EU Withdrawal Act allows the date of exit (and in fact the whole definition of "exit day") to be changed by a minister, without needing to go before parliament. So in theory you are right, in practice it could be undone very quickly.

[sdm]

Project Fear predictions from Carey, Hammond et al have proved erroneous in the past and for better or worse No Deal remains the default option under statute law. That is, unless Bercow can find some subterfuge later today.

Carney and, to a lesser extent, Hammond made it their duty to ensure that their predictions did not come true. They have been in damage limitation mode to try and limit the harm done to our economy.

[tregiffian]

To answer the question posed some posts earlier. A Clean Break will inevitably mean some short term awkwardness which will happen whenever and however we leave. It will, however, avoid potentially more months/years of debilitating uncertainty for firms. I am cheered by the support of Lord J.C.Bamford for such an outcome, he is in a position to express an informed opinion. Many entities :- U.K. govt. , firms here and abroad, the port of Calais to name but a few, have prepared for a Clean Break in March. Even the EU ipse. It seems to be the long expected outcome .

[Will Hunt]

... and for better or worse No Deal remains the default option under statute law. That is, unless Bercow can find some subterfuge later today.

The EU Withdrawal Act allows the date of exit (and in fact the whole definition of "exit day") to be changed by a minister, without needing to go before parliament. So in theory you are right, in practice it could be undone very quickly.

I did not know this. Ru, does this mean that A50 can be revoked without parliamentary approval? When you say a minister, presumably that would be the PM, but in theory could it be another cabinet minister? Presumably only with a majority of cabinet approval?

[Oldmanmatt]

To answer the question posed some posts earlier. A Clean Break will inevitably mean some short term awkwardness which will happen whenever and however we leave. It will, however, avoid potentially more months/years of debilitating uncertainty for firms. I am cheered by the support of Lord J.C.Bamford for such an outcome, he is in a position to express an informed opinion. Many entities :- U.K. govt. , firms here and abroad, the port of Calais to name but a few, have prepared for a Clean Break in March. Even the EU ipse. It seems to be the long expected outcome .

I worked for Lord Bamford, before he was a Lord, in fact.
(And I mean, in the same room, when he was tipsy and mouthing off, kind of worked for).
He inherited his wealth. He needs help to tie his shoe laces. (His wife is truly hideous).
I did something similar for Ashcroft too. He’s a smart cookie. But he’s only interested in his bottom line. People are things to be used.


Well, that probably breached a few NDA’s, but fuck’em.

Edit:

That was unfair. I’m just irritated by the idea that anyone believes these people to be worth listening too.
In truth, I have worked for many “magnates” of various nationalities. I was a good Tory boy.
Bamford is far from an idiot. He was not as savy as some I dealt with.
But, some were good men (almost always men, I’m afraid) Mark Watkins (rip) springs to mind; the majority, however, would sell their Grandmothers for profit. (Or, in one case where I had to play diplomat, sell a stewardess to an Inuit guide).

They are not infallible and plenty of equally “qualified” people are saying something rather opposite.

[andy popp]

Is "Clean Break" a new euphemism for "No deal" or "Hard Brexit"? Much nicer sounding.

[tomtom]

Is "Clean Break" a new euphemism for "No deal" or "Hard Brexit"? Much nicer sounding.

Starting from the bottom.

Will - re: brinksmanship etc.. The problem with this is that this pushes uncertainty right to the limit - So company’s - like the one you work for end up with masses of uncertaintanty as to what to do and whether or not it invest. And spend £millions on contingency plans that may well be wasted money. We (as tax payers, bill payers, consumers) will always end up picking up the bill for this.

While we’re talking about JCB and manufacturing - there has been a lot of attention on manufacturing and the break to the Just in time system most/all modern manufacturers now use. Its worth bearing in mind that imports/exports from the manufacturing sector are dwarfed by the size of the ££ worth of service industry between the EU and the UK.

[mrjonathanr]

I notice you term less dramatic solutions ‘debilitating’ but total rupture is ‘clean’. And black is white my friend.

A Clean Break will inevitably mean some short term awkwardness

.

Short term awkwardness’ if you are properly financially secure. If you are vulnerable, or sick and unable to access medicines, it may be the end of your life.

Potentially dirty business this ‘Clean Brexit’.

[Oldmanmatt]

By the by, are Bloomberg, Imperial College London and Liverpool Uni; agents of “PROJECT FEAR”?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-28/brexit-could-lead-to-thousands-more-deaths-by-2030-research-suggests?srnd=premium-europe

Anyway, the real issue, going forward, is this: