[Politics] Brexit

[Thunder Bolt]

That's a lovely Daily Telegraph article if ever I saw one - No mention in it whatsoever of of the physical customs checks required and the effects on logistics at all though.

Meanwhile in The Republic of Ireland, as elsewhere, The Revenue Commissioners are preparing for full customs checks for next year - https://www.irishtimes.com/business...for-full-customs-checks-post-brexit-1.3619606



In fairness to Ms O’Keeffe nobody in The UK does either.

Especially Karen Bradley, the NI minister, who admitted she had no idea that Unionists for never vote for a Nationalist. This government hasn't got a clue.

 

[BigGully]

But I understood the PDF jibe ..... not yours.

Of course you did because it was between you and HT, but most didn't, although I remembered it, my jibe was to HT to which he says he cannot understand it, that's fine but you are not part of it just as nearly every other poster wasn't part of his original jibe at you, it's not your job to understand it, personally HT should try harder as it was a decent dig in his ribs from me, better than the original jibe at you.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Article from paywalled newspaper, but copied here as the comments on WTO are interesting, especially as they are attributed to WTO Director General Roberto Azevedo.


Trading with the EU under World Trade Organisation rules “isn’t the end of the world” said Theresa May, during Prime Minister’s Questions. She was quoting the WTO Director General Roberto Azevedo, the world’s leading trade diplomat.

Azevedo first publicly said those words in a Telegraph interview with me in November 2017. He also described UK-EU trade under WTO rules, with no formal free trade agreement, as “perfectly manageable” – discrediting the doom-mongers who claim Britain must bow to Brussels’ every demand as “crashing out” would be “disastrous”.

The real choice isn’t between Chequers and a “no deal disaster”. It’s between “no deal” – “perfectly manageable” – and a free trade agreement with the EU
His words won’t surprise anyone with an open mind and knowledge of global trade. Britain conducts most of its trade outside the EU, largely under WTO rules. Such trade is growing, forms the majority of our exports and generates a surplus. Our EU trade, in contrast, accounts for well under half our exports, is falling and in deficit – despite us making massive annual EU contributions and accepting Brussels-derived rules to gain “single-market access”.

It is vital Britain declares “no deal” a realistic and acceptable outcome – not least as it’s true and, with the clock ticking ahead of March 2019, could well happen. Unless we prepare for “no deal”, we’ll be forced to accept any trade agreement the EU offers, however much it favours Germany, France and other member states.

May has lately played down “no deal”, keen to promote her Chequers proposals. Philip Hammond has pitched in, with yet another blood-curdling Treasury prediction that “no deal” would reduce GDP by 8 per cent over 15 years. The idea is to present Brexit as a choice between Chequers and “no deal” – hence the need to make “no deal” look ghastly. Such a strategy is misguided and, if the Prime Minister is to survive beyond next month’s party conference, she must rapidly change tack. Citing Azevedo across the Commons dispatch box suggests she just might understand.


For the truth is, Chequers is dead. Plans to accept EU rules on goods, a modified customs union and ongoing Brussels diktat, with no say, have been viciously rejected by May’s party. Boris Johnson’s description – “vassalage” and “miserable permanent limbo” – was right. Even arch Remainer Justine Greening, foreseeing a grassroots rebellion, says Chequers is “more hated than the poll tax”.

Michel Barnier, too, has dismissed May’s plan as “insane, illegal, and fraudulent”, seeing as it breaks single market rules. Perhaps the EU’s lead negotiator is bluffing and will suddenly relent if Britain makes even more concessions. All the more reason for the Prime Minister to abandon this Whitehall-contrived nonsense and take Chequers off the table, returning to the coherent vision she outlined in January 2017 at Lancaster House.

For the real choice isn’t between Chequers and a “no deal disaster”. It’s between “no deal” – “perfectly manageable” – and a free trade agreement with the EU. Barnier has long acknowledged that “Canada-plus” is acceptable, a comprehensive trade deal similar to the recent EU-Canada agreement. That could happen quite quickly. Trade deals are normally very complex, as both sides start with conflicting regulatory regimes. Not so here – the UK and EU have been trading freely for decades, so begin “perfectly aligned”.


A formal UK-EU trade agreement may be impossible before next March. I’ve long said the chances are limited, given required ratification by 27 member states and the European Parliament. So, if the EU won’t accept ongoing tariff-free trade, we go to WTO rules. That’s a good platform to strike a trade agreement with the EU once the tensions of Brexit itself have passed, helping Britain secure a better long-term deal.

May must ditch Chequers and reassert, as she did at Lancaster House, that the UK is unequivocally leaving the single market and customs union
As such, May must ditch Chequers and reassert, as she did at Lancaster House, that the UK is unequivocally leaving the single market and customs union. She should publicly stress our preparations for WTO rules, not least the ongoing HMRC upgrade that means required extra “no deal” border checks are possible from January 2019.

May should state the UK won’t put up customs posts across Ireland and that technological solutions are available and adequate – as both British and Irish border authorities have said. And while declaring “no deal” on trade is fine, May must press hard for a basic “withdrawal agreement” on issues such as trade facilitation and airspace – stressing the £39 billion “divorce payment” is contingent on rapid progress.

The EU is legally obliged to extend such non-contentious administrative protocols to the UK, as it has to almost all other non-EU countries. To refuse would break EU treaties, WTO rules and make the eurocrats a global laughing stock.

The world understands trading under WTO rules. It wouldn’t understand the deliberate destruction by Brussels of UK-EU commerce, costing member states billions of euros in profit and countless jobs. And neither would EU voters.

So Chuck Chequers, Theresa! Or be replaced by someone who will.

So, when [MENTION=396]WATFORD zero[/MENTION] wants to keep on that we can't do it, I think the WTO Director General may know just a little bit more than him (and his tea-boy friend who works in some government department or other - supposedly).

So the Director General of WTO says that Trading with the EU under World Trade Organisation rules “isn’t the end of the world”.

As Director General of the WTO it would be a little surprising if he had said that trading under my organisation 'would be an unmitigated f***ing disaster'

Then the rest of it is just normal pro-Brexit waffle made up by some journalist that you don't want to source.

And, since I know it winds you up so much, maybe I should point out that I worked as a supplier of goods and services to government departments for many years and know tea-boys throughout a lot of Government and Civil Service departments. That particular one just happened to brew the tea in the department where pastafarian tried to tell us what was happening 'in the background'

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

"The EU is legally obliged to extend such non-contentious administrative protocols to the UK, as it has to almost all other non-EU countries. To refuse would break EU treaties, WTO rules and make the eurocrats a global laughing stock."


Well maybe. But this is poor journalism. A complex set of arrangements dropped in as a throwaway line with no reference to the protocols, the treaties, the WTO rule or the 'almost all other non-EU countries' and then drawing a sweeping conclusion. I know that the Leavers like to have a pop at The Guardian but this is poor; an apparently under-researched polemic masquerading as authoritative analysis. If this is the quality of the stuff that is is produced by their staffers, no wonder they have to resort to Boris to boost their sales and pay him mega bucks.

(Their cricket reporting is good though.)

 

[larus]

So the Director General of WTO says that Trading with the EU under World Trade Organisation rules “isn’t the end of the world”.

As Director General of the WTO it would be a little surprising if he had said that trading under my organisation 'would be an unmitigated f***ing disaster'

Then the rest of it is just normal pro-Brexit waffle made up by some journalist that you don't want to source.

And, since I know it winds you up so much, maybe I should point out that I worked as a supplier of goods and services to government departments for many years and know tea-boys throughout a lot of Government and Civil Service departments. That particular one just happened to brew the tea in the department where pastafarian tried to tell us what was happening 'in the background'

Wow so you were a SUPPLIER to the government. And somehow that qualifies you? OMG. As John McEnroe says “You cannot be serious”. That’s like someone who watches football thinking they’re frigging Messi. Watford Zero, the gift that keeps on giving.

Think I’d prefer to believe the Director General of WTO than some random SUPPLIER to the government. What did you supply? Teabags for your tea-boy mate?

 

[WATFORD zero]

Wow so you were a SUPPLIER to the government. And somehow that qualifies you? OMG. As John McEnroe says “You cannot be serious”. That’s like someone who watches football thinking they’re frigging Messi. Watford Zero, the gift that keeps on giving.

Think I’d prefer to believe the Director General of WTO than some random SUPPLIER to the government. What did you supply? Teabags for your tea-boy mate?

I knew you would get excited

Anyway back to your point that all your desperate Googling could serve you up was that the Director General of the WTO said that Trading with the EU under his organisation's rules “isn’t the end of the world".

Do you still believe that you don't need borders or customs to collect WTO tariffs ?

Do you still believe that the whole of the world will stop WTO negotiations if the EU and Britain are hammering out a trade deal ?

Do you still believe that we would get a far better deal from the EU if Boris was in charge ?

I am beginning to see how, in your world, Brexit would be a walk in the park

 

[Ernest]

Interesting in today's Times....

Conservative Eurosceptics have abandoned their plan to publish an alternative Chequers blueprint.

Tory members of the European Research Group had been due to put their names to a single document setting out their own proposals for a limited Brexit deal with the European Union.

The plan was shelved amid divisions over strategy and fears among some MPs that it would provide ammunition for Downing Street and pro-European groups to attack their proposals.

And

[tweet] 1038324533869137923[/tweet]

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Interesting in today's Times....

Conservative Eurosceptics have abandoned their plan to publish an alternative Chequers blueprint.

Tory members of the European Research Group had been due to put their names to a single document setting out their own proposals for a limited Brexit deal with the European Union.

The plan was shelved amid divisions over strategy and fears among some MPs that it would provide ammunition for Downing Street and pro-European groups to attack their proposals.

And

[tweet] 1038324533869137923[/tweet]

*Easiest Deal Ever* clearly meant.... 'No Plan'.

[emoji38]ol:

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

good to see the Grizzlers in total disarray , BEST PUT THEM OUT OF THEIR MISERY SOONER RATHER THAN LATER
regards
DR

 

[WATFORD zero]

good to see the Grizzlers in total disarray , BEST PUT THEM OUT OF THEIR MISERY SOONER RATHER THAN LATER
regards
DR

Ah bless, I do think it's sweet when you try to join in

 

[The Clamp]

Some important, overlooked aspects to the border problem.

In a keynote speech at the British-Irish Association conference in Oxford, Coveney said the flourishing of cross-border business and human interactions had reinforced peace and that this must be recognised by Brexiters who claim that the Irish border issue is overblown.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ations-at-30-year-low-fianna-fail-leader-says

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

I think the shite will really hit the fan at the Tory conference. (Yes, I know that the Labour conference will also have some dramas.) It's pretty obvious that behind the scenes the ERG have been reaching out to the hard core Leavers in the grass-roots Conservative Associations and there's going to be an almighty clash over Chequers. It might not actually derail May as I don't think that the conference has any policy making powers whatever (I think was Baldwin who said he'd rather take advice from his butler than the Conservative party) but goodness me it's going to be good spectator sport to those of us who remember the days of Thatcher's leadership when the only unknown was just how long would the standing ovation be for her speech.

 

[vegster]

Good old Boris has done it again ! What an awful choice of words.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45462900

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

Interesting in today's Times....

Conservative Eurosceptics have abandoned their plan to publish an alternative Chequers blueprint.

Tory members of the European Research Group had been due to put their names to a single document setting out their own proposals for a limited Brexit deal with the European Union.

The plan was shelved amid divisions over strategy and fears among some MPs that it would provide ammunition for Downing Street and pro-European groups to attack their proposals.

And

[tweet] 1038324533869137923[/tweet]

Described in the S.Times as being 'likely to attract ridicule' and 'riddled with factual and legal errors'. Well, there's a surprise.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

The headbangers' plan apparently include a Star Wars missile shield and an expeditionary force sent to defend the Falklands. The fruitcakes really are stating to circle as March draws near. For me, the most interesting quote to come from Camp Brexit this weekend belongs to the RMT's Mick Cash though.

While polling information suggests that most members of Unison, Unite and the GMB now support the call for a further referendum (are they ALL weasel loons?), our Mick is firmly against. He said that trades unionists had voted to leave in 2016 "in their droves" because they were "sick of austerity" and "the race to the bottom". I am sure he is right. They had strong reasons for voting Leave. Reasons that Mick Cash makes clear had little or nothing to do with the European Union and the question on the ballot paper.

No wonder some Brexiteers are firmly against consulting the public.

 

[Ernest]

The headbangers' plan apparently include a Star Wars missile shield and an expeditionary force sent to defend the Falklands. The fruitcakes really are stating to circle as March draws near. For me, the most interesting quote to come from Camp Brexit this weekend belongs to the RMT's Mick Cash though.

While polling information suggests that most members of Unison, Unite and the GMB now support the call for a further referendum (are they ALL weasel loons?), our Mick is firmly against. He said that trades unionists had voted to leave in 2016 "in their droves" because they were "sick of austerity" and "the race to the bottom". I am sure he is right. They had strong reasons for voting Leave. Reasons that Mick Cash makes clear had little or nothing to do with the European Union and the question on the ballot paper.

No wonder some Brexiteers are firmly against consulting the public.

Bob Crow and the RMT were always firmly against the EU

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Bob Crow and the RMT were always firmly against the EU

Indeed they were, for Bennite reasons I guess.

 

[pastafarian]

He said that trades unionists had voted to leave in 2016 "in their droves" because they were "sick of austerity" and "the race to the bottom". I am sure he is right. They had strong reasons for voting Leave. Reasons that Mick Cash makes clear had little or nothing to do with the European Union and the question on the ballot paper.

Is there a reason you didnt mention privatisation or EU diktat?

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Is there a reason you didnt mention privatisation or EU diktat?

Yes. The speech extract I saw in a neutral news medium didn't mention it either. Simple as that. The EU directive Cash might have been referring to makes no demands in respect of rail privatisation as far as I know so perhaps it was seen as a cross between an afterthought and a red herring and not worth reporting on.

Is there a reason for you mentioning privatisation and EU diktat as though Cash had presented them as separate items?

 

[pastafarian]

Yes. The speech extract I saw in a neutral news medium didn't mention it either. Simple as that. The EU directive Cash might have been referring to makes no demands in respect of rail privatisation as far as I know so perhaps it was seen as a cross between an afterthought and a red herring and not worth reporting on.

Is there a reason for you mentioning privatisation and EU diktat as though Cash had presented them as separate items?

The reason i mentioned privatisation and EU diktat is that they are mentioned on the RM website in the quote you are taking "the race to the bottom" and "sick of austerity" from as reasons for leaving and implied they were the only reasons , its odd you omitted them from such a small quote, although i understand your whole reasoning was to portray any RMT members reasoning as now invalid.Perhaps that was the intention of your source as well, what was it out of interest. I wouldnt mind reading it.


http://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmts-mick-cash-pledges-national-rail-fight-over-pay-cap/

Speaking on Brexit and the talk of a second vote, Mick Cash said;

"Trade unionists voted in droves to leave the EU because they are sick of austerity, the race to the bottom on jobs and pay and the privatisation of services like the railways which is all wrapped up in EU diktat.
"The problem we have now is that the terms of Britain's withdrawal are being negotiated by a useless and divided Tory government that is a global laughing stock.
"The only vote now that matters is a general election and the sooner the better. The talk of a second vote on the withdrawal terms is a defacto second referendum whichever way you try to dress it up and risks becoming a trojan horse for civil unrest on our streets."