RugbyRebels

Sandydragon wrote:

kk67 wrote:I find it a bit worrying that some home counties MP's believe they can dictate what sort of Brexit is going to occur.
Whereas the rest of the union think that we are the ones that shat the bed and we're going to have to sleep in it.
Which seems fair enough.

Well on one case they/ the Uk could by just leaving in 2019 with no agreement. I’m not suggesting we should do that incidentally, but it’s the only course of action where we don’t need to compromise with the rest of Europe.

Anything else needs us to work together which is looking like a difficult hurdle to overcome given some of the views on both sides and neither side having to plot a clear course of what they want to achieve through that confusion.

The Tory’s are arguing amongst themselves, but so too are labour. For me this all comes back to the referendum and the recklessness of holding a major constitutional decision with the general public without any real clear plan of what they were voting for.

If the current Labour leadership team were a bit better at (privately) communicating their reasons for their EU policy, I'd imagine there would be a lot less in-fighting. Alas, they're not the best at that.

There is one good, and only one, reason for leaving the EU, and that is to try and enact change. The Visegrad countries tried to give some input into how the EU could be changed, but were shouted down. The UK holds more power, so would be better able to actually push something through. Anything that takes power away from benelux is good in my eyes.

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

kk67 wrote:I find it a bit worrying that some home counties MP's believe they can dictate what sort of Brexit is going to occur.
Whereas the rest of the union think that we are the ones that shat the bed and we're going to have to sleep in it.
Which seems fair enough.

Well on one case they/ the Uk could by just leaving in 2019 with no agreement. I’m not suggesting we should do that incidentally, but it’s the only course of action where we don’t need to compromise with the rest of Europe.

Anything else needs us to work together which is looking like a difficult hurdle to overcome given some of the views on both sides and neither side having to plot a clear course of what they want to achieve through that confusion.

The Tory’s are arguing amongst themselves, but so too are labour. For me this all comes back to the referendum and the recklessness of holding a major constitutional decision with the general public without any real clear plan of what they were voting for.

If the current Labour leadership team were a bit better at (privately) communicating their reasons for their EU policy, I'd imagine there would be a lot less in-fighting. Alas, they're not the best at that.

There is one good, and only one, reason for leaving the EU, and that is to try and enact change. The Visegrad countries tried to give some input into how the EU could be changed, but were shouted down. The UK holds more power, so would be better able to actually push something through. Anything that takes power away from benelux is good in my eyes.

We would still need to compromise with the rest of the EU if we left with no deal as there'd still be WTO issues to iron out between us and the EU.

And Labour aren't going to make much headway on their position on Europe if they're not even willing to debate it at conference. It would seem Corbyn has taken a traditional Commie solution to the fact that many of his younger supporters want to stay in the single market and decided in the interests of democracy to save asking everyone else what their opinion is, and I'm not making this up, you can only discuss future policy of Brexit at fringe events in Brighton (which is to say the Labour annual conference), there's no general discussion/vote period. Maybe not asking anyone what their opinion is, not being clear on what your opinion is, and then ramming home his decision without discussion at the last minute is what Corbyn means by doing it a different way, but it's an utter failing in openness and accountability from the Dear Leader™

Obviously Corbyn doesn't want the EU as he wants to be able to move on state aid and state ownership, and EU rules prevent much of that. He's been talking about state aid quite a bit recently, though as he's not setting out how he's paying for anything I can only hope nobody takes him seriously.

Remind me again how we paid for quantitative easing and how that differs from state aid?

Altruistic unity is anathema to business.
Until we recognize this on a global level......then profit will eventually kill us all.


If you make health 'for profit',......then illness becomes the profit maker.

canta_brian wrote:Remind me again how we paid for quantitative easing and how that differs from state aid?

Because only dirty commies use state aid?

Or is it dictatorships?

I forget. But upstanding governments use quantitive easing. Upstanding governments prop up banks, it's essential to the economy.

Schools aren't, though, no.

Stom wrote:

canta_brian wrote:Remind me again how we paid for quantitative easing and how that differs from state aid?

Because only dirty commies use state aid?

Or is it dictatorships?

I forget. But upstanding governments use quantitive easing. Upstanding governments prop up banks, it's essential to the economy.

Schools aren't, though, no.

The QE process has been barking mad, but perhaps also necessary. I'd have thought it was at least a chance to sit on the banks and not let them simply continue to pay ever higher salaries and bonuses apart from anything else, but we didn't get that in return. And there's little doubt the QE process flies in the face of a great many rules on state aid, which is being ignored for some obvious reasons.

However it's not a process that one should look to continue, it's perhaps only worked this far as everyone involved is tacitly agreeing to ignore it's a barking mad policy and the whole edifice might crumble if anyone was stupid enough to start asking questions. Quite frankly it makes PFI look a sane and well administered piece of work, and I didn't expect anything would do that so easily, certainly not so quickly.

I'd hope nodoby wants to even consider continuing with QE, for whatever reason.

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

kk67 wrote:I find it a bit worrying that some home counties MP's believe they can dictate what sort of Brexit is going to occur.
Whereas the rest of the union think that we are the ones that shat the bed and we're going to have to sleep in it.
Which seems fair enough.

Well on one case they/ the Uk could by just leaving in 2019 with no agreement. I’m not suggesting we should do that incidentally, but it’s the only course of action where we don’t need to compromise with the rest of Europe.

Anything else needs us to work together which is looking like a difficult hurdle to overcome given some of the views on both sides and neither side having to plot a clear course of what they want to achieve through that confusion.

The Tory’s are arguing amongst themselves, but so too are labour. For me this all comes back to the referendum and the recklessness of holding a major constitutional decision with the general public without any real clear plan of what they were voting for.

If the current Labour leadership team were a bit better at (privately) communicating their reasons for their EU policy, I'd imagine there would be a lot less in-fighting. Alas, they're not the best at that.

There is one good, and only one, reason for leaving the EU, and that is to try and enact change. The Visegrad countries tried to give some input into how the EU could be changed, but were shouted down. The UK holds more power, so would be better able to actually push something through. Anything that takes power away from benelux is good in my eyes.

The UK tried to change the EU whilst part of it. I'm not sure that we have have any increased impact now.

And now we've a problem with nations outside the EU

https://www.ft.com/content/92bb5636-a95 ... 219df83c97

'The Trump administration has joined a group of countries objecting to a deal between the UK and EU to divide valuable agricultural import quotas, in a sign of how the US and others plan to use Brexit to force the UK to further open its sensitive market for farm products. 

President Donald Trump has been one of the most prominent international backers of Brexit and has vowed quickly to negotiate a “beautiful trade deal” with the UK after it leaves the EU. 

But his administration’s objection to a preliminary plan, agreed to by Brussels and London over how to split the EU’s existing “tariff rate quotas” under World Trade Organisation rules after the UK assumes its own WTO obligations following Brexit, illustrates how Washington is likely to drive a hard bargain....'

It's almost like this is a highly detailed and complex set of negotiations, as was made abundantly clear.

Digby wrote:And now we've a problem with nations outside the EU

https://www.ft.com/content/92bb5636-a95 ... 219df83c97

'The Trump administration has joined a group of countries objecting to a deal between the UK and EU to divide valuable agricultural import quotas, in a sign of how the US and others plan to use Brexit to force the UK to further open its sensitive market for farm products. 

President Donald Trump has been one of the most prominent international backers of Brexit and has vowed quickly to negotiate a “beautiful trade deal” with the UK after it leaves the EU. 

But his administration’s objection to a preliminary plan, agreed to by Brussels and London over how to split the EU’s existing “tariff rate quotas” under World Trade Organisation rules after the UK assumes its own WTO obligations following Brexit, illustrates how Washington is likely to drive a hard bargain....'

It's almost like this is a highly detailed and complex set of negotiations, as was made abundantly clear.

I'm so glad I'm not going to have to deal with the fallout first hand...

McDonnell on Marr saying that Labour would take legal advice on our obligations (payments) due to the EU. Which isn't a bit of a cop out, it's a massive cop out, but only runs on from the Labour conference not having a debate on Brexit.

McDonnell also saying Labour will not countenance a no deal scenario, I'd imagine some Labour MPs will vote for Brexit no matter any dictate from the Glorious Leader™, but even so it's not like there aren't many Tory MPs who abhor a no deal scenario, so it could be close on any Brexit vote in parliament. I tend to think given the referendum result enough MPs will be inclined to vote for the leave deal, no matter personal preferences but it's bloody hard to see what path anyone could plot through this.

Observer reporting that the cross-party lobby refusing to accept a 'no deal' agreement is currently at 120 MP's.

The possibility of Amber or JKnut becoming chancellor is deeply disturbing.

In advance I don't have an issue with Amber Rudd taking the job of chancellor, I don't agree with her on a number of issues but she seems capable. I'd think similar for Keir Starmer, Chuka Ummuna, Yvette Cooper....

May on her way to Europe to set things straight, Number 10 says this was a planned visit, that until very recently it wasn't on anyone's schedule suggests it might have been some last minute planning. And last minute decisions was something we saw much more of under Cameron than being a style one associates with May, with May I'm more inclined to think she's realised if she doesn't give people time to lobby they can't pester her as much.

Perhaps some slightly annoying news for May as she travels that the ONS have revealed we've last half a trillion down the back of the sofa, a readjustment is one thing, but half a trillion is a hell of a rounding error.

This could be good news - the only times I can remember May doing anything without careful planning, is to U-turn.

Which Tyler wrote:This could be good news - the only times I can remember May doing anything without careful planning, is to U-turn.

Which bit is good news, May leaving the country or losing half a trillion pounds?

(On losing half a trillion pounds there must be so many errors in how the data that goes into that figure gets established I really don't know I'd worry about it much, though the fall in the level of foreign direct investment is worrying)

Digby wrote:In advance I don't have an issue with Amber Rudd taking the job of chancellor, I don't agree with her on a number of issues but she seems capable. I'd think similar for Keir Starmer, Chuka Ummuna, Yvette Cooper....

You should do a bit more research into Amber's family background.
If you think Dr.Fox is a bit dodgy,...you ain't seen nothing yet.

I hate it when people are too specific and go into too much detail. We need more vague, people.

Digby wrote: (On losing half a trillion pounds there must be so many errors in how the data that goes into that figure gets established I really don't know I'd worry about it much, though the fall in the level of foreign direct investment is worrying)

I haven't read about this. Does the ONS statistic include the amount wiped off by the falling pound..?.

kk67 wrote:

Digby wrote:In advance I don't have an issue with Amber Rudd taking the job of chancellor, I don't agree with her on a number of issues but she seems capable. I'd think similar for Keir Starmer, Chuka Ummuna, Yvette Cooper....

You should do a bit more research into Amber's family background.
If you think Dr.Fox is a bit dodgy,...you ain't seen nothing yet.

I've barely looked into my own family background owing to a significant lack of interest in doing so. And I'd have still less interest in Rudd's family

Digby wrote:

kk67 wrote:

Digby wrote:In advance I don't have an issue with Amber Rudd taking the job of chancellor, I don't agree with her on a number of issues but she seems capable. I'd think similar for Keir Starmer, Chuka Ummuna, Yvette Cooper....

You should do a bit more research into Amber's family background.
If you think Dr.Fox is a bit dodgy,...you ain't seen nothing yet.

I've barely looked into my own family background owing to a significant lack of interest in doing so. And I'd have still less interest in Rudd's family

I wasn't talking about going back to the Reformation.....I meant her immediate family. They're riddled with corruption.

kk67 wrote:

Digby wrote:

kk67 wrote:
You should do a bit more research into Amber's family background.
If you think Dr.Fox is a bit dodgy,...you ain't seen nothing yet.

I've barely looked into my own family background owing to a significant lack of interest in doing so. And I'd have still less interest in Rudd's family

I wasn't talking about going back to the Reformation.....I meant her immediate family. They're riddled with corruption.

For example?

And Digby, Chukka? Qualified for Chancellor? Lol. I agree on the others though.

I'd need to do a scan of the last 12 years of Private Eye to give you a complete breakdown. There are convictions which is why I'm comfortable saying it. Euge would have something to say about this. Where is he..?.

Stom wrote: And Digby, Chukka? Qualified for Chancellor? Lol. I agree on the others though.

In my dotage I'm increasingly finding almost the entire 650 to be utterly useless beyond their own self-interest.
They say you get more right wing as you get older. Fuck that.
They're crooks. It's either a game or it's self-interest. Usually it's both.
That's all the policy they have.

We've built a society where psychopathic dynamism has become our driving force. We are once again rewarding nutters who have charismatic zeal and supposed conviction.
Austria just elected their version of JK.
Kyle and Knut.

EU Withdrawal Bill has been pulled from the Commons agenda, it was due to be heard this week, and now it'll not make a return until after the recess. Maybe the government thinks they can convince everyone to agree with them in another month or so, but they'd do much better facing up to the fact they're not in a position to ride roughshod over Parliament, and that for all there are plenty of people in support of a hard Brexit there are plenty who don't support that, and they need to find some compromises. Not having the debate 'cause too many amendments have been submitted and you're worried you'll lose the vote just underlines they're in trouble.

To somewhat borrow and marginally edit from an old(ish) article in the FT we need to get cracking on

Replacing more than 750 EU bilateral agreements with potential relevance to Britain, covering trade in nuclear goods, customs, fisheries, trade, transport and regulatory co-operation in areas such as antitrust or financial services.

This includes multilateral agreements based on consensus, where Britain must re-approach 132 separate parties. Around 110 separate opt-in accords at the UN and World Trade Organisation are excluded from the estimates, as are narrow agreements on the environment, health, research and science. Some additional UK bilateral deals, outside the EU framework, may also need to be revised because they make reference to EU law.

Some of the (750+) agreements are so essential that it would be unthinkable to operate without them. Air services agreements allow British aeroplanes to land in America, Canada or Israel; nuclear accords permit the trade in spare parts and fuel for Britain’s power stations. Both these sectors are excluded from trade negotiations and must be addressed separately.

All the agreements must be sifted, creating a huge legal tangle. With Switzerland alone there are 49 accords, while there are 44 with the US and 38 with Norway. Even in potentially consequential areas, some countries are barely aware of Brexit implications. When asked by the FT about a specific customs agreement, one sanguine Indian diplomat first denied it existed, then said it would not matter anyway: “I’m sure people have forgotten it.”

“The logistics are terrifying, even just to go through these commitments and treaties and scope them out,” says Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, a former trade official for Sweden and the EU now at the European Centre for International Political Economy. “Do you want revisions? Do they? Do you go there?"

And we can't even start with what should be some of the more straightforward progression of the EU withdrawal bill in our own parliament, it's not even from within the UK remotely clear what the government wants still (other than their cake and eat it) and how they think that can be accomplished. I don't know if the dallying has a long term view that we cancel Brexit as we're not remotely prepared, that we extend the transitional period and extend the uncertainty where people don't know what comes next, or whether refusing to engage on the issues is intended to see a hard brexit delivered.