Continuation Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

Probably not since previous callers to James O'Brien have passionately argued the benefits of carcinogenic colouring in jam, newspaper ink on take away food, and three prong plugs (which apparently we'll be able to have after Brexit).

If it's performance art it's long running and played to the hilt by a large cast of incredible actors from a wide range of groups.

The UK has three pin plugs.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

Probably not since previous callers to James O'Brien have passionately argued the benefits of carcinogenic colouring in jam, newspaper ink on take away food, and three prong plugs (which apparently we'll be able to have after Brexit).

If it's performance art it's long running and played to the hilt by a large cast of incredible actors from a wide range of groups.

Originally Posted by catsmate

The UK has three pin plugs.

Not sure why that's confusing.

P.J. Denyer was pointing out how firmly based in reality many of the Brexiteer callers to James O'Brien are.

I've come across several who seemingly haven't observed many very common features of UK life, which are apparently banned under the EU.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Not sure why that's confusing.

P.J. Denyer was pointing out how firmly based in reality many of the Brexiteer callers to James O'Brien are.

I've come across several who seemingly haven't observed many very common features of UK life, which are apparently banned under the EU.

Ah.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by catsmate

Ah.

The penny (which we'll also be able to have after Brexit*) drops!


*It'll be a day's wages in our new internationally competitive economy.

[llwyd]

The real point is the trade deal with the EU and then the following "great deals" (copyright D. Trump) that will start "flowing" in with other countries and trade areas. I saw no point in brexit as the UK was outside of the madness that is euro and was an influential member in the world's biggest trading block. But I could have seen a Norway style relationship, maintaining free access to EU markets, though much worse position than full membership but still. But no, these fantasists wanted also out of the customs union, which pretty much reminds one of the charge of the Light Brigade... One day reality will catch up with them, surely?

[The Don]

Originally Posted by llwyd

The real point is the trade deal with the EU and then the following "great deals" (copyright D. Trump) that will start "flowing" in with other countries and trade areas. I saw no point in brexit as the UK was outside of the madness that is euro and was an influential member in the world's biggest trading block. But I could have seen a Norway style relationship, maintaining free access to EU markets, though much worse position than full membership but still. But no, these fantasists wanted also out of the customs union, which pretty much reminds one of the charge of the Light Brigade... One day reality will catch up with them, surely?

Sadly, I think not.

The architects of Brexit, the senior politicians, hedge fund managers and the like, are completely insulated from the effects of Brexit and stand to benefit significantly from any disruption that may result. The reality of Brexit is what they were aiming for.

The people who voted for Brexit in their droves likely will continue to consume the same media sources and will continue to blame any and all negative effects of Brexit on immigrants in our midst, Remoaners fighting a rearguard action, the EU for being mean and any other thing which avoids blaming Brexit itself.

They'll also be getting a completely different message about the effects of Brexit. According to the Daily Mail, Daily Express, Daily Telegraph and Sun, any negative effects are minor, temporary and jolly well worth it to "regain our sovereignty" . They will be inhabiting a different reality.

[Captain_Swoop]

Australian trade minister 'can't imagine' free movement talks with UK

Quote:

Australia's trade minister appears to have ruled out including visa-free travel in a post-Brexit trade deal with the UK.

Simon Birmingham said he "can't imagine full and unfettered free movement" will be up for negotiation during trade discussions.

Britain's international trade secretary Liz Truss promoted the idea of free movement between the two countries during a visit to Australia in September, although she later appeared to step back from her comments.

https://news.sky.com/story/australia...th-uk-11902047

[a_unique_person]

Yes. We already have free movement with New Zealand. What a nightmare. They send all their criminals over here.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Yes. We already have free movement with New Zealand. What a nightmare. They send all their criminals over here.

Is this an official government program?

Sounds like the structured plan Mexico has to "not send us their best."

Which is to say, sounds like hogwash.

[The Don]

Boris Johnson to stress importance of trade talks in his meeting with the new president of the European Commission.

Quote:

Boris Johnson will stress the importance of the UK and EU reaching a trade deal by the end of the year in his first meeting with the new president of the European Commission.

No **** Sherlock

I'm pretty sure that the EU are absolutely aware of this and are sharpening their pencils as we speak.

My prediction is that the UK and EU will not manage to agree a trade deal, due in the main to the unreasonableness of the UK's demands - we will leave with no deal on WTO terms. We will then rapidly agree trade deal with the US which will be more or less exclusively on their terms (look forward to chlorinated chicken, turkey butts, high fructose corn syrup and the end of the NHS as we know it folks), which will be hailed as a great success.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by catsmate

The UK has three pin plugs.

https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK...o-pin-version/

[Darat]

Originally Posted by The Don

Boris Johnson to stress importance of trade talks in his meeting with the new president of the European Commission.



No **** Sherlock

I'm pretty sure that the EU are absolutely aware of this and are sharpening their pencils as we speak.

My prediction is that the UK and EU will not manage to agree a trade deal, due in the main to the unreasonableness of the UK's demands - we will leave with no deal on WTO terms. We will then rapidly agree trade deal with the US which will be more or less exclusively on their terms (look forward to chlorinated chicken, turkey butts, high fructose corn syrup and the end of the NHS as we know it folks), which will be hailed as a great success.

My expectation is that it will be the same shambles, no idea what the UK wants, just what we don't want, no detail ready from the UK, no understanding of the transition deal we've agreed to.

Other than that it will all be fine....

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Mojo

https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK...o-pin-version/

And a quarter of a century later, it doesn't actually seem to have happened.

Dave

[Ian Osborne]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Yes. We already have free movement with New Zealand. What a nightmare. They send all their criminals over here.

Here in the UK, we used to send you our criminals too.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

And a quarter of a century later, it doesn't actually seem to have happened.

Dave

Yes, it's almost like people have been making **** up about European rules. Now what was the name of that blonde journalist who used to do that? Boris something, habit of being fired for lying. Whatever happened to him?

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Mojo

https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK...o-pin-version/

So the EU is not, and never was, trying to force use of the Europlug. And Brexiteers are gullible morons who'll lap up any deal the right-wing tabloids pour into their bowls, but that's not a surprise.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

Yes, it's almost like people have been making **** up about European rules.

Here’s the whole lot: https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK...ths-a-z-index/

[The Don]

I was just leafing through the latest edition of Private Eye on my seat of ease this morning and two things caught my eye:

Whitehall are pulling together a "crack" negotiating team to handle Brexit (this is before it was announced that negotiations with the EU and US would be happening in parallel, presumably this doubles their workload). Unfortunately few, if any, have any relevant experience.

Crawford Falconer, chief trade negotiation adviser, has been notable in his absence of late which is causing some Mandarins to question his generous salary.

It seems that the UK are destined for "interesting times" in 2020. In particular the parallel UK/EU and UK/US trade negotiations seem to be interesting, not least because trying to get free trade agreements with both are mutually exclusive. IMO the UK is vastly overestimating its value to the EU and, in order to avoid a humiliating lack of trade deals will accept the US deal on any terms - which will make any kind of trade deal (free or otherwise) with the EU, orders of magnitude more difficult to achieve.

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by The Don

I was just leafing through the latest edition of Private Eye on my seat of ease this morning and two things caught my eye:

Whitehall are pulling together a "crack" negotiating team to handle Brexit (this is before it was announced that negotiations with the EU and US would be happening in parallel, presumably this doubles their workload). Unfortunately few, if any, have any relevant experience.

Crawford Falconer, chief trade negotiation adviser, has been notable in his absence of late which is causing some Mandarins to question his generous salary.

It seems that the UK are destined for "interesting times" in 2020. In particular the parallel UK/EU and UK/US trade negotiations seem to be interesting, not least because trying to get free trade agreements with both are mutually exclusive. IMO the UK is vastly overestimating its value to the EU and, in order to avoid a humiliating lack of trade deals will accept the US deal on any terms - which will make any kind of trade deal (free or otherwise) with the EU, orders of magnitude more difficult to achieve.

Well, the Trumpistan in the west hasn't been known to field experts either. That's something working in favo(u)r of the UK for a change. British 'crack' team in charge of negotiating a deal with the US doesn't actually have to be good at their job. If they're people who know what negotiating is and come equipped with a wish list they might even do better than their American counterparts.

EU will eat them alive of course, but BJ might have a 'solution' of sorts to that: don't make a deal with the EU and try to become the 51st state instead.

There's no doubt any serious deal will take place after the Novermber elections in the US though. BJ is the one running against the clock for a change.

McHrozni

[The Don]

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Well, the Trumpistan in the west hasn't been known to field experts either. That's something working in favo(u)r of the UK for a change. British 'crack' team in charge of negotiating a deal with the US doesn't actually have to be good at their job. If they're people who know what negotiating is and come equipped with a wish list they might even do better than their American counterparts.

You're right regarding the Trump Administration's expertise but the advantages that the US has over the UK in the trade negotiations are:

• A very clear set of requirements which have already been communicated ahead of time
• Clearly defined red lines which cannot be broken
• The upper hand in terms of the economic muscle they wield
• No real urgency - the UK desperately needs a deal before the end of 2020, the US has no such deadline

OTOH the UK has no clear idea of what it wants, its red lines are pretty malleable, we'll be very much the junior partner in any relationship and Boris Johnson needs a deal to trumpet when negotiations with the EU fail - as the inevitably (and possibly intentionally) will.

Originally Posted by McHrozni

EU will eat them alive of course, but BJ might have a 'solution' of sorts to that: don't make a deal with the EU and try to become the 51st state instead.

There's no doubt any serious deal will take place after the Novermber elections in the US though. BJ is the one running against the clock for a change.

McHrozni

Yes he can try to become the 51st state but unlike the current relationship with the EU, the UK/US deal will not be mutually beneficial, the US is clear that the intent is to increase US exports to the UK and if anything reduce trade in the other direction. The UK/US deal will also kill any trade with the EU and this is several times the trade with the US - it'll be an unmitigated disaster IMO.

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by The Don

You're right regarding the Trump Administration's expertise but the advantages that the US has over the UK in the trade negotiations are:

• A very clear set of requirements which have already been communicated ahead of time
• Clearly defined red lines which cannot be broken
• The upper hand in terms of the economic muscle they wield
• No real urgency - the UK desperately needs a deal before the end of 2020, the US has no such deadline

OTOH the UK has no clear idea of what it wants, its red lines are pretty malleable, we'll be very much the junior partner in any relationship and Boris Johnson needs a deal to trumpet when negotiations with the EU fail - as the inevitably (and possibly intentionally) will.

Well, yes. That is a problem.

Quote:

Yes he can try to become the 51st state but unlike the current relationship with the EU, the UK/US deal will not be mutually beneficial, the US is clear that the intent is to increase US exports to the UK and if anything reduce trade in the other direction. The UK/US deal will also kill any trade with the EU and this is several times the trade with the US - it'll be an unmitigated disaster IMO.

Yes. But the US House already stated they're unwilling to ratify an agreement that would be too one-sided against the British ally. Again, there isn't that much time at all, it's rather questionable if Trump can be reelected. Of course a major deal with the UK might help that.

The most dangerous thing is if BJ willingly sells the UK to the USA to curry favor with Trump. If that does not happen, if BJ has a shred of concern for his country, the deal is dead in the water unless Trump wins 10 months from now.

McHrozni

[The Don]

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Yes. But the US House already stated they're unwilling to ratify an agreement that would be too one-sided against the British ally.

I thought that their only concern was whether any UK/US deal might jeapordise the Good Friday agreement.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-b...-idUSKCN1V419I

As long as the GFA is safe, the deal can be as weighted towards the US as they like.

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Again, there isn't that much time at all, it's rather questionable if Trump can be reelected. Of course a major deal with the UK might help that.

I disagree, I think that President Trump currently has a much greater than 50% probability of being reelected. This will only change if some or all of the following were to happen:

• The impeachment process starts to scare some GOP senators
• There is a severe economic downturn
• The Democratic Party manages to find a charismatic candidate

OTOH the sabre-rattling with Iran is playing to his advantage, especially if it turns into an all-out shooting war.

Originally Posted by McHrozni

The most dangerous thing is if BJ willingly sells the UK to the USA to curry favor with Trump. If that does not happen, if BJ has a shred of concern for his country, the deal is dead in the water unless Trump wins 10 months from now.

McHrozni

I have yet to see any evidence for the highlighted. Like President Trump, Boris Johnson is only concerned about his personal welfare.

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by The Don

I thought that their only concern was whether any UK/US deal might jeapordise the Good Friday agreement.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-b...-idUSKCN1V419I

As long as the GFA is safe, the deal can be as weighted towards the US as they like.

Hm, maybe. It's been a while since I've read the report.

Quote:

I disagree, I think that President Trump currently has a much greater than 50% probability of being reelected. This will only change if some or all of the following were to happen:

• The impeachment process starts to scare some GOP senators
• There is a severe economic downturn
• The Democratic Party manages to find a charismatic candidate

OTOH the sabre-rattling with Iran is playing to his advantage, especially if it turns into an all-out shooting war.

We'll see, it's too early to say. The Iran thing is probably a major foreign policy failure, so a "true" in the 13 keys turnes to "false". The implication is he will do a little worse in the election than he would have if it didn't happen.

The thing is, his policy towards Iran is nothing new. Trump has a fanatical but narrow base and has done exactly nothing to expand it. His base alone won him one election, barely - relying on razor-thin margins in three key states. Some 6% of the electorate has been replaced since 2016, the loyal right-wing voters died off and were replaced by younger voters that are less well inclined towards the Republicans. The minorities grew ever so slightly, the already aging base aged a little more.

In short, the 2020 election is not a simple rerun of the 2016 election but with Trump having the incumbent advantage.

Quote:

I have yet to see any evidence for the highlighted. Like President Trump, Boris Johnson is only concerned about his personal welfare.

Well yes, I agree with that. However too slavish a deal might imperil his own reelection chances too. BJ therefore should care about the wellbeing of UK at least a little, if only as an extension of caring about himself.

McHrozni

[The Don]

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Well yes, I agree with that. However too slavish a deal might imperil his own reelection chances too. BJ therefore should care about the wellbeing of UK at least a little, if only as an extension of caring about himself.

McHrozni

The deal would have to be so bad that it splits the Conservative Party into two separate, but still electable parties.

The LibDems are an electoral irrelevance, the Brexit Party will have had its guns comprehensively spiked by Boris Johnson's no-deal Brexit and Labour are two or three elections away from being electable so a Conservative split aside, Boris Johnson is as safe as houses - even moreso if Scotland achieves independence.

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by The Don

The deal would have to be so bad that it splits the Conservative Party into two separate, but still electable parties.

You have ten months to negotiate and ratify one - without knowing what you want or having people capable of telling you what you might want, let alone delivering it. And you're negotiating against a man whose 'negotiating' strategy is making a demand and expecting you to bend the knee.

I'm reasonably sure any agreed upon deal will be horrible.

McHrozni

[The Don]

Originally Posted by McHrozni

You have ten months to negotiate and ratify one - without knowing what you want or having people capable of telling you what you might want, let alone delivering it. And you're negotiating against a man whose 'negotiating' strategy is making a demand and expecting you to bend the knee.

I'm reasonably sure any agreed upon deal will be horrible.

McHrozni

For sure it will be horrible, but it would have to be so bad that half the party that negotiated and agreed to it in the face of a no deal Brexit would have to be prepared to disown it.

[KDLarsen]

Originally Posted by Mojo

Here’s the whole lot: https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK...ths-a-z-index/

Randomly picking through that list, it really goes a long way in explaining why Brexit eventually became a thing. So much dross* being served up even by the mainstream papers, it's enough to make you want to scream.

[ceptimus]

Another disappointment for remain supporters.

[ohms]

But does this promise count or not? It's hard to keep track.

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Another disappointment for remain supporters.

A disappointment for leave supporters surely. Maintaining EU standards makes a trade deal with the US much harder.

It is looking like the Vote Leave promise to maintain free trade with the EU and to get better trade deals with the rest of the world was bull ****. Then again leave types lap that up.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by McHrozni

There's no doubt any serious deal will take place after the Novermber elections in the US though. BJ is the one running against the clock for a change.

McHrozni

Certainly true. Assuming a new POTUS, it will take at least six months to find the loo so any hopes for a quick deal reside in fantasyland.

[Doghouse Reilly]

I have a question that I haven't been able to find the answer to. The House of Commons voted today on the final approval of the Brexit Bill, which is now sent to the Lords. All the news articles are saying that this means Brexit is a done deal. What happens if the House of Lords were to vote against it? Boris doesn't have a majority there, so what's stopping the Lords from still blocking the deal? I'm American and not overly familiar with the British government system. I assume there's some reason to think that the Lords can't block the bill from passing but I don't understand why.

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by The Don

For sure it will be horrible, but it would have to be so bad that half the party that negotiated and agreed to it in the face of a no deal Brexit would have to be prepared to disown it.

Well, there is a recent precendens with this whole "Brexit" thing, so I wouldn't discount it as a very real possibility.

McHrozni

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly

I have a question that I haven't been able to find the answer to. The House of Commons voted today on the final approval of the Brexit Bill, which is now sent to the Lords. All the news articles are saying that this means Brexit is a done deal. What happens if the House of Lords were to vote against it? Boris doesn't have a majority there, so what's stopping the Lords from still blocking the deal? I'm American and not overly familiar with the British government system. I assume there's some reason to think that the Lords can't block the bill from passing but I don't understand why.

There is a convention that the lords don't block legislation that forms an important part of the government's manifesto. The lords may well amend the bill, but the commons will vote against any such amendments and bounce the bill back to the lords; the lords will then pass the bill unamended.

In theory the bill can bounce back and forth more than once. The commons have powers to override such nonsense if necessary, but they won't have to use them. The lords know that if they ignore convention and oppose a government with a strong majority then the next action of the commons would be to introduce new bills reforming and diminishing the power of the House of Lords.

[jimbob]

Meanwhile, the current cost of Brexit to date has been estimated at $170Bn with another $70Bn this year

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...it-for-the-u-k

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Another disappointment for remain supporters.

The people who should be disappointed are the ones expecting an easy trade deal with the US. Do you think the US will just say: “that’s fine you can go ahead and block sales of US products any time you like?” Good luck with that. Nor is the US going to change it’s own rules to accommodate the UK, and wont want to implement new inspection programs to accommodate UK product rules.

Furthermore, should the deal with the US allow poultry exports to the UK what do you think happens with an EU trade deal? Do you think the EU will just say “don’t worry about our regulations, feel free to repackage dung encrusted chicken and sell it into the EU”. Again, good luck with that.

This is a good example of why trade deals are really hard to negotiate when you don’t have common product regulations. It’s only one product but there are tens of thousands of product classes where you need to be considered where the two sides must agree on common regulations or agree on how to compensate the other side for restricting their products.

It’s also quite literally impossible to negotiate a deal with multiple partners without solid borders and customs checks in place to track not just products but the entire supply chain that goes into those products, because this still needs to follow the trade and product regulations of whatever country you sell them to. You will not be able to bypass EU tariffs on US made products simply by taking a bunch of US made parts assembling them and slapping a “made in the UK” sticker on the final product and export it to the EU tariff free.

This is why the type of trade deal Brexiters are promising take a decade of negotiation and can’t possibly be done in a year like they are promising. Furthermore, as things stand now without customs checks are either the Irish border or leaving Northern Ireland in the EU and performing checks at the North Sea ports the trade deals you are being promised are impossible.

[Doghouse Reilly]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

There is a convention that the lords don't block legislation that forms an important part of the government's manifesto. The lords may well amend the bill, but the commons will vote against any such amendments and bounce the bill back to the lords; the lords will then pass the bill unamended.

In theory the bill can bounce back and forth more than once. The commons have powers to override such nonsense if necessary, but they won't have to use them. The lords know that if they ignore convention and oppose a government with a strong majority then the next action of the commons would be to introduce new bills reforming and diminishing the power of the House of Lords.

Thank you, that clarifies it. I appreciate the explanation.

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly

Thank you, that clarifies it. I appreciate the explanation.

Boris Johnson and the Tories have also threatened the House of Lords with abolition or reform unless they stop doing their job and start rubber stamping the brexit agenda


Link

Link

Link

Link

I have some sympathy with a reform of the House of Lords, perhaps quite a lot of sympathy. However I want a fairer HoL unlike the political parties, Labour have also opposed the HOL, who want a means to control the 2nd chamber.

There is no need for hereditary peers, certainly no need for the 26 Lords Spiritual.
I think the 2nd house should be elected but it should represent the people in a fairer system than first past the post. I think there should also be some qualification required to sit in the Lord's. A lot of what they do is scrutinise legislation. There should be some legal competence.

[Aber]

Originally Posted by Lothian

Boris Johnson and the Tories have also threatened the House of Lords with abolition or reform unless they stop doing their job and start rubber stamping the brexit agenda

Convention is that the House of Lords doesn't block manifesto commitments of a party which has won a general election. The "threat" is implicit after all elections.

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by Aber

Convention is that the House of Lords doesn't block manifesto commitments of a party which has won a general election. The "threat" is implicit after all elections.

The threat was quite explicit before the last election.