Theresa May

[don'tbesilly]

Trolleys Thank You said:

don'tbesilly said:

davepoth said:

johnxjsc1985 said:

When I see May only has Hunt speaking out for her it doesn't make her position look particularly strong.
As soon as she feels pressure she start to stutter and mumble until she composes herself again. She the whole of the EU against her along with most of the HOC it is quite frankly an impossible task there seems to be no way out for her .
Do we really want another Election with a minority Gov followed by another Referendum which may move slightly to remain but still leave 16 million or more people asking for a "peoples vote".
The architects of this mess are nowhere to be seen Cameron and Osbourne they have so much to answer for and yet they seem totally unfazed by the chaos they have left the Country in

IMO Her only way out is to do absolutely nothing from here on in. Literally nothing. No negotiation, no leadership campaign, no snap election, no debates, no legislation, nothing.

She's told the EU that she's already conceded as much as she can, that what the EU are currently offering is a bad deal, and that she'd rather leave with no deal than accept what's on the table. If the EU don't crack then no deal it is, I guess.

Couldn't agree more.

The EU wouldn't accept what many Remainers hoped they would, and the majority of Leavers got the rejection that was expected and wanted.

It was the leavers who told us this will be the easiest deal in human history. Oops. More lies.

[Oilchange]

johnxjsc1985 said:

I would put 50p on the EU agreeing a deal at the usual 1 minute to midnight.

I’d tell them the negotiations cease at end of play (5pm) on the last day. After that we’re down the pub for a few bevvies and a takeaway.

[V8 Fettler]

Trolleys Thank You said:

V8 Fettler said:

saaby93 said:

V8 Fettler said:

Applying logic to May's recent actions, she can only be a closet, hardline no-dealer.

Appears to offer compromise to both sides (Chequers)
Both sides reject the compromise
The only remaining option is WTO with hard borders

Except for this business of Ireland and UK since 1922 have had just about open borders.
Ireland Denmark and UK joined the EU on 1st Jan 1973
All in or All out?

In the hard world of the hardline no-deal there will be winners and losers. If WTO can only work with a hard border in Ireland then so be it, preferably with the minimum of fuss.

The winners wont be your average British Citizen, nor the Northern Irish who do not want a hard border.

Can somebody please remind me, why are we doing this again?

Perhaps now is the time to break up the United Kingdom, it's the logical solution. England will need hard borders to keep out the economic migrants.

[frisbee]

johnxjsc1985 said:

I would put 50p on the EU agreeing a deal at the usual 1 minute to midnight.

Really? I'm surprised she hasn't U-turned already and thrown in everyone's first born son as well.

Leavers are utterly desperate if they are putting any sort of faith in her. Throughout her period as PM she has demonstrated nothing but her usual ineptness.

[amusingduck]

[Mario149]

jsf said:

Mario149 said:

which involves unanimously dropping all our tariffs and decimating entire industries

JRM never said anything of the sort.

No, but unless I'm mistaken last week or the one before he was at that ERG event launching their "alternative plan" where Minford et al were espousing the same. Or, it might be another case of Brexit being all things to all people.

Edited by Mario149 on Monday 24th September 11:30

Edited by Mario149 on Monday 24th September 11:31

[Mario149]

Oilchange said:

I dont understand the link between dropping all our tariffs and decimating entire industries. How will our industries be decimated?

Seriously?

[Mario149]

Tuna said:

Mario149 said:

I don't think anyone is saying we can't survive. It's not going to be armageddon, we're not totally insane as a country/gov. But when you have people like JRM championing a no-deal economic model as "we'll be fine" which involves unanimously dropping all our tariffs and decimating entire industries,

I think you've fundamentally misunderstood what has been said about 'no deal'.

Go on...

[anonymous-user]

Mario149 said:

jsf said:

Mario149 said:

which involves unanimously dropping all our tariffs and decimating entire industries

JRM never said anything of the sort.

No, but unless I'm mistaken last week or the one before he was at that ERG event where Minford et al were espousing the same.

The trouble is that if Mogg is suggesting protectionist tarriffs he will be doing exactly what he is saying we should get away from.

There will be some unhappy voters who apparently knew what they voted for.

[Camoradi]

Ghibli said:

The trouble is that if Mogg is suggesting protectionist tarriffs he will be doing exactly what he is saying we should get away from.

There will be some unhappy voters who apparently knew what they voted for.

You must surely understand that we will aim to negotiate trade deals, and tariffs if appropriate, which work specifically for the UK, rather than for the EU as a whole. That's the difference.

[Tuna]

Mario149 said:

Tuna said:

Mario149 said:

I don't think anyone is saying we can't survive. It's not going to be armageddon, we're not totally insane as a country/gov. But when you have people like JRM championing a no-deal economic model as "we'll be fine" which involves unanimously dropping all our tariffs and decimating entire industries,

I think you've fundamentally misunderstood what has been said about 'no deal'.

Go on...

It's hardly worth the bother, but alright.

WTO - the no-deal backdrop neither specifies a fixed set of tariffs, nor zero tariffs. It merely requires that for a given type of good, the same tariff is applied to all imports, regardless of the country of origin. WTO specifies maximum tariffs (to prevent protectionist measures), but compliant nations are free to set whatever levels they feel suitable.

Note again, that WTO allows us to drop tariffs completely on goods that we don't produce locally - such as oranges, coffee, chocolate - whilst maintaining tariffs on other items - such as steel or cars. Dropping tariffs on foodstuffs that are not natively grown would potentially save the average consumer 10% on their food bill without affecting government revenue or 'decimating industries'. It would also benefit third world countries such as Africa which are currently frozen out of the European markets by protectionist tariffs demanded by the mediterranean countries.

[anonymous-user]

Camoradi said:

Ghibli said:

The trouble is that if Mogg is suggesting protectionist tarriffs he will be doing exactly what he is saying we should get away from.

There will be some unhappy voters who apparently knew what they voted for.

You must surely understand that we will aim to negotiate trade deals, and tariffs if appropriate, which work specifically for the UK, rather than for the EU as a whole. That's the difference.

If you forget about Brexit and who voted for what for a minute.

If we are trading with countries under WTO with zero tarriffs on their exports. When we are in a position to arrange a FTA agreement, what will we offer them when we have already given them zero tarriffs.

If you listen to someone like Pascal lamy he explains it well. Obviously being the former head of the WTO his credentials are not a patch on PH forum members expertise.

[Halb]

'for the birds'
the most overused phrase currently on dp and the like, but at least it's not as stupid as 'cake and eat it.'
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/23/d...

[s2art]

Ghibli said:

If we are trading with countries under WTO with zero tarriffs on their exports. When we are in a position to arrange a FTA agreement, what will we offer them when we have already given them zero tarriffs.

You think that if we put zero tariffs on oranges (say), the USA would just say 'well, no trade deal necessary then'?

[anonymous-user]

s2art said:

Ghibli said:

If we are trading with countries under WTO with zero tarriffs on their exports. When we are in a position to arrange a FTA agreement, what will we offer them when we have already given them zero tarriffs.

You think that if we put zero tariffs on oranges (say), the USA would just say 'well, no trade deal necessary then'?

If we have zero tarriffs on products we don't produce what will we want to buy that has tarriffs. We need to get others to lower their tarriffs so that we can sell to them. We could offer to lower tarriffs if we hadn't already done that.

WtO is our no deal option unless countries continue the agreements we already have via the EU. If wto free trade is a better option for them when/if we end up with no deal why wouldn't they take it, they won't have to lower their tarriffs.

What do you think Trump would do.

[s2art]

Ghibli said:

s2art said:

Ghibli said:

If we are trading with countries under WTO with zero tarriffs on their exports. When we are in a position to arrange a FTA agreement, what will we offer them when we have already given them zero tarriffs.

You think that if we put zero tariffs on oranges (say), the USA would just say 'well, no trade deal necessary then'?

If we have zero tarriffs on products we don't produce what will we want to buy that has tarriffs. We need to get others to lower their tarriffs so that we can sell to them. We could offer to lower tarriffs if we hadn't already done that.

WtO is our no deal option unless countries continue the agreements we already have via the EU. If wto free trade is a better option for them when/if we end up with no deal why wouldn't they take it, they won't have to lower their tarriffs.

What do you think Trump would do.

Trump wants a comprehensive free trade deal. zero tariffs on oranges would be irrelevant to him if that was the status quo.

[abzmike]

s2art said:

Trump wants a comprehensive free trade deal. zero tariffs on oranges would be irrelevant to him if that was the status quo.

The US rarely offers a feee trade deal without significant conditions... would you like some chlorine washed chickens with those oranges?

[anonymous-user]

s2art said:

Trump wants a comprehensive free trade deal. zero tariffs on oranges would be irrelevant to him if that was the status quo.

And with no deal and us on WTO he will have us begging for a deal. Trump doesn't like his trade deficit.

You need to wash Brexit out of your head and think about the realities of trading. Countries will want what's best for them and they will work to get it.

[SpeckledJim]

abzmike said:

s2art said:

Trump wants a comprehensive free trade deal. zero tariffs on oranges would be irrelevant to him if that was the status quo.

The US rarely offers a feee trade deal without significant conditions... would you like some chlorine washed chickens with those oranges?

I know it doesn't sound very attractive, but it's actually just a huge red herring. Ever eaten chicken in the US? It's chicken. It's fine.

Ever been in a swimming pool? How did the rest of your chlorine washed life turn out? Fine? Fine.

[s2art]

abzmike said:

s2art said:

Trump wants a comprehensive free trade deal. zero tariffs on oranges would be irrelevant to him if that was the status quo.

The US rarely offers a feee trade deal without significant conditions... would you like some chlorine washed chickens with those oranges?

Absolutely. More hygienic . Exactly what we do in the UK for packaged salads.