|
Post by Progenitor A on Dec 24, 2018 18:32:46 GMT 1
With the aid of extremist Remainers we are now on the road to a no-deal Brexit.
The Withdrawal Agreement screwed Britain. Even if the EU remove the totally unacceptable backstop clauses, Britain is still screwed by the agreement. We have volunteered to give the EU £39 billion for very, very little in return. We are certainly not guaranteed a fair trading deal by the agreement – the trade agreement is still to come.
The Withdrawal Agreement has been a triumph for the EU negotiators. This is because of two factors, the incompetence of the British Negotiating Team and the undermining of the British negotiations by Remain politicians in positions of influence. The EU has been repeatedly told by these Remainers to 'stand firm and Britain will come to heel'.
There has been a constant stream of these politician travelling to Brussels with the purpose of undermining Britain. Briefings have been repeatedy given to EU officials by politicians such as Blair, Clegg, Cable, Campbell, Soubry, Adonis, Grieve, Mandelson; AC Grayling has been a constant in these briefings that undermine the British Negotiation position. No doubt the appalling Chris Patten has done his bit too.
There seems little room for doubt that these briefing and lobbying activities have persuaded (if they needed persuading)the EU to take a hard-line in the negotiation with Britain
But worse, much worse lies ahead for Britain. If an amended withdrawal Agreement is passed by Parliament, we then enter into the Trade Treaty Negotiations. These must receive the agreement of all 27 EU nations. With the EU Commission taking a hard-line at the prompting of our Remainers, and France already having signalled it will not agree to a Trade Treaty unless we give France full access to our fishing seas, and Spain saying is requires agreement on sovereignty of Gibraltar before a trade deal, we are in for a very prolonged and very bitter series of negotiations with probably repeated humiliations for Britain.
Already some 'moderate'(Remain) Cabinet Ministers are reportedly expressing concern at the difficult position Britain will find itself in during these negotiations. It is reported that they are expressing some quiet support for a no-deal exit where we will retain the £39 Billion and make mutual arrangements with individual EU countries to minimise the disruption of a no-deal exit, and then negotiate a trade deal from a position of strength. They ponder that a no-deal exit will be less problematic for Britain that a trade deal with individual EU states making their own demands, the Commission taking a hard-line, and the influential Remainers undermining the talks
So the road to a no-Brexit deal is becoming clearly signed
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 25, 2018 1:16:53 GMT 1
With the aid of extremist Remainers we are now on the road to a no-deal Brexit. The Withdrawal Agreement screwed Britain. Even if the EU remove the totally unacceptable backstop clauses, Britain is still screwed by the agreement. We have volunteered to give the EU £39 billion for very, very little in return. We are certainly not guaranteed a fair trading deal by the agreement – the trade agreement is still to come. The Withdrawal Agreement has been a triumph for the EU negotiators. This is because of two factors, the incompetence of the British Negotiating Team and the undermining of the British negotiations by Remain politicians in positions of influence. The EU has been repeatedly told by these Remainers to 'stand firm and Britain will come to heel'. There has been a constant stream of these politician travelling to Brussels with the purpose of undermining Britain. Briefings have been repeatedy given to EU officials by politicians such as Blair, Clegg, Cable, Campbell, Soubry, Adonis, Grieve, Mandelson; AC Grayling has been a constant in these briefings that undermine the British Negotiation position. No doubt the appalling Chris Patten has done his bit too. There seems little room for doubt that these briefing and lobbying activities have persuaded (if they needed persuading)the EU to take a hard-line in the negotiation with Britain But worse, much worse lies ahead for Britain. If an amended withdrawal Agreement is passed by Parliament, we then enter into the Trade Treaty Negotiations. These must receive the agreement of all 27 EU nations. With the EU Commission taking a hard-line at the prompting of our Remainers, and France already having signalled it will not agree to a Trade Treaty unless we give France full access to our fishing seas, and Spain saying is requires agreement on sovereignty of Gibraltar before a trade deal, we are in for a very prolonged and very bitter series of negotiations with probably repeated humiliations for Britain. Already some 'moderate'(Remain) Cabinet Ministers are reportedly expressing concern at the difficult position Britain will find itself in during these negotiations. It is reported that they are expressing some quiet support for a no-deal exit where we will retain the £39 Billion and make mutual arrangements with individual EU countries to minimise the disruption of a no-deal exit, and then negotiate a trade deal from a position of strength. They ponder that a no-deal exit will be less problematic for Britain that a trade deal with individual EU states making their own demands, the Commission taking a hard-line, and the influential Remainers undermining the talks So the road to a no-Brexit deal is becoming clearly signed I agree entirely. But with Grieve's amendment, how could it possibly get through? They'll trigger an extension - I don't think they'd risk a revocation, just yet - of Article 50. Which will have near unanimous support. Then what? I can only see her quitting, at last, and a leadership contest. I've given up betting on Tory leadership elections - they're all out to lunch.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Dec 25, 2018 2:18:23 GMT 1
The inescapable truth is that they sell more stuff to us than we do to them, so it's in their interest to negotiate any deal that gives them preference over, or even parity with, everyone else. But they will have to ask nicely, and lower their prices to compete in a world market.
As for the headline £39bn fee for a negotiated withdrawal, that works out at around £1000 per taxpayer. Spread over 5 years, you wouldn't notice it compared with the £45bn net that we would have contributed to the EU in that period.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 25, 2018 13:42:00 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 26, 2018 6:29:05 GMT 1
With the aid of extremist Remainers we are now on the road to a no-deal Brexit. The Withdrawal Agreement screwed Britain. Even if the EU remove the totally unacceptable backstop clauses, Britain is still screwed by the agreement. We have volunteered to give the EU £39 billion for very, very little in return. We are certainly not guaranteed a fair trading deal by the agreement – the trade agreement is still to come. The Withdrawal Agreement has been a triumph for the EU negotiators. This is because of two factors, the incompetence of the British Negotiating Team and the undermining of the British negotiations by Remain politicians in positions of influence. The EU has been repeatedly told by these Remainers to 'stand firm and Britain will come to heel'. There has been a constant stream of these politician travelling to Brussels with the purpose of undermining Britain. Briefings have been repeatedy given to EU officials by politicians such as Blair, Clegg, Cable, Campbell, Soubry, Adonis, Grieve, Mandelson; AC Grayling has been a constant in these briefings that undermine the British Negotiation position. No doubt the appalling Chris Patten has done his bit too. There seems little room for doubt that these briefing and lobbying activities have persuaded (if they needed persuading)the EU to take a hard-line in the negotiation with Britain But worse, much worse lies ahead for Britain. If an amended withdrawal Agreement is passed by Parliament, we then enter into the Trade Treaty Negotiations. These must receive the agreement of all 27 EU nations. With the EU Commission taking a hard-line at the prompting of our Remainers, and France already having signalled it will not agree to a Trade Treaty unless we give France full access to our fishing seas, and Spain saying is requires agreement on sovereignty of Gibraltar before a trade deal, we are in for a very prolonged and very bitter series of negotiations with probably repeated humiliations for Britain. Already some 'moderate'(Remain) Cabinet Ministers are reportedly expressing concern at the difficult position Britain will find itself in during these negotiations. It is reported that they are expressing some quiet support for a no-deal exit where we will retain the £39 Billion and make mutual arrangements with individual EU countries to minimise the disruption of a no-deal exit, and then negotiate a trade deal from a position of strength. They ponder that a no-deal exit will be less problematic for Britain that a trade deal with individual EU states making their own demands, the Commission taking a hard-line, and the influential Remainers undermining the talks So the road to a no-Brexit deal is becoming clearly signed Oh, do excuse me, I misread that - no-deal Brexit for no-Brexit deal. Wishful thinking, perhaps. Or I'd had a few, Well - under this withdrawal agreement (and I think the EU has made it as clear as clear could be that we can not amend it, they will not renegotiate it), we have absolutely no negotiating strength whatsoever - we've already totally given in to whatever the EU decides. Have we not? If we don't agree to whatever they say - the backstop kicks in. If the backstop kicks in - we're in the Customs Union. Trapped there, until Northern Ireland decides to unify with the Republic. We've given up any legal power to leave. Short of saying, send in your tanks then, we can't leave. Could we stop paying our multi-billion pound fees? That would be up to the ECJ to determine, and we've already agreed, under the agreement, to grant its supremacy under the backstop arrangement, until the EU decides we're released. Could we apply tariffs? No - we've agreed by International Treaty to be part of the same customs area as Northern Ireland, in perpetuity, until the EU allows us to leave. I think it's possible we'd have managed to stop Free Movement. Maybe. That's it - we'd have achieved what Cameron asked for in the first place, at the loss of any voting rights or powers of determination over what our future laws might be. So - I can't see this "Deal" getting through, whatever arms are twisted and however much they ramp up Project Fear. It's simply unacceptable, to anyone with a brain. So - the Grieve amendment leads us to asking to extend Article 50, for a year probably, while we negotiate a better deal. Do the EU agree at that point? Not according to what they say with diamantine clarity at the moment - they won't reopen the negotiations. Unless we hold another referendum. Could May at that point give in, and say that Parliament has left her no other choice but to put the question back to the people? What question? How could she possibly survive as PM after such a volte-face? She'd surely call an Election rather than swallow that humiliation? But now she's promised to quit before that event, and it must be impossible to renege on that implicit agreement, I'd have thought. So - Referendum, in which case she must surely quit, or Election, in which case ditto, so why give in to the demands for another vote, when an Election would quite likely solve the impasse? I have no sympathy for this Hobson's Choice - she dug it herself.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 26, 2018 7:01:49 GMT 1
This would be such an intense and bitter parliamentary battle in itself that it might be an even harder matter to settle than getting this deal through. The polls at the moment give a clear victory to No Deal (WTO Rules, that is) in a three-way proposition - stay, May's deal, or No Deal. And that's before any campaigning, during which the case for WTO would at last get a fair hearing.
So - the Remainers can not afford to allow such a three-way question, as they've made very clear in what they've been advocating in the past few months. What they say they want is a two-way question: Stay in the EU, as though none of this ever happened, or leave under May's deal. The result would be a foregone landslide - even hard-line Brexiteers would prefer to Remain rather than accept such an appalling position of vassalage. So - they'd fight that prospect tooth-and-nail, and I'm positive most of the country would be completely persuaded by the airtight case of their objections.
That leaves, in effect, a two-way question: Remain, or Leave under WTO (a "managed" No-Deal.)
This was, in my opinion, exactly what the original question was, on the first referendum, and the Leave side made a major strategic error in ever allowing any other impression to be given (though, to be fair, both sides did in fact make it clear that this would be the starting point - the issue of what we might be able to negotiate in the two-year leaving process was of course impossible to firmly predict.)
I don't know what the result would be, a second time around. I strongly suspect it would be a resounding Leave victory. I believe the People's Vote campaigners suspect it would be too, which is why they'll fight for the No Deal option to be excluded at all costs.
And why, ultimately, the men in grey will finally say, Teresa, your time is up. We're going to have to fight an Election again, and given Corbyn's tap-dancing prevarication, we have no choice but to get a Brexiteer leader in place before we do.
And that's definitely wishful thinking!
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Dec 26, 2018 11:08:56 GMT 1
Apropos wolves:
Before the blasted Romans interfered with civilisation, there was a well-established trade route from Scandinavia through the British Isles, the French and Spanish coasts, and along north Africa to India. Remnants of silk and spice turn up in Bronze Age graves in England, Irish gold appears in all sorts of places, and the trade in minerals between Carthage and Cornwall constituted a heavy industry.
Fact is that, left to their own devices, humans are happy to collaborate over long distances and perfectly capable of devising trade rules. The earliest known written document isn't an EU Directive on the shape of bananas, but a builder's invoice. It's only when priests and politicians get involved in other people's business that things go wrong.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Dec 26, 2018 11:22:15 GMT 1
Meanwhile, JC has announced that a Labour government would pursue Brexit with no prevarication, which policy would almost certainly produce a working majority in a general election if a Conservative vote leads to the Dreaded Uncertainty of staying under current terms or staying under May's Surrender.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 26, 2018 16:31:15 GMT 1
Meanwhile, JC has announced that a Labour government would pursue Brexit with no prevarication But it's meaningless gobbledygook, and everyone knows it! The "Brexit" they propose they'd try to "negotiate" isn't what anyone else means by Brexit at all. They want to stay in the Customs Union, they want to accept any EU laws, and the supremacy of the ECJ, and accede to their demands for a "level-playing field" - i.e., follow Frankfurt's determination of what budgets are allowed, strictly limit State aid of industry, maintain current and any future employment rights legislation, and any regulations on trade and the labour market, keep our tax rates in very strict comparable bands to what the EU allows, be unable to conduct any trade deals that differ from EU terms, pay whatever fee Brussels determines is the cost of maintaining access to their single market, etc, etc. That's not leaving the EU. It is in fact May's deal. That wouldn't be the manifesto platform - the abstentions and defections would be murderous for them, and they'd almost certainly lose. May's surrender is out, even if she calls an election, and thus a leadership contest. If Rudd wins, the Norway option will be the offer; if Boris, Raab, or Hunt: Canada plus. Javid has no chance of getting beyond the first round, in my opinion - the Tories when all is said and done a hard-headed lot: they'll never elect a Venus-Neptune person (a Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan, William Waldegrave type) to lead them: they want at least the appearance of some steel-like quality. Rudd I think has holed herself below the waterline - I don't believe her proposal has any more legs than May's - it's a worse option than remaining in, and the disgusted abstentions would be almost as disastrous for them, as the polls clearly tell them. And I believe the logic that it has to be a Brexiteer who takes this process forwards is now inescapable. There'll be a Stop Boris movement, no doubt - but will it work this time? If he gets through to the final round, he'll walk it. Media commentators enjoy telling us all the time how unpopular he is in the House - I really wonder how true that is. And, more importantly, whether it matters (the same was said about Thatcher, and Heath, and Churchill.) What will concentrate their minds is: Who has the best chance of winning the Election - in all likelihood, less than three months away?
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Dec 28, 2018 9:54:27 GMT 1
why give in to the demands for another vote, when an Election would quite likely solve the impasse? Not sure "solve" is the right word here. Assuming the Tories dump May, they have a leadership choice between electoral liabilities such as Johnson or Rees-Mogg, or cuddly electable Mayclones whose principal policy (with a tiny majority of whoever he/she can bribe) would be the same halfarsed surrender document. At best we might end up with a personally committed Leaver (Corbyn) trying to cobble a ragbag of committed Remainers into a government, which would be just as ineffective as the status quo. And there's the answer. Francis Rossi OBE is nobody's fool, hugely popular, known worldwide, and his Ulster catholic upbringing will be an advantage in settling the Irish Question.
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Dec 28, 2018 12:29:57 GMT 1
GB does not seem to be doing quite as badly as some staunch members of the EU
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Dec 28, 2018 15:17:19 GMT 1
Not clear what the columns represent. Cost of treating venereal disease? Disposable income per capita?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 28, 2018 23:13:20 GMT 1
why give in to the demands for another vote, when an Election would quite likely solve the impasse? Not sure "solve" is the right word here. Assuming the Tories dump May They already dumped her, in effect - otherwise she wouldn't have survived the challenge. She had to assure them she wouldn't lead into another election. I cannot imagine how she'd possibly get around that assurance - constitutionally (Party), she could try to brave it out, but what a rumpus it would cause. How could she excuse and justify it? I don't think it could happen - I think for a start enough constituency organisations would simply refuse to campaign with her as a leader. Enough party MPs would tell her whips, and anyone else who would listen, she had to go. There's a limit to anyone's deluded megalomania, as even Mugabe discovered. No one could possibly describe Johnson as an electoral liability. Many other criticisms you could try to make about him, perhaps, but not that one. He wouldn't stand against Boris. I can't think of any of them who are cuddly - Javid, possibly, but as I say the Tories are a pragmatic and hard-headed lot. Being cuddly is not at all on their list of leadership criteria. No, I don't think so. That's the worst. At best we end up with a personally committed Leaver (Boris, Raab, Mordaunt) trying to organise an orderly exit on WTO terms. Not too difficult, imo. Whoever will have to apply to extend A50, no doubt, but the EU will accede to that. Then we sort out all the messy bits in that year. What May should have done to begin with. There is no Irish question. It's a complete red herring. It'll be a Free Trade area, whatever side wins.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 28, 2018 23:42:58 GMT 1
View AttachmentGB does not seem to be doing quite as badly as some staunch members of the EU Quite so jj. Germany looks likely to technically enter recession in less than a week. France is virtually stagnant too. Italy is a basket case; Spain ditto; Portugal ditto. Belgium may or may not have a government at last, I haven't heard, but no one seems to notice anyway. Sweden seems on the verge of mass civil disorder. Denmark is clearly battening down the hatches. The Eastern European countries look more or less in the same mood as they did circa 1933. This is nothing to do with Brexit, though our leaving - if we can do it - may well be the final straw that brings it all down. It's the internal impossibilities of what the EU is: nearly every country in the union owing Germany approaching half of their GDP, with no possible prospect of ever meeting the debt, but the creditor unable to call in the debt without internally collapsing, or decline to further extend credit without destroying her own economy. Everything that was clearly pointed out by responsible economists when the Euro was first created.
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Dec 29, 2018 2:12:30 GMT 1
Not sure "solve" is the right word here. Assuming the Tories dump May They already dumped her, in effect - otherwise she wouldn't have survived the challenge. She had to assure them she wouldn't lead into another election. I cannot imagine how she'd possibly get around that assurance - constitutionally (Party), she could try to brave it out, but what a rumpus it would cause. How could she excuse and justify it? I don't think it could happen - I think for a start enough constituency organisations would simply refuse to campaign with her as a leader. Enough party MPs would tell her whips, and anyone else who would listen, she had to go. There's a limit to anyone's deluded megalomania, as even Mugabe discovered. I either heard her or her people say she wouldn't lead the Tories into the scheduled 2022 election. This doesn't rule out her standing in a snap election, early next year say, either at her choice (effectively) or forced by Parliament. As they tell us 1922 proceedings are private, no-one can rely on unsubstantiated leaks. No one could possibly describe Johnson as an electoral liability. Many other criticisms you could try to make about him, perhaps, but not that one.[/quote] I heard him two or so years ago saying he wasn't fit to lead. He's an absolute shit. (You do know his hero Trump didn't win the popular vote, even with Putin's help, don't you?) He's fit to write leaders, tho, which I'm sure he'd prefer to keep doing. Let him shit all over the leaders, but not us.
|
|