[Politics] Brexit

[larus]

970K have changed their minds since the Referendum, switching to Brexit, but 2.6M have changed their minds from Leave to Remain.
The actual 'majority' in June 2016 was 1.3M - that's why the politicians are running scared of a people's vote.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...esa-may-conservative-government-a8521346.html

I know you don't believe this, but there will not be another referendum. Most politicians realise that they need to implement Brexit (the argument is over what this means, with remainers wanting to water it down). Many remain supporting MPs say that they accept that Brexit must happen, otherwise this will lead to further disenfranchisement of the electorate. The obvious beneficiaries of this would be more extreme parties, so be careful what you wish for. Disagree with this? - look at what's happening across the western world with populist parties gaining more support.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Why not have had the original referendum a year or two earlier, then those that unfortunately died prior to June 2016 would still be here to vote Leave whilst the younger voters that then went on to vote to Remain wouldn't have been of voting age ...............

Because it wasn't policy of the coalition prior to 2015 to hold one.

It just goes to show how unsustainable the whole idea of Brexit is longer term. The Chequers 'plan' has actually made both no deal and remaining in The EU increase in likelihood. If the former occurs in March and we do just crash out, the clamour to rejoin The EEA, assuming we do actually leave it and Article 127 doesn't require invocation separately to Article 50, will be difficult to be endure politically. I appreciate that prospect is an uncomfortable one and will be every bit as divisive as this whole car crash has been thus far, but's it's a palpable one.

 

[BigGully]

Because it wasn't policy of the coalition prior to 2015 to hold one

Nor is it a policy of the government to have hold a second referendum ......

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Just like to make an observation. There appears to be civility on this thread now. [MENTION=232]Simster[/MENTION], [MENTION=805]Kalimantan Gull[/MENTION], [MENTION=1365]Westdene Seagull[/MENTION] (to name a few) are asking questions/replying and there seems to be less insults/snide comments.

Just because we voted leave doesn’t mean we’re thick, racist, xenophobic and it’s refreshing to see debate and less vitriol.

Can it last?

Yes it was nice for a bit, but over the last couple of pages its descended once more into a meeting of the parliamentary Conservative Party, so I'll duck out again now.

I will say that momentum appears to be growing for a second referendum, I'd wager that if parliament votes down the government's plans and kicks the Chequers decision into touch, then a second referendum will be more likely than not. I can't see May and Hammond taking us out with no deal.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Nor is it a policy of the government to have hold a second referendum ......

No it isn't currently, but then I'm not being saying there will be one, anymore than I'm not saying there wont be one.

 

[CHAPPERS]

(the argument is over what this means, with remainers wanting to water it down). .

Water what down?

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

I also read earlier that the pollster Peter Kellner had done analysis purely on the demographic that shows 1000 Leave voters a day actually pass away.

Thus reminding me of a quote from (I believe) Harold Laski (Labour politician) very many years ago that in politics 'where's there's death, there's hope'.

 

[BigGully]

No it isn't currently, but then I'm not being saying there will be one, anymore than I'm not saying there wont be one.

But similarly you used 'Because it wasn't policy of the coalition prior to 2015 to hold one' in response to my slightly tongue in cheek retort to the somewhat vulgar death data of older Leave voters by you, that intimated that it might add to the call for a second referendum.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

As pro Brexit people on here that I respect, I'd be interested to know what you, [MENTION=1365]Westdene Seagull[/MENTION], [MENTION=25]Gwylan[/MENTION] and one or two others genuinely hope for from this position. I'm not interested in the "on our way" simpletons, I'd like to know what you realistically feel you can expect from this point? I am looking for a glimmer of hope because I am crestfallen as a remainer that we are so obviously (to me anyway) about to cut our noses off to spite our faces as the chance of any sort of credible, "good" deal appears to have just gone.

A fair question. What I hope for is that we agree a trade deal but without staying in the single market, the customs union or under any jurisdiction of the ECJ. Is that what is likely to happen ? Hell no. My guess is one of two things - a hash up of the Chequers plan at the very last minute which makes parties look as though they got what they want but effectively keeps us in the instruments I've mentioned. Or a no deal. I want neither but if I had to pick it would be no deal.

 

[ManOfSussex]

But similarly you used 'Because it wasn't policy of the coalition prior to 2015 to hold one' in response to my slightly tongue in cheek retort to the somewhat vulgar death data of older Leave voters by you, that intimated that it might add to the call for a second referendum.

No, I just stated that demographic polling data has found nearly 1000 people a day passing away, of the approximately 1500 a day who die in this country, had voted leave. I quite clearly did not mention second referendums, the poster I was replying to before you joined in did, I grant you. I have qualified that data remark but stating that it does show, in my opinion, why among other things, this whole protracted process is not sustainable.

 

[WATFORD zero]

The disruption will be caused by regulatory issues more than WTO rules. WTO rules can be ‘ignored’ if both parties say they are working towards a FTA. And regulatory alignment is simple (if there’s a willingness by the EU to not be vindictive) as we are aligned already.

I really can't be arsed with this, but you are aware that there are a few more than two parties negotiating in the WTO deal ?

Look, if the EU/UK say to the WTO that we are negotiating a FTA, then the NI/ROI border will not fall under WTO ‘rules’.

And, as I keep telling you, the EU are responsible for the IMPORTS into ROI from NI. So, if they don’t implement border checks (which they have said they won’t), then they would be in breach of WTO rules (as you keep saying the UK would be).

You seem to be saying that the EU and the Ireland/NI border is the only issue that a WTO 'no deal' is going to give us and if the EU do what we want them to do, then it can be ignored.

You don't think that suddenly dealing with the rest of the world directly, will not cause any of the other 163 members to find issues with things like our recently submitted schedule or quotas ?

 

[WATFORD zero]

As you keep telling [MENTION=396]WATFORD zero[/MENTION], as you keep telling me, as you keep telling others. Please, just stop for a minute, pause,, and have a listen to yourself.

He kept on telling me that you didn't need borders or customs to collect WTO tariffs.

Then he decided you did

 

[larus]

You seem to be saying that the EU and the Ireland/NI border is the only issue that a WTO 'no deal' is going to give us and if the EU do what we want them to do, then it can be ignored.

You don't think that suddenly dealing with the rest of the world directly, will not cause any of the other 163 members to find issues with things like our recently submitted schedule or quotas ?

Of course other countries will be wanting an input. Let's say Australia wants to import from us and us from them, but Chile objects. They can take a case to the WTO but that doesn't stop us trading with Australia.

Do you agree that if countries are in negotiations for a FTA then don't have to trade on WTO rules?

 

[WATFORD zero]

A fair question. What I hope for is that we agree a trade deal but without staying in the single market, the customs union or under any jurisdiction of the ECJ. Is that what is likely to happen ? Hell no. My guess is one of two things - a hash up of the Chequers plan at the very last minute which makes parties look as though they got what they want but effectively keeps us in the instruments I've mentioned. Or a no deal. I want neither but if I had to pick it would be no deal.

A fair answer. But did you think that agreeing a trade deal but without staying in the single market, the customs union or under any jurisdiction of the ECJ, was a possible outcome at the time of the referendum, and if so, what has stopped it being an option ?

(Or, have you always expected the result to be a no deal / supersoft choice ?)

 

[larus]

He kept on telling me that you didn't need borders or customs to collect WTO tariffs.

Then he decided you did

No - I said you don't need to implement a physical border if you don't need to. If there are political reasons why, then a physical border (check points etc. as this seems to cause you to struggle with comprehension) is not required.

And you still have yet to reply to the FACT that the EU (according to you) need to implement checks but they have said that they won't. So what is it? Are you right or the EU?

I'll keep waiting for the usual deflection.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Of course other countries will be wanting an input. Let's say Australia wants to import from us and us from them, but Chile objects. They can take a case to the WTO but that doesn't stop us trading with Australia.

Do you agree that if countries are in negotiations for a FTA then don't have to trade on WTO rules?

It's not wanting an input, we have to agree schedules (and quotas) with all WTO members if we don't want to default to the highest tariffs.

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

No - I said you don't need to implement a physical border if you don't need to. If there are political reasons why, then a physical border (check points etc. as this seems to cause you to struggle with comprehension) is not required.

And you still have yet to reply to the FACT that the EU (according to you) need to implement checks but they have said that they won't. So what is it? Are you right or the EU?

I'll keep waiting for the usual deflection.

You do mention this rather a lot. It would be good if you could cite some sources that support this assertion. To help you I'm giving a link to an authoritative source. Is there anything in there - or anywhere else - that supports you?

https://ecampus.wto.org/admin/files/Course_382/Module_537/ModuleDocuments/eWTO-M8-R1-E.pdf

 

[larus]

It's not wanting an input, we have to agree schedules (and quotas) with all WTO members if we don't want to default to the highest tariffs.

And still not answered the question about if in negotiations.

 

[The Maharajah of Sydney]

Carney: BOE doesn't have a forecast for a no-deal Brexit

Says has discussed his term with the Chancellor
The economy is still operating as if there will be a deal
Less than 20% of firms are putting in contingencies for a no-deal Brexit
Real-income squeeze would return for UK households "for a few years" if there's no Brexit deal
A 'no-deal, no-transition' deal is an extreme scenario

Haldane:

Odds of a no-deal Brexit at about 25% compared to 20% a few months ago, according to surveys of market participants
It's not automatic that the shock to prices after a no deal Brexit would not necessarily be a one-off, it could damage to supply capacity of UK
The passthrough of imported inflationary shocks can last a number of years, certainly over our policymaking horizon

Parliamentary Treasury Committee Testimony Live Link ; https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/07d10ffc-4f25-4899-9682-638f8c9d913b

 

[larus]

You do mention this rather a lot. It would be good if you could cite some sources that support this assertion. To help you I'm giving a link to an authoritative source. Is there anything in there - or anywhere else - that supports you?

https://ecampus.wto.org/admin/files/Course_382/Module_537/ModuleDocuments/eWTO-M8-R1-E.pdf

Can't remember where I read it.

However, a quick search to this blog clarifies that we don't have to secure our borders. It also covers the border issue regarding security implications (the basis for not having physical checks/infrastructure) and is non-committal.

https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/2018/07/18/does-the-wto-require-countries-to-control-their-borders/

"First, a fact:

There is no rule in the WTO requiring its member governments to secure their borders.

After Brexit, the UK could drop all border controls for traded goods and services and it would be perfectly within its WTO rights."