The reaction to Theresa May's "new deal" on Brexit is the lead story for most papers. The Guardian's headline reflects the overall tone of the coverage, saying her final effort to win the backing of MPs across the Commons "fell flat". "Another fine mess", is the headline in the "i". For the Financial Times, the deal was "declared dead on arrival by furious Conservative Eurosceptics". The Conservative Home website says the prime minister threw herself on Labour's mercy by dangling the prospect of a referendum. Confidence vote? But the Independent website says her deal "looked doomed to failure", while the Daily Mail sees it as a "gamble too far". The Sun says the gamble backfired spectacularly, and senior Tory backbenchers will now force a confidence vote in her leadership when they meet later. The Daily Telegraph reports that more than 50 Conservative MPs said they would vote against the Withdrawal Agreement Bill - among them, at least 20 who had previously backed Mrs May's deal. According to the Times, Brexiteer cabinet ministers are expected to urge the prime minister to abandon her proposals. They want her to allow her successor to find a way through the impasse, it adds. In the words of the Huffpost UK website, the men and women in grey suits may put her out of her misery.
Shoppers v robbers Finally, there are dramatic accounts and pictures of shopkeepers, customers and passers-by chasing members of a moped gang who had allegedly raided a jewellery shop in west London. The Daily Telegraph reports the robbers armed with a machete, hammers and a crowbar struck in broad daylight during the Monday evening rush hour. As they tried to flee on their mopeds, the Times says, up to 20 bystanders chased them. One member of the public knocked over a suspect with a traffic cone while others used a bin and a menu board to stop them. A local resident tripped one of the men before about 10 others pinned him down until police arrived. Five men have been arrested
Brexit BOMBSHELL: Boris Johnson may be FORCED to call second Brexit referendum BORIS Johnson may choose to have a second referendum to help keep himself as Prime Minister if he comes into power, a political expert has claimed.
The Great British public will be the real losers of the EU referendum IRRESPECTIVE of who wins the EU referendum there will be one big loser: the British public.
Squirming Brexit Party chief repeatedly fails to say if party takes foreign cash Richard Tice was grilled in a BBC interview as Gordon Brown demanded a probe into Brexit Party funding - but Nigel Farage dismissed it as a "smear"
Mr Brown said Farage "won't be remembered as a man of the people, he'll be remembered as a man of the PayPal"
‘Clean Brexit’ sounds so simple, doesn’t it? Trouble is, it doesn’t exist The Brexit party has a new name for no deal. But the case for it still relies on dubious assumptions and flawed analysis
Richard Tice, chairman of the Brexit party, was banging the no-deal drum on the Today programme earlier this week, arguing that a “clean Brexit” (sounds appealing, doesn’t it?) would work out just fine because of the provisions of the World Trade Organization (WTO) treaty.
This analysis is fatally flawed. It rests on assumptions – dubious, at best –that allow the impact of a so-called clean Brexit to be fundamentally misrepresented. Here’s why.
By definition, “no deal” means the UK leaves the EU without signing the article 50 withdrawal agreement (Theresa May’s deal). Unlike a business deal, it absolutely does not mean carrying on as before (as is generally the case when commercial negotiations fail). Rather, no deal means that many of those laws that govern our interaction with the EU will cease to apply to us. However well both we and the EU prepare contingency plans, this will mean significant problems when it comes to, among other things, travel and trade. Not a good look for any governing party (hence all the more curious that there are Tory MPs who think it should be government policy). Then there is the “no trade deal” scenario. This is different from no deal as it may come about if the UK signs up to the withdrawal agreement but then fails to strike a trade deal with the EU governing future arrangements. The reason the two kinds of no-deal outcome are often confused is that the withdrawal agreement contains the seeds of a future relationship (despite what the EU has insisted about not negotiating the future until we have left). This is the famous backstop, which specifies a certain relationship with the EU for the UK as a whole, unless another way can be found of avoiding an intra-Irish border.
Those who favour no trade deal, or who favour the kind of trade deal that would necessitate a border in Ireland, simply refuse to sign up to the withdrawal agreement. Hence the no-trade-deal argument becomes a no-deal one.
From the point of view of Brexiters, no deal makes sense because, unlike the backstop, it would leave the UK completely free to negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world on terms of its own choosing. It also means control over immigration, and no interference by the European Court of Justice (ECJ). But this line of thinking relies on a series of highly optimistic assumptions about how no deal would pan out. The argument of Tice and co runs like this. Once we’ve left, the EU will sit down with us to negotiate a trade deal. In the interim, article 24(5) of the WTO’s general agreement on tariffs and trade (GATT) will ensure that no new restrictions on trade are put in place. The problem with this “logic” is that it’s simply wrong in law. The main aim of article 24 of GATT is to enable the adoption of an interim agreement necessary for the formation of a customs union (CU) or a free-trade area (FTA) within a reasonable period of time (10 years). This recognises that a CU or an FTA will take time to conclude, and may need to be implemented gradually. The interim agreement is intended to prevent an increase of tariffs or regulations in the meantime.
But if Britain crashes out without a withdrawal deal, there will be no negotiations and hence no agreement leading to a CU or an FTA. The EU has made it clear that, in the event of a no-deal outcome, it will expect to settle outstanding withdrawal issues with the UK (money, citizens’ rights and the Northern Ireland border) before even thinking about talking future trade arrangements. Which in turn means GATT article 24 won’t apply. So we would immediately find ourselves trading on WTO terms, with the tariffs and checks that those imply, and no 10-year cushion. And no other major trading nation trades purely on WTO terms. British goods exported to the EU would be subject to tariffs. True, many of them are low (2-5%) but for agriculture they might be crippling, especially for small farmers (the average tariff on agri-food products is 22%, with dairy at 30% and meat often getting over 50%). Tariffs on goods coming into Britain would still be maintained on a number of food and animals products, as well as cars, but these would be significantly reduced for things such as pork and poultry. This may lead to cheaper products for consumers but would be devastating for many family farms, unable to compete with agricultural products coming from the US and elsewhere. It would also mean a hard border in Northern Ireland to control the quality of goods going to the Republic of Ireland and thus into the EU.
There would be delays on goods crossing the border and associated costs. As part of the EU single market and customs union there are no customs checks or formalities. No deal, by contrast, would mean the introduction of a swath of documentary checks, as well as a number of physical checks on vehicles and goods. These are, whatever the odd quote from an official in Calais might imply, not optional. Indeed, they happen at the UK border already for non-EU goods. This matters particularly for those manufacturing industries reliant on “just in time” supply chains, whose business models would simply not function in the event of delays at ports.
Take the car industry. Honda requires 350 trucks to carry 2m components to its Swindon plant each day. It says that just 15 minutes of customs delays would cost it up to £850,000 a year. Stockpiling parts to mitigate this would be hugely difficult and expensive. And then there are services, a crucial area for the UK economy. The UK would be relying on the relevant WTO provision: the general agreement on trade in services (GATS), which contains very limited provisions. So, to take one example, the 750 UK-based TV channels that broadcast into the EU will have to cease doing so or move into Europe. UK companies establishing in Europe will have to deal with 27 different sets of rules instead of one. And they will have limited protection against discrimination, meaning reduced UK investment abroad and reduced job growth here: every job created abroad by UK companies creates 3.5 in the UK.
The WTO also says nothing about cooperation in the field of criminal justice. The close cooperation enjoyed by UK police and law enforcement agencies with their counterparts in the EU27 will cease. The UK will no longer have access to the EU databases sharing information about wanted people, nor will it have access to the European arrest warrant (for returning criminals to the UK). Rather, it will have to rely on arcane conventions from the 1950s and bilateral agreements with each EU state. They will be nowhere near as effective as EU law is now. The no-deal slogan is appealing in its simplicity. And it ticks many political boxes for those who support it. But there needs to be honesty about the consequences. • Catherine Barnard is senior fellow at The UK in a Changing Europe. Anand Menon is director of The UK in a Changing Europe
Related video: Nigel Farage says normal campaigning is becoming impossible because people have been 'radicalised' Nigel Farage's Brexit Party refuses to rule out joining far-right EU group with Salvini and Le Pen Matteo Salvini has invited the Brexit Party to join the European Parliament alliance
A very close friend of mine, who has an incredible knowledge & interest in Politics & an IQ of about 200, posted this today on another Forum I frequent, which has a wonderful Brexit thread.
Fourth WAB vote fails, by bigger majority than previous three
May goes
Tory Members, a majority of whom are pro WTO get outers, are faced with a choice of Boris and Raab (my favourite Brexit bullshitter because, alone among people saying they could negotiate a better deal, he has tried once already, when it was literally his job, and already failed.)
Boris becomes Prime Minister
Goes to Europe. Discovers he can't get any material concessions either
In the run up to October, time is running out
No WAB can get through parliament, no majority for 2nd ref, CU, no deal...nothing
The choice then becomes stark,no deal or revoke.
Boris of course opts for no deal
but he cannot get it through Parliament.
There is a vote of no confidence. The One nation tories know going to the polls would be disaster but cannot accept no deal
the government falls
Election
Tories lose many seats but Corbyn doesn't make that much headway either. From a Lab/Tory combined vote of 80% in 2017, that falls to the mid 60s as Lib dems make some progress and the Brexit Party is second in a lot of seats
Corbyn attempts to put together a coalition, but his potential coalition partners will not accept leaving.
He eventually argues that ending austerity, improving equality, investing in services, nationalising stuff is more important and opts to stick with revoke
Civil disorder follows, making the poll tax riots look like a 5th birthday party
Fourth WAB vote fails, by bigger majority than previous three
May goes
Tory Members, a majority of whom are pro WTO get outers, are faced with a choice of Boris and Raab (my favourite Brexit bullshitter because, alone among people saying they could negotiate a better deal, he has tried once already, when it was literally his job, and already failed.)
Boris becomes Prime Minister
Probably a fair assessment @tikay10 but could stop here with everyone "killing themselves with laughter" and nobody living happily ever after?
Fourth WAB vote fails, by bigger majority than previous three
May goes.
Tory Members, a majority of whom are pro WTO get outers, are faced with a choice of Boris and Raab (my favourite Brexit bullshitter because, alone among people saying they could negotiate a better deal, he has tried once already, when it was literally his job, and already failed.)
Boris becomes Prime Minister
Goes to Europe. Discovers he can't get any material concessions either
In the run up to October, time is running out
No WAB can get through parliament, no majority for 2nd ref, CU, no deal...nothing
The choice then becomes stark,no deal or revoke.
Boris of course opts for no deal
but he cannot get it through Parliament.
There is a vote of no confidence. The One nation tories know going to the polls would be disaster but cannot accept no deal
the government falls
Election
Tories lose many seats but Corbyn doesn't make that much headway either. From a Lab/Tory combined vote of 80% in 2017, that falls to the mid 60s as Lib dems make some progress and the Brexit Party is second in a lot of seats
Corbyn attempts to put together a coalition, but his potential coalition partners will not accept leaving.
He eventually argues that ending austerity, improving equality, investing in services, nationalising stuff is more important and opts to stick with revoke
Civil disorder follows, making the poll tax riots look like a 5th birthday party
Fourth WAB vote fails, by bigger majority than previous three
May goes
Tory Members, a majority of whom are pro WTO get outers, are faced with a choice of Boris and Raab (my favourite Brexit bullshitter because, alone among people saying they could negotiate a better deal, he has tried once already, when it was literally his job, and already failed.)
Boris becomes Prime Minister
Goes to Europe. Discovers he can't get any material concessions either
In the run up to October, time is running out
No WAB can get through parliament, no majority for 2nd ref, CU, no deal...nothing
The choice then becomes stark,no deal or revoke.
Boris of course opts for no deal
but he cannot get it through Parliament.
There is a vote of no confidence. The One nation tories know going to the polls would be disaster but cannot accept no deal
the government falls
Election
Tories lose many seats but Corbyn doesn't make that much headway either. From a Lab/Tory combined vote of 80% in 2017, that falls to the mid 60s as Lib dems make some progress and the Brexit Party is second in a lot of seats
Corbyn attempts to put together a coalition, but his potential coalition partners will not accept leaving.
He eventually argues that ending austerity, improving equality, investing in services, nationalising stuff is more important and opts to stick with revoke
Civil disorder follows, making the poll tax riots look like a 5th birthday party
I have to confess, I have not read much of this, as I am not keen on the friction caused with opposing views. Others are fine with it, and that's cool.
I just wanted to post to remind people how important it is to vote in the European Elections tomorrow. whatever your view point, party preference is.
For me in elections I have always flipped between Labour and Conservative depend on their policies at the time.
I make no qualms about it, I don't want us to leave the EU period. So I am supporting and voting for THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS this time as their position is clear.
I think Vince Cable is a selfless politician and his stance is very clear below:
Comments
The reaction to Theresa May's "new deal" on Brexit is the lead story for most papers.
The Guardian's headline reflects the overall tone of the coverage, saying her final effort to win the backing of MPs across the Commons "fell flat".
"Another fine mess", is the headline in the "i". For the Financial Times, the deal was "declared dead on arrival by furious Conservative Eurosceptics".
The Conservative Home website says the prime minister threw herself on Labour's mercy by dangling the prospect of a referendum.
Confidence vote?
But the Independent website says her deal "looked doomed to failure", while the Daily Mail sees it as a "gamble too far".
The Sun says the gamble backfired spectacularly, and senior Tory backbenchers will now force a confidence vote in her leadership when they meet later.
The Daily Telegraph reports that more than 50 Conservative MPs said they would vote against the Withdrawal Agreement Bill - among them, at least 20 who had previously backed Mrs May's deal.
According to the Times, Brexiteer cabinet ministers are expected to urge the prime minister to abandon her proposals. They want her to allow her successor to find a way through the impasse, it adds.
In the words of the Huffpost UK website, the men and women in grey suits may put her out of her misery.
Shoppers v robbers
Finally, there are dramatic accounts and pictures of shopkeepers, customers and passers-by chasing members of a moped gang who had allegedly raided a jewellery shop in west London.
The Daily Telegraph reports the robbers armed with a machete, hammers and a crowbar struck in broad daylight during the Monday evening rush hour.
As they tried to flee on their mopeds, the Times says, up to 20 bystanders chased them.
One member of the public knocked over a suspect with a traffic cone while others used a bin and a menu board to stop them.
A local resident tripped one of the men before about 10 others pinned him down until police arrived. Five men have been arrested
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-48360623
BORIS Johnson may choose to have a second referendum to help keep himself as Prime Minister if he comes into power, a political expert has claimed.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1129978/Brexit-News-update-latest-Boris-Johnson-Theresa-May
IRRESPECTIVE of who wins the EU referendum there will be one big loser: the British public.
https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/672653/great-british-public-eu-referendum-losers
Richard Tice was grilled in a BBC interview as Gordon Brown demanded a probe into Brexit Party funding - but Nigel Farage dismissed it as a "smear"
Mr Brown said Farage "won't be remembered as a man of the people, he'll be remembered as a man of the PayPal"
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/squirming-brexit-party-chief-repeatedly-16171228
The Brexit party has a new name for no deal. But the case for it still relies on dubious assumptions and flawed analysis
Richard Tice, chairman of the Brexit party, was banging the no-deal drum on the Today programme earlier this week, arguing that a “clean Brexit” (sounds appealing, doesn’t it?) would work out just fine because of the provisions of the World Trade Organization (WTO) treaty.
This analysis is fatally flawed. It rests on assumptions – dubious, at best –that allow the impact of a so-called clean Brexit to be fundamentally misrepresented. Here’s why.
By definition, “no deal” means the UK leaves the EU without signing the article 50 withdrawal agreement (Theresa May’s deal). Unlike a business deal, it absolutely does not mean carrying on as before (as is generally the case when commercial negotiations fail). Rather, no deal means that many of those laws that govern our interaction with the EU will cease to apply to us. However well both we and the EU prepare contingency plans, this will mean significant problems when it comes to, among other things, travel and trade. Not a good look for any governing party (hence all the more curious that there are Tory MPs who think it should be government policy).
Then there is the “no trade deal” scenario. This is different from no deal as it may come about if the UK signs up to the withdrawal agreement but then fails to strike a trade deal with the EU governing future arrangements.
The reason the two kinds of no-deal outcome are often confused is that the withdrawal agreement contains the seeds of a future relationship (despite what the EU has insisted about not negotiating the future until we have left). This is the famous backstop, which specifies a certain relationship with the EU for the UK as a whole, unless another way can be found of avoiding an intra-Irish border.
Those who favour no trade deal, or who favour the kind of trade deal that would necessitate a border in Ireland, simply refuse to sign up to the withdrawal agreement. Hence the no-trade-deal argument becomes a no-deal one.
From the point of view of Brexiters, no deal makes sense because, unlike the backstop, it would leave the UK completely free to negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world on terms of its own choosing. It also means control over immigration, and no interference by the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
But this line of thinking relies on a series of highly optimistic assumptions about how no deal would pan out. The argument of Tice and co runs like this. Once we’ve left, the EU will sit down with us to negotiate a trade deal. In the interim, article 24(5) of the WTO’s general agreement on tariffs and trade (GATT) will ensure that no new restrictions on trade are put in place.
The problem with this “logic” is that it’s simply wrong in law. The main aim of article 24 of GATT is to enable the adoption of an interim agreement necessary for the formation of a customs union (CU) or a free-trade area (FTA) within a reasonable period of time (10 years). This recognises that a CU or an FTA will take time to conclude, and may need to be implemented gradually. The interim agreement is intended to prevent an increase of tariffs or regulations in the meantime.
But if Britain crashes out without a withdrawal deal, there will be no negotiations and hence no agreement leading to a CU or an FTA. The EU has made it clear that, in the event of a no-deal outcome, it will expect to settle outstanding withdrawal issues with the UK (money, citizens’ rights and the Northern Ireland border) before even thinking about talking future trade arrangements. Which in turn means GATT article 24 won’t apply. So we would immediately find ourselves trading on WTO terms, with the tariffs and checks that those imply, and no 10-year cushion. And no other major trading nation trades purely on WTO terms.
British goods exported to the EU would be subject to tariffs. True, many of them are low (2-5%) but for agriculture they might be crippling, especially for small farmers (the average tariff on agri-food products is 22%, with dairy at 30% and meat often getting over 50%).
Tariffs on goods coming into Britain would still be maintained on a number of food and animals products, as well as cars, but these would be significantly reduced for things such as pork and poultry. This may lead to cheaper products for consumers but would be devastating for many family farms, unable to compete with agricultural products coming from the US and elsewhere. It would also mean a hard border in Northern Ireland to control the quality of goods going to the Republic of Ireland and thus into the EU.
There would be delays on goods crossing the border and associated costs. As part of the EU single market and customs union there are no customs checks or formalities. No deal, by contrast, would mean the introduction of a swath of documentary checks, as well as a number of physical checks on vehicles and goods.
These are, whatever the odd quote from an official in Calais might imply, not optional. Indeed, they happen at the UK border already for non-EU goods. This matters particularly for those manufacturing industries reliant on “just in time” supply chains, whose business models would simply not function in the event of delays at ports.
Take the car industry. Honda requires 350 trucks to carry 2m components to its Swindon plant each day. It says that just 15 minutes of customs delays would cost it up to £850,000 a year. Stockpiling parts to mitigate this would be hugely difficult and expensive.
And then there are services, a crucial area for the UK economy. The UK would be relying on the relevant WTO provision: the general agreement on trade in services (GATS), which contains very limited provisions. So, to take one example, the 750 UK-based TV channels that broadcast into the EU will have to cease doing so or move into Europe. UK companies establishing in Europe will have to deal with 27 different sets of rules instead of one. And they will have limited protection against discrimination, meaning reduced UK investment abroad and reduced job growth here: every job created abroad by UK companies creates 3.5 in the UK.
The WTO also says nothing about cooperation in the field of criminal justice. The close cooperation enjoyed by UK police and law enforcement agencies with their counterparts in the EU27 will cease. The UK will no longer have access to the EU databases sharing information about wanted people, nor will it have access to the European arrest warrant (for returning criminals to the UK). Rather, it will have to rely on arcane conventions from the 1950s and bilateral agreements with each EU state. They will be nowhere near as effective as EU law is now.
The no-deal slogan is appealing in its simplicity. And it ticks many political boxes for those who support it. But there needs to be honesty about the consequences.
• Catherine Barnard is senior fellow at The UK in a Changing Europe. Anand Menon is director of The UK in a Changing Europe
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/21/clean-brexit-party-no-deal
Nigel Farage's Brexit Party refuses to rule out joining far-right EU group with Salvini and Le Pen
Matteo Salvini has invited the Brexit Party to join the European Parliament alliance
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-party-farage-european-elections-far-right-salvini-le-pen-a8923601.html
37% of the population voted in favour of Brexit.
63% didn't.
Enjoy!
Enjoy!
Enjoy!
*Note these are the opinions of comedians and as such should not be taken seriously!
Good work @somniatis
A very close friend of mine, who has an incredible knowledge & interest in Politics & an IQ of about 200, posted this today on another Forum I frequent, which has a wonderful Brexit thread.
Follows.....
"i think i have it all worked out anyway..
clears throat
--
Fourth WAB vote fails, by bigger majority than previous three
May goes
Tory Members, a majority of whom are pro WTO get outers, are faced with a choice of Boris and Raab (my favourite Brexit bullshitter because, alone among people saying they could negotiate a better deal, he has tried once already, when it was literally his job, and already failed.)
Boris becomes Prime Minister
Goes to Europe. Discovers he can't get any material concessions either
In the run up to October, time is running out
No WAB can get through parliament, no majority for 2nd ref, CU, no deal...nothing
The choice then becomes stark,no deal or revoke.
Boris of course opts for no deal
but he cannot get it through Parliament.
There is a vote of no confidence. The One nation tories know going to the polls would be disaster but cannot accept no deal
the government falls
Election
Tories lose many seats but Corbyn doesn't make that much headway either. From a Lab/Tory combined vote of 80% in 2017, that falls to the mid 60s as Lib dems make some progress and the Brexit Party is second in a lot of seats
Corbyn attempts to put together a coalition, but his potential coalition partners will not accept leaving.
He eventually argues that ending austerity, improving equality, investing in services, nationalising stuff is more important and opts to stick with revoke
Civil disorder follows, making the poll tax riots look like a 5th birthday party
after that, dunno!"
May going looks imminent.
I just wanted to post to remind people how important it is to vote in the European Elections tomorrow. whatever your view point, party preference is.
For me in elections I have always flipped between Labour and Conservative depend on their policies at the time.
I make no qualms about it, I don't want us to leave the EU period. So I am supporting and voting for THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS this time as their position is clear.
I think Vince Cable is a selfless politician and his stance is very clear below:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-48068423/sir-vince-cable-we-are-the-party-of-remain
Last European Elections only got a 10% turn out from the UK. Do we really care so little?
SO PLEASE VOTE for whoever you want to, it is important to send a message to our "leaders" that we care about our Country AND wider Europe as a whole.