How can you not be scared by a politician who doesn't have normal interests like offshore accounts and tax havens?
Brexit Thread V - The Final Countdown?!?
- Thread starter uppi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- brexit europe united kingdom
- Status
How can you not be scared by a politician who doesn't have normal interests like offshore accounts and tax havens?
The thing is she may well win that too, as however divided the Torys and DUP are, they are more frightened of losing the little power they have.
Silurian
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,567
Brexit will still be in full swing in a years time.
If the exit deal passes, and don't forget it has got to get past the EU27 as well as our parliament, then the long term agreement will be in the progress of being negotiated. And both side what the negotiations to end by December 2020 or the backstop kicks in and CFC gets to brexit thread 10.
If we crash out we will be having talks to sort out the mess.
So it is going to go on and on and on for at least the next two or three years.
The final countdown to the final showdown ?
I have a question on the limitations May has in signing the negotiated agreement with the EU on behalve of the UK.
Next week the last working week before the Christmas break is there, and our dedicated MP's get their "well deserved" 2.5 week holiday in the countryside. Back on Jan 7.
There is not that much time left until March 29.
Certainly not enough to negotiate anything complicated. In the UK Witdrawal Act, the UK gave itself a time limit until January 21 to get to a decision. If there is no parliamentary majority at Jan 21, the UK Withdrawal Act gives 3 weeks for May to come with a "new motion". But that new motion cannot be different when the EU does not change its position
So what then ?
=> Adding up 3 weeks of new fantasies to that Jan 21, it is Feb 11 and if there is no change, 6 weeks and 4 days left to handle all practical implications with crossborder trade, the bare-bone WTO deals (airplanes etc) and the legislation aspects of the no-deal situation. Thousands and thousands of EU laws now valid in the UK under the EU umbrella, need to be replaced, amended or copied 1:1 into UK law.... after parliamentary approval
* Do I overlook something or summarise wrong ?
The basic situation imo is now that the UK can agree with the negotiated agreement, or last minute crash out to the EU by revoking Art 50, or last minute default to a no-deal.
There will be all kinds of tactics and scenario's floating in discussions, but behind all of them will be an assumption on whether the EU will fold on the backstop, in one way or another, or not.
There seems to be a whisper in Westminster that the EU will fold at the very last moment, in the final showdown. It is imo therefore very tempting for many factions to keep up their irreconcilable positions, never leading to a parliamentary majority for any decision.
The final domestic UK showdown between revoke or default.
Unless... Theresa May would just sign last minute the agreement with the EU.
Ofc a lot will happen then... but the only thing that counts is whether that signature is legally binding...
AND when May would for example be forced to resign... whether any new PM ar Parliamentary Act would want to reverse that decision.
It could be very convenient for the hung Westminster to cry and whine publicly... and leave it at that.
Perhaps a crazy question, more likely it is an impossible scenario... but if it would work, I see May capable of doing it.
BTW
On all the ideas floating on a new referendum:
I do not think that it is certain that if there would be a new referendum, there will be a new referendum on Remain. I think it could also be a new referendum on Rejoin when Art 50 is not extended.
I have a question on the limitations May has in signing the negotiated agreement with the EU on behalve of the UK.
Next week the last working week before the Christmas break is there, and our dedicated MP's get their "well deserved" 2.5 week holiday in the countryside. Back on Jan 7.
There is not that much time left until March 29.
Certainly not enough to negotiate anything complicated. In the UK Witdrawal Act, the UK gave itself a time limit until January 21 to get to a decision. If there is no parliamentary majority at Jan 21, the UK Withdrawal Act gives 3 weeks for May to come with a "new motion". But that new motion cannot be different when the EU does not change its position
So what then ?
=> Adding up 3 weeks of new fantasies to that Jan 21, it is Feb 11 and if there is no change, 6 weeks and 4 days left to handle all practical implications with crossborder trade, the bare-bone WTO deals (airplanes etc) and the legislation aspects of the no-deal situation. Thousands and thousands of EU laws now valid in the UK under the EU umbrella, need to be replaced, amended or copied 1:1 into UK law.... after parliamentary approval
* Do I overlook something or summarise wrong ?
The basic situation imo is now that the UK can agree with the negotiated agreement, or last minute crash out to the EU by revoking Art 50, or last minute default to a no-deal.
There will be all kinds of tactics and scenario's floating in discussions, but behind all of them will be an assumption on whether the EU will fold on the backstop, in one way or another, or not.
There seems to be a whisper in Westminster that the EU will fold at the very last moment, in the final showdown. It is imo therefore very tempting for many factions to keep up their irreconcilable positions, never leading to a parliamentary majority for any decision.
The final domestic UK showdown between revoke or default.
Unless... Theresa May would just sign last minute the agreement with the EU.
Ofc a lot will happen then... but the only thing that counts is whether that signature is legally binding...
AND when May would for example be forced to resign... whether any new PM ar Parliamentary Act would want to reverse that decision.
It could be very convenient for the hung Westminster to cry and whine publicly... and leave it at that.
Perhaps a crazy question, more likely it is an impossible scenario... but if it would work, I see May capable of doing it.
BTW
On all the ideas floating on a new referendum:
I do not think that it is certain that if there would be a new referendum, there will be a new referendum on Remain. I think it could also be a new referendum on Rejoin when Art 50 is not extended.
Key of the May deal is that it settles the divorce, that there is 2-4 years transition time to negotiate a future trade relation and that there is a guarantee that there will not be a hard border between NI and Ireland (regardless whether it comes to a future trade deal or not).
Negotiating a Norway+ deal is something that could be done during that transition period, but that name is more a proxy for a relative close (soft) halfway trade relation. And Norway has BTW no automotive just in time frictionless industry.
Considering the big differences in size and kind of economy between Norway and the UK, the bandwidth of the production scope as in reality, it would perhaps be better for the clarity of discussions to speak about it in terms of customs union, single market, product scope.
The EU has for example a limited customs union with Turkey (limited product scope) and an even more limited "single market union with Turkey (more limited product scope).
What the UK wants is what it has now, a "frictionless" export to the EU, meaning no trade barriers in tariffs and quota, meaning no transactional time and administrative cost for passing the border with the EU, and no restrictions on how the UK produced or acquired its goods or part of those goods. The UK wants also be able to strike its own FTA trade deals with any country in the world in her own terms (not identical to those of the EU).
When that happens, I could start an import/export company (like James Bond), and strike a trade deal at zero tariff with country X for a big quotum of goods where the EU has a tariff and a quotum for third countries to protect its own economies (AND BTW a max for the total of all quotas of all third countries for a certain product).
I can now buy as much as I want of these goods and export them to the EU because I have free access to the EU at zero tariff and unlimited quota. Because I imported those goods cheaper than EU companies can do, I can sell for a price to the EU a bit lower than the EU can import those goods themselves and make a handsome profit.
Rinse and repeat for any product that the EU imports from global third countries and the UK has become the perfect trading hub to access the EU.
The EU on the other hand will get complaints from its third country trading partners that it does import far less than the agreed import quota and those trading partners will react with reducing their quota for goods that they import from the EU.
=> The net effect would be that the EU will lose export to the benefit of a James Bond import/export multinational making billions with its UK trading hub.
In effect the strategy of the UK while in the EU has actually been to profile itself that way. Some Japanese companies who believed in that business model feel now betrayed (a crucial moment for the Japanese were the guarantees Thatcher gave them when she was still trying to push her own UK companies and investors to invest more in trading opportunities with the EU. Well.... UK investors invested mainly elsewhere and the Japanese, now feeling betrayed, should have realised that western countries are not reknown for 50-100 year deep business relations, like China)
So... how has the EU prevented this rogue potential ?
It has put in the contract of all members participating in the relevant products and rules that A. the tariffs they must apply to importing goods from third countries are the EU tariffs valid for all, B. that those amounts add to the overall EU quota as agreed with that third country, C. that the EU negotiates (formally) on behalve of all members, D. that EU standards on working/health/environmental/etc apply to traded goods.
=> IF the ERG Brexiteers want to strike their own FTA's with third countries, they cannot have at the same time frictionless access to the EU.
Corbyn did understand that reality in his public statements much better by stating that he would like to have "a say" in FTA's made by the EU. Well... that will never be a formal say... but exchanging thoughts with a big trading partner informally is common sense business.
In the newsmedia, especially at the start of Brexit, there was a whisper in the UK that considering the big interests of the German car manufacturers, Germany politics could easily be pressured to give in.
The irony of this fantasy is that it is the EU business companies that are much more keen to make sure James Bond companies are not able and going to undermine their businesses.
In general there is for any aspect of a more closer deal like Norway +, or Lichtenstein +++, an aspect more that can be used to make heaps of money at the expense of EU companies, EU export and EU protective standards for EU people (race to the bottom effects).
Each and every aspect is covered in the internal EU regulations safeguarded by the ECJ.
Because the UK is so big, it is more important to cover every aspect thoroughly in the contract (With Lichtenstein, with 35,000 inhabitants, most things can be kept simple except tax abuse etc. And if they get stupid the EU will pull some power plugs out within law ofc).
From the purely economical side it makes no sense at all to go halfway for the UK: it is really in (as EU member), or out (with a good FTA)
(Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Lichtenstein etc are all very strong economies with special perks the UK does not have. They can do as they please, also halfway, at the expense of a minimal lower GDP)
And ironically, the aspects where you can make halfway soft Brexit deals are the freedom of movement of people with some frame regulations ! The evil hobby of Home secretary May.
If you ask young people in the EU what they most like about the EU, it is almost always the freedom of movement far ahead of any other aspect.
And besides that free movement of people all kinds of university stuff (like R&D, Erasmus, etc), security, big pharma, fraud, money laundering, climate, etc. etc. are win-win soft Brexit aspects.
Last edited:
I was forgetting, this is the easy bit, the transition period. The real negotiations have yet to begin
Silurian
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,567
I was forgetting, this is the easy bit, the transition period. The real negotiations have yet to begin
If the long term agreement is agreed in December 2020 the Conservatives will have 18 months before they have to display the unicorns to the voters.
Too many people seem to think that the current negotiations are the end of the matter, and people are beginning to see the problems and are starting to put off decisions. When they realise that it is going to drag on for the next two years I think it will put a further drag on the economy. So what will the Tories fight the election on in June 2022, 12 years of austerity and Brexit.
Broken_Erika
Play with me.
That's not a unicorn! That's Boris Johnson with an ice-cream cone stuck to his head!
EnglishEdward
Deity
Please remember that the UK's highest law court, the House of Laws, judged that Theresa May could not even send a one sentence letter
invoking Article 50. This is because they considered that that would change the law in the UK, and that that required Parliamentary approval.
So it is difficult to see how Theresa May could get away with signing off a 500 page treaty that would change the law without parliamentary approval.
But if she did, I dare say that the (biased towards a closer union) ECJ might rule it is binding, on the basis of her apparent authority.
However that would simply not be accepted in Britain.
Was there not a solution to such concerns in the Canada deal?
I shorten that
From the purely economical side it makes no sense at all to go halfway for the UK: it is really in (as EU member), or out.
:
Does she need her cabinet ?
or also the parliament ?
That will be another 1-2% to compensate.
You do realise that I said "purely economical"
It's not. This is an international treaty, which needs to be ratified by the UK Parliament. Before 2010 it was only a convention that treaties need to be ratified by Parliament and the Queen could have ratified it on her own - very theoretically, of course. Since then this convention has been put into law, so it is not binding without approval of Parliament.
In theory, the EU could hold up their end of the bargain, anyway, but they would be foolish to do so.
ok thanks
When it is about the bare bone legal situation it is often different between countries.
That reduces the situation to accepting the "May deal" with perhaps some clarification.... and if not... it will be the internal UK showdown between last minute crashing out to no-deal or revoking Art 50.
Asking the EU to come back has more style and is better for future relationship, but if time has run out it would for sure be no issue.
Extension of Art 50 period to enable a new referendum with Remain....
I think the love there must come from two sides. I would find it utterly ridicilous when the UK would for such an emergency situation need 4-6 months of procedural red tape after having burned sooooo much time itself. Nobody on the continent will be happy with a UK referendum during our EU parliament election in May.
From what I understand the EU has made it fairly clear there won't be more time to deliberate details of the current deal or the basic principles of the current deal (so no negotiations about the form the backstop takes), they might give more time for a referendum so long as the options are open enough (eg including continued EU membership) or for a radically different approach like a Norway/ Switzerland deal. So no hope for Boris.
I have absolute confidence in the sincerity and honesty of our Euro MPs https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...illion-in-eu-funds/ar-BBQUhWF?ocid=spartandhp
Especially if that referendum resulting in ‘Stay’ would then result in the UK needing to have its own EU parliamentary election.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Daniel Hannan is a total scumbag. He tours the USA telling gullible Republicans that the British people actually hate the NHS and want it privatised.
- Status
