[monkoffunk]

Better make sure you start stockpiling toilet paper to go with all that coke and kebabs, or you’ll be using the newspaper the fish and chips came in.

[highrepute]

I've read somewhere that one solution to the gridlock is to just open our borders. No checks, nothing.

No Borders - Anarchy in the UK.

I know all about Tony Abbott... Perhaps it's lost in my posts but I'm attempting to take the piss.

EDIT: decided I shouldn't take the piss. It's actually a bit frightening

[Oldmanmatt]

Vegetables?

Who on earth eats those nowadays except the liberal elite? 

Will 2 litre coke, kebabs and fish n chips be affected? No? Well then. Scaremongering nutrient trolls.

I was wondering about that, coincidentally, because I noticed the Coke in the fridge of the cafe at work, says “product of Eire” on it...

[TobyD]

Vegetables?

Who on earth eats those nowadays except the liberal elite? 

Will 2 litre coke, kebabs and fish n chips be affected? No? Well then. Scaremongering nutrient trolls.

I was wondering about that, coincidentally, because I noticed the Coke in the fridge of the cafe at work, says “product of Eire” on it...

Blimey, climate change must really be kicking in. All you used to get from Ireland was potatoes and Guinness, and the Coke came from Columbia or Bolivia.

[tomtom]

I know all about Tony Abbott... Perhaps it's lost in my posts but I'm attempting to take the piss

I was replying in between reading the same story to the lad whilst trying to get him to sleep (it’s. 90+ min job at the moment) so may not have grasped the full context / nuances

[SA Chris]

I've read somewhere that one solution to the gridlock is to just open our borders. No checks, nothing.

No Borders - Anarchy in the UK.

But then all the bloody immigrants and refugees will come flooding in, and i though that was the whole point we voted for Brexit!*


*i'm kidding in case that wasn't obvious.

[Oldmanmatt]

Vegetables?

Who on earth eats those nowadays except the liberal elite? 

Will 2 litre coke, kebabs and fish n chips be affected? No? Well then. Scaremongering nutrient trolls.

I was wondering about that, coincidentally, because I noticed the Coke in the fridge of the cafe at work, says “product of Eire” on it...

Blimey, climate change must really be kicking in. All you used to get from Ireland was potatoes and Guinness, and the Coke came from Columbia or Bolivia.

You forgot bombs.

They might be making a come back this season too.

[petejh]

So assuming we leave with no deal on 29th March (which I don't assume is the most probable btw),  how long do people think it will take to come to some form of limited agreement on trade - it could be interim/temporary/emergency etc. to keep EU countries able to supply us/receive our goods at better than WTO tariffs, and us able to purchase from/send goods to the EU at better than WTO -  on the following goods and services:
Medical supplies
Vegetables
Car parts & other industrial goods
Financial services
Air traffic
2L coke and donner meat

I'm not talking about 'a trade deal with the EU'. I'm talking about both sides making provisions for trading with a neighbour who they already have a market, supply chains, common standards and relationships in place. Neither will want to just sit there, staring at each other across the channel, doing nothing. 

I'm guessing:
2 - 5 days
2 weeks
3 weeks
1 month
Immediately
Will become black market items

[tomtom]

I think it’s tricky as we’d be a third party to the EU. So we would have to pay a WTO tarrif.

It’s not the tarrifs that would empty the shelves (that would just make everything 10-50% more - depending if the pound tanks etc..) it’s the additional customs checks that have to be carried out on goods entering the UK (that we could rather dangerously waive) but also checks that would have to be done on goods leaving the EU (eg Calais). Which the EU are obliged to carry out. I think.

[petejh]

That’s the default situation yes. Possibly.

I’m not talking about that.

[seankenny]

So assuming we leave with no deal on 29th March (which I don't assume is the most probable btw),  how long do people think it will take to come to some form of limited agreement on trade - it could be interim/temporary/emergency etc. to keep EU countries able to supply us/receive our goods at better than WTO tariffs, and us able to purchase from/send goods to the EU at better than WTO -  on the following goods and services:
Medical supplies
Vegetables
Car parts & other industrial goods
Financial services
Air traffic
2L coke and donner meat

Whilst this kind of speculation is all very jolly (at least if you're a Brit who has no experience of catastrophic political failures and widespread disruption) I think this is equally serious:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47055188

"Inward investment fell 46.5% to £588.6m last year from £1.1bn in 2017, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) says.

Production fell 9.1% to 1.52m vehicles, with output for the UK and for export falling 16.3% and 7.3% respectively.

Brexit uncertainty has "done enormous damage", said SMMT chief Mike Hawes.

But the impact so far on output, investment and jobs "is nothing compared with the permanent devastation caused by severing our frictionless trade links overnight, not just with the EU but with the many other global markets with which we currently trade freely," he added."

I may be wrong, but wasn't a drop in inward investement part of Project Fear? Whilst not running out of medicines and vegetables as a result of incompetent politicians and a gullible public is clearly very important, shouldn't we take a moment to think about the long-term degradation of our country?

Of course the long-term economic effects of Brexit are poor, especially as it seems we are headed towards a hard-ish Brexit which will be damaging to services. It's amazing that we are not even thinking about how we are voluntarily damaging the backbone of our economy because we are more worried about another self-inflicted idiocy.


 

[sdm]

So assuming we leave with no deal on 29th March (which I don't assume is the most probable btw),  how long do people think it will take to come to some form of limited agreement on trade - it could be interim/temporary/emergency etc. to keep EU countries able to supply us/receive our goods at better than WTO tariffs, and us able to purchase from/send goods to the EU at better than WTO -  on the following goods and services:
Medical supplies
Vegetables
Car parts & other industrial goods
Financial services
Air traffic
2L coke and donner meat

I'm not talking about 'a trade deal with the EU'. I'm talking about both sides making provisions for trading with a neighbour who they already have a market, supply chains, common standards and relationships in place. Neither will want to just sit there, staring at each other across the channel, doing nothing. 

I'm guessing:
2 - 5 days
2 weeks
3 weeks
1 month
Immediately
Will become black market items

We've taken two years to fail to agree to the terms that allow us to begin the process of negotiating the terms on which our future relationship will be based. I see no reason to believe that we are capable of agreeing anything of substance within any of those time frames.

Part of me thinks that we might stop the petty political games and start acting in the country's interest before things get too bad. Then I look at the last two years and realise all of the evidence suggests this will not be the case.

I hope I'm wrong.

[i.munro]

So assuming we leave with no deal on 29th March (which I don't assume is the most probable btw),  how long do people think it will take to come to some form of limited agreement on trade

I assume "no deal" means not paying the 40 billion that we owe, because  JRM & co will scream & sulk if it doesn't.
In which case I think there'd be considerable  pressure within the EU not to rush to try and help the U.K. with any of that until that debt is cleared.

[Johnny Brown]

Russia has already moved to block a fast-track WTO deal, 'leading a block of 20 countries.' A veto is powerful thing.

Yes, there are countries keen to trade with us. There are also plenty keen to capitalise. The UK does not have a particularly proud history in dealing with Johnny Foreigner, in the commonwealth countries I've been to recently they'll be absolutely delighted to watch our living standards descend closer to those we left them with.

[tommytwotone]

So assuming we leave with no deal on 29th March (which I don't assume is the most probable btw),  how long do people think it will take to come to some form of limited agreement on trade

I assume "no deal" means not paying the 40 billion that we owe, because  JRM & co will scream & sulk if it doesn't.
In which case I think there'd be considerable  pressure within the EU not to rush to try and help the U.K. with any of that until that debt is cleared.

I think that is a matter of opinion.


The rabid Brexiteers are seeing it as one of the main pros of a No Deal scenario (as well as having snubbed the EU etc and so on), but somewhere (potentially the excellent Brexitcast podcast I think) I heard mention that it's more a case of the impression it gives off, especially to any potential future trade partners.

[seankenny]

...in the commonwealth countries I've been to recently they'll be absolutely delighted to watch our living standards descend closer to those we left them with.

Whilst an element of schadenfreude or at least amusement is likely amongst our former colonial subjects, I get the impression that they are more concerned about being able to come and work and study in the UK much more easily. All those middle class Indians who want to be able to visit their relatives in London but face a humiliating visa process, or who want their kids to study here more easily and hang around to work afterwards - that's who the Indian government are going to be listening to.

[i.munro]

I'm sorry I don't quite get what you're saying. You think the EU will be happy to just drop it and ride to the rescue anyway?

[galpinos]

- that's who the Indian government are going to be listening to.

They will, and UK visa will be a fundamental part of most trade agreements, as will fishing rights etc. All this "control" we have wrestled back from the EU is probably going to be sold to the highest bidder.

[tommytwotone]

I'm sorry I don't quite get what you're saying. You think the EU will be happy to just drop it and ride to the rescue anyway?

From what I've heard / read this is to an extent part of the problem.

I don't think the EU sees any connection between the two - the "divorce settlement" is just that - a negotiated (by the UK don't forget) amount to cover historical membership and benefits enjoyed while part of the club.

Endorsement of the withdrawal agreement / leaving on WTO terms is a separate and unconnected matter. Again, the withdrawal agreement was negotiated and agreed by the UK.

While the 27 would doubtless like / need the settlement, I don't get the feeling that being seen to budge on something that (to labour the point) was negotiated and agreed by the UK is a big enough price to pay for it.

All the way through this I think the UK Government, the swivel-eyed Brexiteers and the UK press have overplayed the extent to which the EU are emotionally engaged in this process. All this talk of the EU wanting to humiliate the UK, hold us to ransom etc I think credits the organisation with a lot more skullduggery than they are capable of given their modus operandi.

From what I've heard they are rule and process driven to the point of absolute tedium. In their eyes we have voted to leave, that is unfortunate - but we have collectively been through the process, the outcome is where we are now. The fact that certain element of the UK establishment don't like the outcome of that process really rests with one group in the negotiation, and that isn't the EU!

[SamT]

Have we had this Tony Abbott article?

On a serious note, can anyone say why Tony is not right or is no deal really the green and pleasant land we've been looking for?

Have you seen this,



(as a foot note - watched with the sound off - it does look like Mike is at rave  ).

[tommytwotone]

Potential next steps now then.

Two things I've read / been hearing.

So the Brady amendment is big (kinda) on support, but small on detail as to what "alternative arrangements" are.

One school of thought was that the Brady amendment was put forward after Barnier made a nebulous comment on the impacts of a "No Deal" by saying that the border checks could be handled with using (waves hands around vaguely) "technology".

This I think has given succor to those elements that felt that "Max Fac" was a go-er as an alternative to a border or the backstop.

However, presumably this was part of / debated in the withdrawal agreement negotiations - though I gather the ERG feel that Olly Robbins (the government's choice of lead negotiator) didn't push their chosen solution hard enough.

Magic Grandpa finally agreeing to talks with Maybot is an interesting one.

The alternative school of thought is that this could pave the way for an "alternative arrangement" that looks a lot more like a customs union, which while it would royally piss off the right wing of the Tories, could potentially garner support from Labour and therefore pass a vote in Parliament.

The EU sounds (from what I heard yesterday on R4 anyway at least) more open to a renegotiation along these lines, rather than tinkering with the backstop as it stands.

This second option probably has more legs, but would May / The Tories be prepared to take the political / "optics" hit of Labour looking like the party than saved the country from No Deal / finally got Brexit over the line?

[tomtom]

Politically (fuck the country etc..) then no deal would destroy the Tories at the next GE.

So she NEEDS a deal.
(A) take it right to the wire and persuade some labour wobblers to back her (eg promises of money for those labour constituencies- which is widely reported today) to get May deal over the line.
(B) carefully work with Labour (probablynwithout it seeming like that) to come up with some Norway type customs union deal.

Sky’s analyst describes these as her two track approach...

Either way - her aim is to keep the Tory party electable - never mind what is best for the country etc...

[Oldmanmatt]

Brexit is so unlikely to be stopped now, the hope for that reprieve is firmly in Unicornville.

What I don’t understand, is why it cannot be accepted, by Labour, that the deal is as good as it will get and that the only/most likely casualty of acceptance would be the permanent rupture of the Tory party into two distinct parties.

Therefore, a likely Labour win at the next election, regardless of Grandad Corbyn’s ineptitude.

[danm]

It's a trap! The Tory plan is to give the people what they asked for, which is some form of Brexit. That'll keep 1/3 of the country onside no matter what happens afterwards. They've handled it as they have in order to keep their party together, not caring about handing Labour the keys at the next election. They know that the economy will tank as reality sets in (let's not forget, even with the deal, we'll all be worse off). This can then be blamed on Labour's inability to run the economy blah blah blah. Back around comrade!

Never forget, with all but about 2 newspapers and with the Beeb onside, right wingers managed to shift the blame for the 2008 crash from deregulated financing onto Gordon Brown and gave austerity the shoo-in. If they can manage that, convincing us that the latest penury is socialism's rather than nationalism's fault will be absolute piss.

[SamT]

On the Irish border issue - Can the Norway and Swiss border models not just be replicated - what am I missing here??
genuinely ignorant and not got time right now to go and research how they work.