Brexit Thread V - The Final Countdown?!?

[AmazonQueen]

Hm, why did tory mps vote against the gov on this? Are there so many full-on cancel brexit tories? (I can only think of one, that gray-haired woman*)

* obviously not may

Edit:i forgot ken clarke, but he is like 2000 years old. The fallon guy is that disgustingly simian tory scum? Meh

Tory remainers who have voted against May at least some of the time include Anna Soubry (that gray-haired woman ), Dominic Greave, Nicky Morgan, Stephen Hammond,, Sarah Wollaston, Heidi Allen, Mike Pawsey, and Jonathan Djanogly.

 

[really]

The ferries are a token to be honest but they are supposed to be additional ships going to and from different ports (for E.g. Ramsgate to Ostende also Plymouth, Poole, and Portsmouth to where ever) so if Dover and Calais are over loaded because every trucks papers are being checked and can't be processed fast enough there is in theory an alternative. As they are subsidised the government can also prioritise the shipments.

 

[Senethro]

Also, I was reading a summary of the day's news and this came up, is it correct?



It is complete idiocy. Don't these people understand that if the government does nothing the default is leaving with no deal? That no vote on leaving is required, this are automatic in the absence of a vote? That the UK is juts one party to the process, the EU is the other and may not agree to the wild ideas continuously being thrown about by UK politicians?

It came from Yvette Cooper, so idiocy was to be expected. But for all of Labor to have voted for this... they are irresponsible, Corbyn included. They do not deserve to govern, any more than May does. I could have excused him for a lot of things, due to the predominance of blairites among Labour MPs, but this particular political gamble is inexcusable. It is the party leader's duty, to the country's and its inhabitants at this stage, to be absolutely realistically and truthful, not to play along with idiocies. Bad enough that he has gone on so long promising castles in the sky ("a better deal").

No, to the contrary. The legislature is checking the ability of an incompetent executive to do harm. It is good that they are doing so.

 

[innonimatu]

No, to the contrary. The legislature is checking the ability of an incompetent executive to do harm. It is good that they are doing so.

The legislature is playing inconsequential political games, distracting from the essential. Can't you understand that there are only two options, the deal to be voted on, or no deal? Postponement, a new referendum, those are unrealistic.

If you want the deal to be approved, say you support it. If not, admit that the one other possible option is exiting without a deal, and that is then (implicitly) what you support. Labour as a party suffers from this delusion, they want to be against the deal, because it's understood as bad and will certainly lead to further problems if done. But they want to pretend that they are not for leaving without a deal. Many fools actually believe that they can have a different outcome. Symptomatically, they fail to explain how.

 

[Senethro]

There are way more than two outcomes and most of them depend on if/when the government falls.

Rereading some of the previous brexit threads I noticed many of your incorrect predictions were due to lacking understanding that no bar is so low that this government won’t fail to jump it.

 

[innonimatu]

What wrong predictions were those? I've been saying that the UK should prepare for a 'hard brexit" (now called "no deal brexit", apparently) from the start. That to negotiate without that option was foolish, but the government unfortunately was incompetent and doing it. The most likely outcome is and has always been a no deal exit. If I turn out top be wrong, then say that.

I've also been saying that a second referendum is not a solution. And that the irish border problem is first and foremost Ireland's problem, then the EU's problem, and only the UK's problem because the EU wants to frame the issue that way. Again, it was competence of the UK government to ever allow it. May should never have agreed to the EU's order of business that put the irish border issue as a prerequisite for negotiations. She should have said: that is your problem, you'll have to address our problems or there will be no deal. Se didn't, she went along with the EU's order of business, and came out with a deal she doesn't seem able to get accepted. I'll only be wrong if somehow she still gets it passed.

The government falling soon is more wishful thinking you're falling into. Labour has no alternative to present, what are they actually proposing now? Corbyn keeps saying that he'd go back to Brussels and do some magic to get a better deal. I write do some magic because he has given zero reasons for the EU negotiators giving him a better deal that what May can get. The neo-liberals who dictate policy in Brussels hate Corbyn and fear any example of defiance he may set, they would never give him a better deal. Corbyn is doing dirty politics now, in presenting "a better deal" or "getting a postponement" as his brexit options, he knows it's impossible. A Labor government would not have the time, or be given the opportunity, to do anything other than capitulate. Or leave without a deal. And if they surrendered to the EU's demands (remain in the EU or do the same agreement May seems unable to get passed and Labout has also said it rejects, it'd sake some gymnastics...) then the brexit issue would not end, keep dividing the country and the party would be blamed for that and for the hardships caused by the coming global financial crisis (we're kind of in 2007 again...), it'd be wiped out in the next election.

The dirty secret in all this is that no part of Labour wants to govern now: neither the blairites (they want the crisis to be suffered by the tories, and something magic - hope is eternal - to rid them of Corbyn in the meanwhile) not Corbyn's faction (he wants to pick up the pieces after the crisis really hits). The UK is stuck with May as PM and will either have her deal or no deal. If she actually resigns another conservative will take over and the situation will remain the same... She may get her stupid deal through on sheer "fear of Corbyn PM", taking votes from the blairites in Labour. Then brexit will simply change into "agreexit" (exit the agreement) and the internal instability and conflicts with Brussels will actually intensify! Hey, it'd be good for my agenda of seeing Europe rid of the EU, but it'd be bad for the UK.
There are different possible outcomes, yes. But they depend first on one of these two scenarios: the current agreement or exiting without any deal. Talk of an election or new referendums is not realistic.

And, ironically, if "a better deal" turns out to be possible at the eleventh hour, then the likes of Boris will be proven right: their argument was that the EU would the the side giving in in a game of chicken, that "the deal would be easy". Their fault is that no one sane would play such a game without doing careful contingency planning in case it failed - and they weren't competent to do that. Corbyn demanding a better deal without at the same time presenting a plan for contingencies (the no-deal option) is him apeiing Boris or Farange.

 

[Yeekim]

The legislature is playing inconsequential political games, distracting from the essential. Can't you understand that there are only two options, the deal to be voted on, or no deal? Postponement, a new referendum, those are unrealistic.

If you want the deal to be approved, say you support it. If not, admit that the one other possible option is exiting without a deal, and that is then (implicitly) what you support. Labour as a party suffers from this delusion, they want to be against the deal, because it's understood as bad and will certainly lead to further problems if done. But they want to pretend that they are not for leaving without a deal. Many fools actually believe that they can have a different outcome. Symptomatically, they fail to explain how.

For once, we agree on something.
I'd only add that remaining would also an option, at least in theory.

 

[Kyriakos]

There are way more than two outcomes and most of them depend on if/when the government falls.

Rereading some of the previous brexit threads I noticed many of your incorrect predictions were due to lacking understanding that no bar is so low that this government won’t fail to jump it.

There isnt any real chance of remain at this point. What can happen - as inno pointed - is some final minute change in the deal offered by the eu. But even if that would happen, it is more than likely that it will be a ploy, like the ecj decision was. Obviously the eu bankers dont want a no deal brexit, but there isnt that much they can do other than sacrifice ireland. I sincerely hope the latter doesnt happen.

 

[Hrothbern]

Obviously the eu bankers dont want a no deal brexit,

I think it is a mixed bag for EU bankers.

The positive for them with the UK out of the EU:
A lot of Finance business now in London and elsewhere in the UK will move to the EU. At the end of the day most of that will be consolidated in EU banks.

The negative for them:
The risks involved for the EU-27 countries will go up as well when EU banks have more risks from big economical crisisses, resulting in the risk for EU-27 countries to bail out their banks completely or taking over bad loans.
What I see happening is that the EU will add regulations and target caps for the max credit to the private sector as % of GDP to max 60% of GDP without penalties, and no-go for >100% of GDP.
The banks will hate that !

EDIT
The high domestic credit to the private sector in the UK of 170% of GDP in 2007 before the crisis, did impact the recovery speed of the UK from the crisis.
Banks are for a private citizen or a company the opposite of solid insurance.
They drink champagne with you when everything goes well, and have a big mouth how important they are for the economy.... and are nowhere to be found when things go wrong, leaving you with the debts. A bit like Farrage

 

[Hrothbern]

The U.K. opposition Labour Party would put forward a vote of no confidence in Theresa May's government under the Fixed Terms Parliament Act if she loses the "meaningful vote" on her Brexit agreement next week, Shadow International Trade Secretary Barry Gardiner said on Wednesday.

Asked on the BBC's Today program whether Labour planned to "immediately" table the motion if the government loses the January 15 ballot, Gardiner responded: "We have said that we will bring forward a vote of no confidence in the government when they lose their vote.”
https://www.politico.eu/article/bar...o-confidence-motion-if-may-loses-brexit-vote/

I am a bit wary on statements of Ministers, secretaries of the Labour shadow cabinet.
Even when Corbyn would make, confirm that statement.

First see... then believe.

And if this is only aimed at adding to the confusion... or really aimed at new elections remains to be seen as well.

But the statement is made.



EDIT
IDK if the following procedure would work and if it is anything more than just more drama...

but some Tory Brexiteers want to shackle the parliament in the last month March before Brexit date March 29 by holding new elections on April 4.

Theresa May is being urged to stop MPs blocking a no-deal Brexit by the 'nuclear option' of dissolving Parliament while it takes place.
... Brexiteers are advising Mrs May to defy the threat and use her discretion to decide the date of any national vote - setting it for April 4.
The extraordinary tactic would mean Parliament being dissolved during March for an election campaign, which would still be ongoing on March 29 when the UK is due to leave the EU.
However, the government would still be in place - and the civil service is allowed to continue implementing pre-existing policy.

The move would spark a constitutional crisis, Cabinet resignations and leave MPs up in arms.

But one Cabinet minister who supports the plan told MailOnline ignoring the will of Parliament would be justified to avoid 'destroying the last bit of faith in politics'.
‘The public are saying, “just f***ing get on with it”,' they said.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-deal-Brexit-triggering-April-4-ELECTION.html

Is this democracy ?

 

[Arakhor]

Given that the government has been playing inconsequential political games ever since May stupidly triggered Article 50 in a moronic attempt to bully the EU with the fear of the unknown (and shows no sign of stopping now), I'm not sure why various backbench MPs should be criticised for doing the same.

 

[really]

I think it is a mixed bag for EU bankers.

The positive for them with the UK out of the EU:
A lot of Finance business now in London and elsewhere in the UK will move to the EU. At the end of the day most of that will be consolidated in EU banks.

The negative for them:
The risks involved for the EU-27 countries will go up as well when EU banks have more risks from big economical crisisses, resulting in the risk for EU-27 countries to bail out their banks completely or taking over bad loans.
What I see happening is that the EU will add regulations and target caps for the max credit to the private sector as % of GDP to max 60% of GDP without penalties, and no-go for >100% of GDP.
The banks will hate that !

EDIT
The high domestic credit to the private sector in the UK of 170% of GDP in 2007 before the crisis, did impact the recovery speed of the UK from the crisis.
Banks are for a private citizen or a company the opposite of solid insurance.
They drink champagne with you when everything goes well, and have a big mouth how important they are for the economy.... and are nowhere to be found when things go wrong, leaving you with the debts. A bit like Farrage

There is a saying about banks that they will lend you an umbrella when you don't need it and ask for it back when it starts raining.

Sit down before you read this.
It us of course distorted by multinationals and aircraft leasing.
https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/private-debt-to-gdp
'Private Debt to GDP in Ireland decreased to 406.71 percent in 2016 from 428.50 percent in 2015. Private Debt to GDP in Ireland averaged 306.66 percent from 2001 until 2016, reaching an all time high of 428.50 percent in 2015 and a record low of 188.76 percent in 2002.'

 

[Silurian]

So May will be stopped from kicking the can down the road again after she looses the vote next week.

From Guardian

Theresa May will be obliged to present MPs with a new Brexit plan within three days if her current proposal is voted down next week, after a procedural amendment to the plan’s progress through the Commons was passed amid chaotic scenes

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...to-table-plan-b-if-she-loses-brexit-deal-vote

 

[Kyriakos]

So May will be stopped from kicking the can down the road again after she looses the vote next week.

From Guardian



https://www.theguardian.com/politic...to-table-plan-b-if-she-loses-brexit-deal-vote

It took two years for the previous plan, so three days for a new one sounds cool

Also, can that tory stooge andrew neal stop having that cretinous blairite nobody on his show? Srsly, are there people who want to listen to that piece of garbage?

 

[Silurian]

It took two years for the previous plan, so three days for a new one sounds cool

Also, can that tory stooge andrew neal stop having that cretinous blairite nobody on his show? Srsly, are there people who want to listen to that piece of garbage?

Well you have listened to it

 

[Kyriakos]

Well you have listened to it

Actually no; i only listened after he left. I can't stand that pos...

 

[Hrothbern]

Given that the government has been playing inconsequential political games ever since May stupidly triggered Article 50 in a moronic attempt to bully the EU with the fear of the unknown (and shows no sign of stopping now), I'm not sure why various backbench MPs should be criticised for doing the same.

I critisise all.

Is it really so that the month before an election the parliament is closed, and only the PM and the Cabinet are left for whatever decisions needed ?
What can the Cabinet still decide during that month regarding Brexit ?
Does that give the Cabinet extra powers ?

There is a saying about banks that they will lend you an umbrella when you don't need it and ask for it back when it starts raining.

Sit down before you read this.
It us of course distorted by multinationals and aircraft leasing.
https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/private-debt-to-gdp
'Private Debt to GDP in Ireland decreased to 406.71 percent in 2016 from 428.50 percent in 2015. Private Debt to GDP in Ireland averaged 306.66 percent from 2001 until 2016, reaching an all time high of 428.50 percent in 2015 and a record low of 188.76 percent in 2002.'

I fastened my seatbelts

Ireland is a special case for macro indicators, because of those multinationals etc.
The first one being that GNI should be used everywhere instead of GDP.
(That makes those freaking percentages even higher with GNI somewhere 85% of GDP)

I was referring in my post to "domestic credit to the private sector" [by banks], not the total private debt.
But yes that was in Ireland also extremely high in 2007. And you have still 10% bad loans from that crisis (the UK is clean).
But that money in Ireland works fine for the growth. And Ireland is cleaning up at a high rate as you can see from that graph in the spoiler.
Nevertheless. The Treasury in Ireland will have a regularly headache from those extreme figures, certainly with explaining. And Ireland will I guess be for a while vulnerable for crisisses.

Spoiler graph :

 

[Hrothbern]

So May will be stopped from kicking the can down the road again after she looses the vote next week.

From Guardian



https://www.theguardian.com/politic...to-table-plan-b-if-she-loses-brexit-deal-vote

wow
Speaker Berkow stood his ground !
A good read.

 

[Arakhor]

Prior to a general election, there's no government work for six weeks. It's called purdah. Why bring it up though?

 

[Hrothbern]

Prior to a general election, there's no government work for six weeks. It's called purdah. Why bring it up though?

Because of some Brexiteers wanting May to hold elections on April 4, from my earlier post.
And if that non-confidence motion of Labour gets majority and leads to an election, that could be planned fast, you have apparently that same 6 weeks "no government".

And when that 6 weeks starts earlier than March 29, any decision on Brexit, including revoking or postponing Art 50, should take place before that start of purdah.
The other thing is that if there would be a no-deal exit and the purdah would start just after March 29, in the midst of the no-deal mess, there is even no crew at the Titanic.