British universities are facing “one of the biggest threats” to their financial viability due to Brexit, according to 150 university leaders. The heads — including leaders from the Russell Group, Guild HE, Million Plus, Universities UK and University Alliance — sent a letter to all MPs warning that it could take the institutions “decades to recover” from the fallout from Brexit.
Brexit fears put brake on UK growth as house prices slide
Brexit fears have ground the UK economy to a virtual halt and triggered the biggest slide in house prices since 2011, an avalanche of gloom-laden new year data revealed on Friday. Anxiety over a potentially catastrophic no-deal EU exit is paralysing business confidence, which has crashed to levels barely seen since the financial crisis, says financial data firm IHS Markit. Its latest snapshot of services, manufacturing and construction firms is consistent with growth of just 0.1% across the wider economy in the final quarter of last year — the weakest for six years. “Clarity on Brexit is needed urgently in order to prevent the economy sliding into contraction,” chief business economist Chris Williamson said.
Services sector grows at subdued rate as Brexit uncertainty hits
Britain’s powerhouse services sector saw business activity rise at one of the slowest rates for two-and-a-half years in December, while job creation also ground to a near halt as Brexit uncertainty weighed on firms.
The only people who seem to be offering anything concrete are the Lib Dems, Rees-Mogg, and May (In, Out, and Shake it All About).
Meanwhile loads of politicians come up with 3 genius ideas:-
1. Even though we are voting against the only deal on the table, we insist there must not be no deal
2. Never mind the PM has been negotiating for months, and we are voting against it, we insist that it is she that must come up with a Plan B. In 3 days. And no-one is going to say what that should be
3. The Labour party wants an election to be called, and if it wins, it will then consider what it might do going forward, with all options on the table. It is confident that, in the 7 or 8 minutes that will be left that we will get a better deal without saying why, how, or even what it might be
The only people who seem to be offering anything concrete are the Lib Dems, Rees-Mogg, and May (In, Out, and Shake it All About).
Meanwhile loads of politicians come up with 3 genius ideas:-
1. Even though we are voting against the only deal on the table, we insist there must not be no deal
2. Never mind the PM has been negotiating for months, and we are voting against it, we insist that it is she that must come up with a Plan B. In 3 days. And no-one is going to say what that should be
3. The Labour party wants an election to be called, and if it wins, it will then consider what it might do going forward, with all options on the table. It is confident that, in the 7 or 8 minutes that will be left that we will get a better deal without saying why, how, or even what it might be
Hopeless.
Many things have become clear since the referendum.
Leave won because they clearly ran a better campaign, rather than because it was a better proposition.
This was despite the fact that they lied, exaggerated, and broke the law. The result was also influenced by foreign powers, although it is impossible to say by how much.
I believe that the Remain vote was less influenced by lies, as a Remain vote was for the status quo, and we all knew what that was. Although the project fear that was threatened as a result of a Leave vote, was a huge mistake, and backfired on the Remain campaign. This has allowed the Brexiteers to write off every post referendum catastrophic economic forecast, as project fear mark 2.
We should never have had a referendum in the first place, but there should have been at the very least a decent majority for such a massive change. Something like maybe 60% in favour before we would consider leaving.
Theresa May has pursued an impossible negotiation. Her many red lines have made it impossible to achieve a deal that could possibly get through Parliament. These red lines were put in place to attempt to satisfy the different factions in her own party. What was best for the country has become a secondary consideration
I don't believe the EU has done anything other than stick to their fundamental rules, which was predictable.
Everyone seems to be talking about the merits of Theresa Mays deal. Yet it is merely a Withdrawal Agreement, and not a trade deal.
The Brexiteers claim that everyone knew what they were voting for, yet we still don't know what we are going to get. Many options are still possible, and we wont know the details of any deal for years to come.
Theresa May is attempting to increase her support in the Meaningful Vote, by threatening a catastrophe as the only option. Is that democracy?
Some Brexiteers describe a no deal Brexit as the best outcome, but many describe this option as a complete disaster. They cant both be right.
A second referendum is described by some as undemocratic. Are we saying that in a democracy people aren't allowed to change their minds. If they haven't in sufficient numbers then the result would be unchanged.
I think that the attempt by Parliament to rule out no deal, is a good decision. Although they are struggling with realistic alternatives.
Surely the Government has a responsibility to come up with a plan b. It was predicted months ago that the Meaningful Vote would be lost by a wide margin.
The Labour Party have no chance of an election, and their Brexit plans are a complete fantasy. If you asked a Labour MP, if all Leave voters should have their right legs amputated, they would all reply, well we are not taking it off the table. The EU have clearly stated that they have no intention of reopening The Withdrawal Agreement for the Labour Party or anyone else,
The difficulty is The Backstop. This is the same Backstop that was agreed with the EU over a year ago.
What was the Government plan for the Irish border pre referendum. The EU was bound to insist on a border to protect the integrity of the Single Market. So what was the plan?
Without relying on technological solutions that don't yet exist, there were three obvious solutions, but Theresa May ruled them all out on day one, and has failed to find a solution that Parliament will accept.
We could have had a hard border on the island of Ireland, and been in breach of The Good Friday Agreement.
Option 2 is a border in the Irish Sea, which splits up the UK.
The other option was to stay in The Customs Union, and Single Market.
Surely one of these options should have been chosen pre referendum, and made clear in the campaign.
To rule out all the solutions to a particular problem is idiotic.
How could anyone in Northern Ireland vote to leave?
I think that the attempt by Parliament to rule out no deal, is a good decision. Although they are struggling with realistic alternatives.
Surely the Government has a responsibility to come up with a plan b. It was predicted months ago that the Meaningful Vote would be lost by a wide margin.
The Labour Party have no chance of an election, and their Brexit plans are a complete fantasy. If you asked a Labour MP, if all Leave voters should have their right legs amputated, they would all reply, well we are not taking it off the table. The EU have clearly stated that they have no intention of reopening The Withdrawal Agreement for the Labour Party or anyone else,
The difficulty is The Backstop. This is the same Backstop that was agreed with the EU over a year ago.
What was the Government plan for the Irish border pre referendum. The EU was bound to insist on a border to protect the integrity of the Single Market. So what was the plan?
Without relying on technological solutions that don't yet exist, there were three obvious solutions, but Theresa May ruled them all out on day one, and has failed to find a solution that Parliament will accept.
We could have had a hard border on the island of Ireland, and been in breach of The Good Friday Agreement.
Option 2 is a border in the Irish Sea, which splits up the UK.
The other option was to stay in The Customs Union, and Single Market.
Surely one of these options should have been chosen pre referendum, and made clear in the campaign.
To rule out all the solutions to a particular problem is idiotic.
How could anyone in Northern Ireland vote to leave?
How can you rule out "no deal" without having a deal to agree? It's just political posturing. It is similar to all these fools who criticise the PM for being a Remainer, while conveniently forgetting that not a single Brexiteer was willing to put his hand up when the job of PM was vacant.
With the greatest of respect, Haysie, you appear to be confusing common sense with politics, or indeed the electorate. It is precisely by being vague, and letting people imagine their "Brexit" was the only Brexit, that got us in this mess. At best, no-one would have listened about Irish problems pre-the referendum, at worst it would have cost votes. Farmers receive more benefits than almost everyone else (bar politicians) from the EU, but they still voted to leave. Ditto fishermen, and indeed Wales.
There is no "solution" that politicians will accept. There are 3 main options, and more than 50% will vote against all 3. Useless. And it is too late to turn back now.
I think that the attempt by Parliament to rule out no deal, is a good decision. Although they are struggling with realistic alternatives.
Surely the Government has a responsibility to come up with a plan b. It was predicted months ago that the Meaningful Vote would be lost by a wide margin.
The Labour Party have no chance of an election, and their Brexit plans are a complete fantasy. If you asked a Labour MP, if all Leave voters should have their right legs amputated, they would all reply, well we are not taking it off the table. The EU have clearly stated that they have no intention of reopening The Withdrawal Agreement for the Labour Party or anyone else,
The difficulty is The Backstop. This is the same Backstop that was agreed with the EU over a year ago.
What was the Government plan for the Irish border pre referendum. The EU was bound to insist on a border to protect the integrity of the Single Market. So what was the plan?
Without relying on technological solutions that don't yet exist, there were three obvious solutions, but Theresa May ruled them all out on day one, and has failed to find a solution that Parliament will accept.
We could have had a hard border on the island of Ireland, and been in breach of The Good Friday Agreement.
Option 2 is a border in the Irish Sea, which splits up the UK.
The other option was to stay in The Customs Union, and Single Market.
Surely one of these options should have been chosen pre referendum, and made clear in the campaign.
To rule out all the solutions to a particular problem is idiotic.
How could anyone in Northern Ireland vote to leave?
How can you rule out "no deal" without having a deal to agree? It's just political posturing. It is similar to all these fools who criticise the PM for being a Remainer, while conveniently forgetting that not a single Brexiteer was willing to put his hand up when the job of PM was vacant.
With the greatest of respect, Haysie, you appear to be confusing common sense with politics, or indeed the electorate. It is precisely by being vague, and letting people imagine their "Brexit" was the only Brexit, that got us in this mess. At best, no-one would have listened about Irish problems pre-the referendum, at worst it would have cost votes. Farmers receive more benefits than almost everyone else (bar politicians) from the EU, but they still voted to leave. Ditto fishermen, and indeed Wales.
There is no "solution" that politicians will accept. There are 3 main options, and more than 50% will vote against all 3. Useless. And it is too late to turn back now.
I think that ruling out no deal in response to The PM, threatening one side with either her deal or no deal, and the other side with her deal or no Brexit, is a reasonable thing to do, particularly when so many people consider no deal as a catastrophe for the country.
I don't think there has been any common sense around Brexit.
Probably the most ridiculous thing happening is that there are numerous MPs walking around saying that they don't support the PMs deal, and suggesting they would support a Canada, or Norway, with a number of pluses, or super in front. Yet the Meaningful Vote does not refer to any deal, it is purely about The Withdrawal Agreement, and a Canada, or Norway deal will both require A Withdrawal Agreement.
For us to move forward at all, the options seem to be, no deal unless it is ruled out, a second referendum, or The Withdrawal Agreement getting through Parliament, which is unlikely.
I don't believe a General Election would get us anywhere, we would just be back to square one. Unless one party stood on a second referendum, or a particular deal that could just be negotiated with the EU, without a Meaningful Vote.
If The Withdrawal Agreement got through Parliament there could be discussions on the best trade deal we could get, but there seems little chance of that happening.
Arguing over which deal suits us best seems stupid, when if we continue as we are, we will never get to the trade deal.
What everyone is referring to as a no deal Brexit, is really a No Withdrawal Agreement Brexit, in which case we will leave in March without even starting to negotiate a deal. That would be pathetic, and disastrous for the country.
Michael Gove has been saying that a no deal Brexit is a disaster for farmers. The Fisherman want the best of both worlds. They always point to EU fishermen fishing in our waters, and forget that our fishermen fish in theirs. They want to leave the Common Fisheries Policy, but presumably continue to sell most of their fish in Europe. Yet the likely outcome of leaving the Common Fisheries will mean tariffs. There is a good short video on the Fish N Chips thread on this and how they saved our cod.
Another referendum may be the only way out.
If the question was a specific deal or remain, we would have a clear course.
As Phil said in his post, we cant turn the clock back.
So we are where we are, and need to get out of this mess.
Our current position is that The Withdrawal Agreement has to be passed in Parliament, prior to commencing trade negotiations. All the experts say that the majority will vote against it.
The default position is that we leave in March with no deal.
Most experts say that this would be a disaster. There is also a majority in Parliament that are against no deal, and they are attempting to rule it out.
So in a nutshell The PM has to come up with a plan b, or we leave with no deal.
If we had a 2nd referendum with a choice of one particular deal or remaining, then there would be nothing else to do.
If the majority voted to remain then we would stay in. Alternatively if the majority voted for whichever deal was on the ballot, we could do that deal without Parliamentary approval. End of.
The deal could be Canada, Norway, The PMs deal, or WTO Rules, or another deal.
If we had a General Election, a different Tory PM, or a Labour PM would have to come up with a solution that could get through Parliament, and that the EU would accept. This looks doubtful as there seems to be no majority in Parliament for any particular deal.
I suppose that if Labour won with an overall majority, and they chose to stay in the Customs Union, and Single Market, this would do away with the need for a Backstop. However they think that they can do this without the obligations of Freedom of Movement, just accepting EU rules, and think they can have a say in future EU trade deals. This is a fantasy.
However The Backstop cant get through.
The only other solution is that The Government revokes Article 50, and we just stay in without consulting anyone. This would cause ructions.
We are currently at an impasse because before we can negotiate a trade deal, Parliament has to pass The Withdrawal Agreement, and they aren't.
A second referendum might end up the only solution. Not the best solution, maybe not a good solution, just the only solution.
If you think the country is already divided over brexit ..that would be nothing compared to the ramifications a second referendum would bring about
There is no doubt the country is divided. Another referendum may not be the ideal solution, but it is a solution. If a sufficient number of people haven't changed their minds through being better informed, then we will get the same result.
If we continue as we are, we will have Brexit on the agenda for years to come, while we negotiate the trade deal, or the catastrophe that is no deal. Neither of which are likely to bring the country closer together.
Brexit: Hunt warns of Brexit 'paralysis' if deal is rejected
Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt has warned the UK faces "Brexit paralysis" if MPs reject Theresa May's EU deal. He said two Commons defeats this week showed Parliament was "committed one way or another to try to stop no-deal". But that would risk "no Brexit", he argued, which would be a "breach of trust" with the public. Tory rebel Dominic Grieve said it was the duty of MPs to "stop people committing national suicide" by going ahead with a no-deal Brexit.
He told a rally of supporters of another referendum in London that while the prime minister had done her best in negotiating the deal to honour the referendum result, while minimising the damage, the "unpleasant truth" was that "it can satisfy no-one". "There is only one way out," he said. "When the prime minister's deal is defeated, what else can we possibly offer to the British public which has any coherence at all but to go back and ask them to reconsider their decision?"
Brexit: May loses grip on deal after fresh Commons humiliation
Theresa May is in an increasingly boxed-in position as her room to manoeuvre is further constrained. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images Theresa May’s room for manoeuvre should her Brexit deal be rejected next week was further constrained on Wednesday night, after the government lost a second dramatic parliamentary showdown in as many days. An increasingly boxed-in prime minister must now set out her plan B within three working days of a defeat next Tuesday, after the rebel amendment passed. There were furious scenes in the House of Commons as the Speaker, John Bercow, took the controversial decision to allow a vote on the amendment, tabled by the former attorney general Dominic Grieve. A string of MPs, including the leader of the house, Andrea Leadsom, repeatedly intervened to question the Speaker’s approach. Some accused him of being biased against Brexit. But parliament went on to back Grieve as the prime minister was defied by Conservative rebels determined to hand control of the Brexit process to MPs if next week’s vote is lost. The fresh defeat, which followed a separate backbench amendment to the finance bill on Tuesday, means the government will have to return to parliament swiftly with a plan. An accelerated timetable will also pile the pressure on Labour to move quickly. The motion setting out the government’s plan can be amended by MPs hoping to push their own alternative proposals, from a second referendum to a harder Brexit. Jeremy Corbyn’s party will have to decide which to back.
Hangover for UK farmers as Brexit uncertainty hits brewing barley sales to EU
LONDON/HAMBURG, Jan 11 (Reuters) - Sales of British malting barley to European Union brewers and malt producers for delivery after Brexit have come to a virtual stop because of uncertainty about future trading relations. The standstill in so-called forward export sales for delivery in coming months means UK farmers are not able to take advantage of current attractive prices and are losing business to other EU suppliers, traders said. "They have essentially lost market access at this point of time for forward sales which is frustrating because commercially it is the right thing to do, forward prices are high," said Jack Watts, chief combinable crops adviser with the National Farmers Union, which represents farmers in England and Wales. Britain, which counts barley as its second most important arable crop after wheat, is due to leave the EU on March 29 and there is still no final deal on future trading terms. Forward sales of malting barley for delivery after this date have not materialised, traders said.
"It is certainly true that German importers are not currently buying British malting barley. This is because of the uncertainty with Brexit, or with no Brexit or whatever," one German malting barley trader said. "The great problem is that it is not currently possible to make a commercial calculation because it is not known if malting barley supplies you buy from Britain now for delivery in later months will face some form of EU import tax/customs duties," the trader added. "There is a commercial risk which is too large to take
Tesco and M&S reveal stockpiling has started amid 'no-deal' Brexit fears
Two of Britain's biggest supermarket chains have revealed they are stockpiling food to prepare for a "no-deal" Brexit. Tesco (Frankfurt: 852647 - news) and Marks & Spencer (Frankfurt: 534418 - news) made the announcement with less than 80 days to go until the UK is due to leave the EU. Steve Rowe, chief executive of M&S, said his chain had "upped its ante" and begun making a "few real choices". He revealed it was bulking up on "additional long-life stuff". Bur Mr Rowe said his food business was 70% fresh - so "anything that slows down will contribute to cost and waste". Davis Lewis, chief executive of Tesco, also admitted calling meetings to discuss increasing long-life grocery stocks. However he added the chain "can't" stockpile fresh food in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Mr Lewis said given the UK imports half of fresh food it eats, Tesco was "very keen" there will be "no sort of friction" at the border. He added the store "sat down with all suppliers to discuss their production capability, where they hold stock and if we can help them hold it". Sainsbury (Amsterdam: SJ6.AS - news) 's CEO Mike Coupe has also warned that given the retailer imports 30% of its food from Europe, a no-deal Brexit would be "hugely disruptive".
Comments
British universities are facing “one of the biggest threats” to their financial viability due to Brexit, according to 150 university leaders.
The heads — including leaders from the Russell Group, Guild HE, Million Plus, Universities UK and University Alliance — sent a letter to all MPs warning that it could take the institutions “decades to recover” from the fallout from Brexit.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/uk-university-finances-put-risk-brexit-112039651.html
Brexit fears have ground the UK economy to a virtual halt and triggered the biggest slide in house prices since 2011, an avalanche of gloom-laden new year data revealed on Friday.
Anxiety over a potentially catastrophic no-deal EU exit is paralysing business confidence, which has crashed to levels barely seen since the financial crisis, says financial data firm IHS Markit.
Its latest snapshot of services, manufacturing and construction firms is consistent with growth of just 0.1% across the wider economy in the final quarter of last year — the weakest for six years. “Clarity on Brexit is needed urgently in order to prevent the economy sliding into contraction,” chief business economist Chris Williamson said.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/brexit-fears-put-brake-uk-110000224.html
Britain’s powerhouse services sector saw business activity rise at one of the slowest rates for two-and-a-half years in December, while job creation also ground to a near halt as Brexit uncertainty weighed on firms.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/services-sector-grows-subdued-rate-102947497.html
The only people who seem to be offering anything concrete are the Lib Dems, Rees-Mogg, and May (In, Out, and Shake it All About).
Meanwhile loads of politicians come up with 3 genius ideas:-
1. Even though we are voting against the only deal on the table, we insist there must not be no deal
2. Never mind the PM has been negotiating for months, and we are voting against it, we insist that it is she that must come up with a Plan B. In 3 days. And no-one is going to say what that should be
3. The Labour party wants an election to be called, and if it wins, it will then consider what it might do going forward, with all options on the table. It is confident that, in the 7 or 8 minutes that will be left that we will get a better deal without saying why, how, or even what it might be
Hopeless.
Leave won because they clearly ran a better campaign, rather than because it was a better proposition.
This was despite the fact that they lied, exaggerated, and broke the law. The result was also influenced by foreign powers, although it is impossible to say by how much.
I believe that the Remain vote was less influenced by lies, as a Remain vote was for the status quo, and we all knew what that was. Although the project fear that was threatened as a result of a Leave vote, was a huge mistake, and backfired on the Remain campaign. This has allowed the Brexiteers to write off every post referendum catastrophic economic forecast, as project fear mark 2.
We should never have had a referendum in the first place, but there should have been at the very least a decent majority for such a massive change. Something like maybe 60% in favour before we would consider leaving.
Theresa May has pursued an impossible negotiation. Her many red lines have made it impossible to achieve a deal that could possibly get through Parliament. These red lines were put in place to attempt to satisfy the different factions in her own party. What was best for the country has become a secondary consideration
I don't believe the EU has done anything other than stick to their fundamental rules, which was predictable.
Everyone seems to be talking about the merits of Theresa Mays deal. Yet it is merely a Withdrawal Agreement, and not a trade deal.
The Brexiteers claim that everyone knew what they were voting for, yet we still don't know what we are going to get. Many options are still possible, and we wont know the details of any deal for years to come.
Theresa May is attempting to increase her support in the Meaningful Vote, by threatening a catastrophe as the only option. Is that democracy?
Some Brexiteers describe a no deal Brexit as the best outcome, but many describe this option as a complete disaster. They cant both be right.
A second referendum is described by some as undemocratic. Are we saying that in a democracy people aren't allowed to change their minds. If they haven't in sufficient numbers then the result would be unchanged.
I think that the attempt by Parliament to rule out no deal, is a good decision. Although they are struggling with realistic alternatives.
Surely the Government has a responsibility to come up with a plan b. It was predicted months ago that the Meaningful Vote would be lost by a wide margin.
The Labour Party have no chance of an election, and their Brexit plans are a complete fantasy. If you asked a Labour MP, if all Leave voters should have their right legs amputated, they would all reply, well we are not taking it off the table. The EU have clearly stated that they have no intention of reopening The Withdrawal Agreement for the Labour Party or anyone else,
The difficulty is The Backstop. This is the same Backstop that was agreed with the EU over a year ago.
What was the Government plan for the Irish border pre referendum. The EU was bound to insist on a border to protect the integrity of the Single Market. So what was the plan?
Without relying on technological solutions that don't yet exist, there were three obvious solutions, but Theresa May ruled them all out on day one, and has failed to find a solution that Parliament will accept.
We could have had a hard border on the island of Ireland, and been in breach of The Good Friday Agreement.
Option 2 is a border in the Irish Sea, which splits up the UK.
The other option was to stay in The Customs Union, and Single Market.
Surely one of these options should have been chosen pre referendum, and made clear in the campaign.
To rule out all the solutions to a particular problem is idiotic.
How could anyone in Northern Ireland vote to leave?
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/01/11/does-britain-understand-brexit
As Phil said in his post, we cant turn the clock back.
So we are where we are, and need to get out of this mess.
Our current position is that The Withdrawal Agreement has to be passed in Parliament, prior to commencing trade negotiations. All the experts say that the majority will vote against it.
The default position is that we leave in March with no deal.
Most experts say that this would be a disaster. There is also a majority in Parliament that are against no deal, and they are attempting to rule it out.
So in a nutshell The PM has to come up with a plan b, or we leave with no deal.
If we had a 2nd referendum with a choice of one particular deal or remaining, then there would be nothing else to do.
If the majority voted to remain then we would stay in. Alternatively if the majority voted for whichever deal was on the ballot, we could do that deal without Parliamentary approval. End of.
The deal could be Canada, Norway, The PMs deal, or WTO Rules, or another deal.
If we had a General Election, a different Tory PM, or a Labour PM would have to come up with a solution that could get through Parliament, and that the EU would accept. This looks doubtful as there seems to be no majority in Parliament for any particular deal.
I suppose that if Labour won with an overall majority, and they chose to stay in the Customs Union, and Single Market, this would do away with the need for a Backstop. However they think that they can do this without the obligations of Freedom of Movement, just accepting EU rules, and think they can have a say in future EU trade deals. This is a fantasy.
However The Backstop cant get through.
The only other solution is that The Government revokes Article 50, and we just stay in without consulting anyone. This would cause ructions.
We are currently at an impasse because before we can negotiate a trade deal, Parliament has to pass The Withdrawal Agreement, and they aren't.
A second referendum might end up the only solution. Not the best solution, maybe not a good solution, just the only solution.
Another referendum may not be the ideal solution, but it is a solution.
If a sufficient number of people haven't changed their minds through being better informed, then we will get the same result.
If we continue as we are, we will have Brexit on the agenda for years to come, while we negotiate the trade deal, or the catastrophe that is no deal. Neither of which are likely to bring the country closer together.
What a 'no-deal' Brexit could mean for the UK
Grieve on Brexit: 'No deal would be catastrophic'
Brexit: Dire consequences if there's no deal
Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt has warned the UK faces "Brexit paralysis" if MPs reject Theresa May's EU deal.
He said two Commons defeats this week showed Parliament was "committed one way or another to try to stop no-deal".
But that would risk "no Brexit", he argued, which would be a "breach of trust" with the public.
Tory rebel Dominic Grieve said it was the duty of MPs to "stop people committing national suicide" by going ahead with a no-deal Brexit.
He told a rally of supporters of another referendum in London that while the prime minister had done her best in negotiating the deal to honour the referendum result, while minimising the damage, the "unpleasant truth" was that "it can satisfy no-one".
"There is only one way out," he said.
"When the prime minister's deal is defeated, what else can we possibly offer to the British public which has any coherence at all but to go back and ask them to reconsider their decision?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46832808
Brexit: May loses grip on deal after fresh Commons humiliation
Theresa May is in an increasingly boxed-in position as her room to manoeuvre is further constrained. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images
Theresa May’s room for manoeuvre should her Brexit deal be rejected next week was further constrained on Wednesday night, after the government lost a second dramatic parliamentary showdown in as many days.
An increasingly boxed-in prime minister must now set out her plan B within three working days of a defeat next Tuesday, after the rebel amendment passed.
There were furious scenes in the House of Commons as the Speaker, John Bercow, took the controversial decision to allow a vote on the amendment, tabled by the former attorney general Dominic Grieve.
A string of MPs, including the leader of the house, Andrea Leadsom, repeatedly intervened to question the Speaker’s approach. Some accused him of being biased against Brexit.
But parliament went on to back Grieve as the prime minister was defied by Conservative rebels determined to hand control of the Brexit process to MPs if next week’s vote is lost.
The fresh defeat, which followed a separate backbench amendment to the finance bill on Tuesday, means the government will have to return to parliament swiftly with a plan.
An accelerated timetable will also pile the pressure on Labour to move quickly. The motion setting out the government’s plan can be amended by MPs hoping to push their own alternative proposals, from a second referendum to a harder Brexit. Jeremy Corbyn’s party will have to decide which to back.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/may-loses-grip-brexit-deal-210335355.html
LONDON/HAMBURG, Jan 11 (Reuters) - Sales of British malting barley to European Union brewers and malt producers for delivery after Brexit have come to a virtual stop because of uncertainty about future trading relations.
The standstill in so-called forward export sales for delivery in coming months means UK farmers are not able to take advantage of current attractive prices and are losing business to other EU suppliers, traders said.
"They have essentially lost market access at this point of time for forward sales which is frustrating because commercially it is the right thing to do, forward prices are high," said Jack Watts, chief combinable crops adviser with the National Farmers Union, which represents farmers in England and Wales.
Britain, which counts barley as its second most important arable crop after wheat, is due to leave the EU on March 29 and there is still no final deal on future trading terms.
Forward sales of malting barley for delivery after this date have not materialised, traders said.
"It is certainly true that German importers are not currently buying British malting barley. This is because of the uncertainty with Brexit, or with no Brexit or whatever," one German malting barley trader said.
"The great problem is that it is not currently possible to make a commercial calculation because it is not known if malting barley supplies you buy from Britain now for delivery in later months will face some form of EU import tax/customs duties," the trader added.
"There is a commercial risk which is too large to take
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/hangover-uk-farmers-brexit-uncertainty-155332916.html
Tesco and M&S reveal stockpiling has started amid 'no-deal' Brexit fears
Two of Britain's biggest supermarket chains have revealed they are stockpiling food to prepare for a "no-deal" Brexit.
Tesco (Frankfurt: 852647 - news) and Marks & Spencer (Frankfurt: 534418 - news) made the announcement with less than 80 days to go until the UK is due to leave the EU.
Steve Rowe, chief executive of M&S, said his chain had "upped its ante" and begun making a "few real choices".
He revealed it was bulking up on "additional long-life stuff".
Bur Mr Rowe said his food business was 70% fresh - so "anything that slows down will contribute to cost and waste".
Davis Lewis, chief executive of Tesco, also admitted calling meetings to discuss increasing long-life grocery stocks.
However he added the chain "can't" stockpile fresh food in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
Mr Lewis said given the UK imports half of fresh food it eats, Tesco was "very keen" there will be "no sort of friction" at the border.
He added the store "sat down with all suppliers to discuss their production capability, where they hold stock and if we can help them hold it".
Sainsbury (Amsterdam: SJ6.AS - news) 's CEO Mike Coupe has also warned that given the retailer imports 30% of its food from Europe, a no-deal Brexit would be "hugely disruptive".
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/tesco-m-reveal-stockpiling-started-140100742.html