How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 11)
Discussion
amusingduck said:
Elysium said:
amusingduck said:
Elysium said:
So Parliament did not agree to leave with no-deal when they passed the Withdrawal Act.
Then leaving with No Deal is unlawful, no?Where's the legal challenge?
Leaving in terms of UK law based on the Withdrawal Act is much less clear. I don’t think there will need to be a legal challenge, because I doubt it is going to happen.
What does fall down, absolutely, is the argument from leavers that Parliament permitted no-deal when they approved the withdrawal act. That is clearly incorrect.
Righto. You're obviously the only one who can see the truth
I am refuting the suggestion made by some leavers that Parliament gave its approval to no-deal by agreeing the Withdrawal Act.
That argument, as I have shown, is entirely false. The Withdrawal Act requires the Govt to act consistently with the Phase 1 Report, which means single market and customs union alignment in Northern Ireland, unless a better solution can be agreed.
Unfortunately, no one can mount a legal challenge against someone for simply being ‘wrong’. That is why those efforts are currently focused on ensuring Parliament is given an opportunity to rule against no-deal. Something that it had clearly already tried to make unlawful by virtue of the section of the Withdrawal Act I quoted above.
Murph7355 said:
The "those who disagree with me must be stupid" approach has failed for the last 25ytd evidently.
That Mr Tusk is incapable of grasping this speaks volumes about him.
They are digging in this way solely because the WA crafted between them and Robbins is massively beneficial to them. That is fair enough, but comes with huge risk. That risk was never going. To materialise with May at the helm. That might now have changed.
A sensible counterpart would be prepared to discuss things bilaterally. Unless of course, to use Tusk's logic, they are simply against a deal.
He is just pointing out the dishonesty in the “we won’t build a border, it’s you” - childish and oft repeated here. That Mr Tusk is incapable of grasping this speaks volumes about him.
They are digging in this way solely because the WA crafted between them and Robbins is massively beneficial to them. That is fair enough, but comes with huge risk. That risk was never going. To materialise with May at the helm. That might now have changed.
A sensible counterpart would be prepared to discuss things bilaterally. Unless of course, to use Tusk's logic, they are simply against a deal.
The EU should see if there is something that can be done, but this looks like it will be in the PD, not WA.
The UK has backed itself into a daft corner - whilst 80% of the cabinet - including “the WA is undemocratic” Cleverly - voted for May’s deal, they have now painted it as toxic as part of their “negotiation tactic” and the super-EU-critics & followers have jumped on this bandwagon and an unchanged WA has become unpalatable.
DeepEnd said:
Murph7355 said:
The "those who disagree with me must be stupid" approach has failed for the last 25ytd evidently.
That Mr Tusk is incapable of grasping this speaks volumes about him.
They are digging in this way solely because the WA crafted between them and Robbins is massively beneficial to them. That is fair enough, but comes with huge risk. That risk was never going. To materialise with May at the helm. That might now have changed.
A sensible counterpart would be prepared to discuss things bilaterally. Unless of course, to use Tusk's logic, they are simply against a deal.
He is just pointing out the dishonesty in the “we won’t build a border, it’s you” - childish and oft repeated here. That Mr Tusk is incapable of grasping this speaks volumes about him.
They are digging in this way solely because the WA crafted between them and Robbins is massively beneficial to them. That is fair enough, but comes with huge risk. That risk was never going. To materialise with May at the helm. That might now have changed.
A sensible counterpart would be prepared to discuss things bilaterally. Unless of course, to use Tusk's logic, they are simply against a deal.
The EU should see if there is something that can be done, but this looks like it will be in the PD, not WA.
The UK has backed itself into a daft corner - whilst 80% of the cabinet - including “the WA is undemocratic” Cleverly - voted for May’s deal, they have now painted it as toxic as part of their “negotiation tactic” and the super-EU-critics & followers have jumped on this bandwagon and an unchanged WA has become unpalatable.
That was not just Robbins and May - Parliament endorsed it specifically in the withdrawal act.
If we want something different, we need to define it. Johnson does not even attempt to do so, which suggests two possibilities:
1. He has no idea how to solve the problem.
2. He does not want to solve the problem, because his goal is to win a General Election as the champion of a no-deal Brexit.
In this case, I think both are true.
Sway said:
Full control of Corp Tax, VAT, inward tariff schedules.
All are subject to treaty agreements limiting our ability to move them.
We're talking about the outcome of a full scale apocalyptic eurozone collapse.
Another area with this is our membership contributions - remember the "top up" bill Cameron swore not to pay (before agreeing payment terms) - all because despite the majority of EU states criticising our response to 08, we recovered faster, so was then on the hook for a few extra billion.
Late evening typo re financial/fiscal, apologies.All are subject to treaty agreements limiting our ability to move them.
We're talking about the outcome of a full scale apocalyptic eurozone collapse.
Another area with this is our membership contributions - remember the "top up" bill Cameron swore not to pay (before agreeing payment terms) - all because despite the majority of EU states criticising our response to 08, we recovered faster, so was then on the hook for a few extra billion.
The EU VAT minimum is iirc 15% and corp tax is set by each individual country (see Ireland at 12.5% ish) for the moment. Do you really see any developed western country realistically cutting levels below that? And if it's a 'full scale apocalyptic eurozone collapse', it seems unlikely that the EU are going to stick to current rules given that France for example are just going to be flagrantly flouting them anyway.
And again about seperation, the EU as a bloc is likely to remain the UK's largest single trading partner in goods and services. Seperation as far as possible means basically refusing to trade with the EU full stop?
Dr Jekyll said:
isaldiri said:
Late evening typo re financial/fiscal, apologies.
The EU VAT minimum is iirc 15% and corp tax is set by each individual country (see Ireland at 12.5% ish) for the moment. Do you really see any developed western country realistically cutting levels below that?
Yes.The EU VAT minimum is iirc 15% and corp tax is set by each individual country (see Ireland at 12.5% ish) for the moment. Do you really see any developed western country realistically cutting levels below that?
It would have the benefit of simultaneously kicking the EU in the balls and poking them in the eye. They would be very annoyed, and there may be repercussions, but in extremis, why is there a reason for HMG to continue with these EU-based rules any more than any others?
Quite clear now there is stalemate, and we are heading for the default position of brexit until one side blinks. The logical thing to do, as unpalatable as it sounds, is to put our resources and efforts into mitigating the damaging effects of a no deal brexit. Forget trying to get the EU to budge, and forget trying to get that heap of shyte May deal through parliament. If Boris fails to leave one way or another by October the tories are done for, so i think a No deal brexit is still better for them than missing another deadline.
dazwalsh said:
Quite clear now there is stalemate, and we are heading for the default position of brexit until one side blinks. The logical thing to do, as unpalatable as it sounds, is to put our resources and efforts into mitigating the damaging effects of a no deal brexit. Forget trying to get the EU to budge, and forget trying to get that heap of shyte May deal through parliament. If Boris fails to leave one way or another by October the tories are done for, so i think a No deal brexit is still better for them than missing another deadline.
That seems to be the strategy doesn't it? It's the 'better for them' that sticks in the craw. The whole thing boils down to an insoluble border problem leading directly to an unconscionable course of action designed in no small measure to save the life of a political party. Digga said:
Dr Jekyll said:
isaldiri said:
Late evening typo re financial/fiscal, apologies.
The EU VAT minimum is iirc 15% and corp tax is set by each individual country (see Ireland at 12.5% ish) for the moment. Do you really see any developed western country realistically cutting levels below that?
Yes.The EU VAT minimum is iirc 15% and corp tax is set by each individual country (see Ireland at 12.5% ish) for the moment. Do you really see any developed western country realistically cutting levels below that?
It would have the benefit of simultaneously kicking the EU in the balls and poking them in the eye. They would be very annoyed, and there may be repercussions, but in extremis, why is there a reason for HMG to continue with these EU-based rules any more than any others?
It’s somewhat fanciful.
Digga said:
Agreed, if we have to, in order to maintain FDI and stimuluate the economy, post-Brexit.
It would have the benefit of simultaneously kicking the EU in the balls and poking them in the eye. They would be very annoyed, and there may be repercussions, but in extremis, why is there a reason for HMG to continue with these EU-based rules any more than any others?
But there is still (considerable imo) leeway to do various things in the event of a downturn even now though. Being in the EU didn't prevent anything that the UK did in 08/09 either did it? And in a really severe euro crisis it's being assumed that EU regulations will remain as current and not be relaxed.... It would have the benefit of simultaneously kicking the EU in the balls and poking them in the eye. They would be very annoyed, and there may be repercussions, but in extremis, why is there a reason for HMG to continue with these EU-based rules any more than any others?
There's also a level of certainty being expressed both about the imment demise of the eurozone (the magic T2 bullet that will do so has been a well known point for years though....) as well as the UK's ability to avoid the fallout by leaving the EU I personally find baffling tbh.
ty soundbites like leave come what or may or whatever bs is trendy this month Elysium said:
amusingduck said:
Elysium said:
amusingduck said:
Elysium said:
So Parliament did not agree to leave with no-deal when they passed the Withdrawal Act.
Then leaving with No Deal is unlawful, no?Where's the legal challenge?
Leaving in terms of UK law based on the Withdrawal Act is much less clear. I don’t think there will need to be a legal challenge, because I doubt it is going to happen.
What does fall down, absolutely, is the argument from leavers that Parliament permitted no-deal when they approved the withdrawal act. That is clearly incorrect.
Righto. You're obviously the only one who can see the truth
I am refuting the suggestion made by some leavers that Parliament gave its approval to no-deal by agreeing the Withdrawal Act.
That argument, as I have shown, is entirely false. The Withdrawal Act requires the Govt to act consistently with the Phase 1 Report, which means single market and customs union alignment in Northern Ireland, unless a better solution can be agreed.
Unfortunately, no one can mount a legal challenge against someone for simply being ‘wrong’. That is why those efforts are currently focused on ensuring Parliament is given an opportunity to rule against no-deal. Something that it had clearly already tried to make unlawful by virtue of the section of the Withdrawal Act I quoted above.
That seems like a stupid beat-about-the-bush approach, when they could go to the root of the issue and challenge that no deal was not approved, and is not lawful.
What else do you mean by "approved"? Are you just tossing about authoritative terms again to bolster your argument?
If it is lawful to leave with no deal via the WA as the default outcome, then parliament approved that outcome. If they did not approve that outcome, then where are the legal challenges to rule that a no deal brexit is unlawful under the terms of the WA?
It is all phoney war stuff at the moment. The EU like the deal that has been negotiated, their PR message over their position is working well in euroland, and they think there is a possibility parliament will stop no deal. They have no reason to budge. In the UK the Tories will not bring the existing deal back to parliament as is and Boris thinks he can get no deal over the line. He believes his PR messages of "intransient EU" and "we can make a success of no deal" is starting to work in the UK. He has no reason to budge.
Shame we can't fast forward to mid October when we will actually find out if there is a deal to be done. I am tempted to switch off the news till then.
Shame we can't fast forward to mid October when we will actually find out if there is a deal to be done. I am tempted to switch off the news till then.
Edited by C4ME on Wednesday 21st August 11:34
amusingduck said:
Elysium said:
amusingduck said:
Elysium said:
amusingduck said:
Elysium said:
So Parliament did not agree to leave with no-deal when they passed the Withdrawal Act.
Then leaving with No Deal is unlawful, no?Where's the legal challenge?
Leaving in terms of UK law based on the Withdrawal Act is much less clear. I don’t think there will need to be a legal challenge, because I doubt it is going to happen.
What does fall down, absolutely, is the argument from leavers that Parliament permitted no-deal when they approved the withdrawal act. That is clearly incorrect.
Righto. You're obviously the only one who can see the truth
I am refuting the suggestion made by some leavers that Parliament gave its approval to no-deal by agreeing the Withdrawal Act.
That argument, as I have shown, is entirely false. The Withdrawal Act requires the Govt to act consistently with the Phase 1 Report, which means single market and customs union alignment in Northern Ireland, unless a better solution can be agreed.
Unfortunately, no one can mount a legal challenge against someone for simply being ‘wrong’. That is why those efforts are currently focused on ensuring Parliament is given an opportunity to rule against no-deal. Something that it had clearly already tried to make unlawful by virtue of the section of the Withdrawal Act I quoted above.
That seems like a stupid beat-about-the-bush approach, when they could go to the root of the issue and challenge that no deal was not approved, and is not lawful.
What else do you mean by "approved"? Are you just tossing about authoritative terms again to bolster your argument?
If it is lawful to leave with no deal via the WA as the default outcome, then parliament approved that outcome. If they did not approve that outcome, then where are the legal challenges to rule that a no deal brexit is unlawful under the terms of the WA?
The withdrawal act separates U.K. law from EU law. Exit day is the day we leave the EU according to article 50. No further action is required by the Govt as Exit day is defined as the 31st Oct.
It’s very clear that the act requires Govt to have regard for the phase 1 report. It’s also clear that no deal would be incompatible with that.
Therefore, passing the act does not demonstrate parliamentary approval of no deal.
The act does not lawfully prevent Exit Day in a no-deal situation, but that is a different point.
Tactically a JR against the Withdrawal Act is somewhat pointless as it does not directly affect our membership of the EU.
dazwalsh said:
Quite clear now there is stalemate, and we are heading for the default position of brexit until one side blinks. The logical thing to do, as unpalatable as it sounds, is to put our resources and efforts into mitigating the damaging effects of a no deal brexit. Forget trying to get the EU to budge, and forget trying to get that heap of shyte May deal through parliament. If Boris fails to leave one way or another by October the tories are done for, so i think a No deal brexit is still better for them than missing another deadline.
"If Boris fails to leave one way or another by October the tories are done for, so i think a No deal brexit is still BETTER FOR THEM than missing another deadline". The scary thing about this statement is the suggestion that it's not the best outcome of our country or our future that matters, but the survival of the conservative party. If that is the case, and I can fully believe self interested survival and clinging onto power will be seen as more important than the right long term national outcome, then we really are knackered.
I read all the comments about rowing back on the referendum being leading to the destruction of democracy and confidence in our political system and think that's so wrong. Our politicians have already demonstrated adequately that the whole structure is unfit for purpose and ruling by referendum is a monumentally stupid thing to do. The irony being any referendum is nothing more than a process to seek a collective opinion. A referendum result doesn't create a legal obligation to deliver the outcome. That our main political parties so quickly pandered to this public opinion and cast it into manifesto promises despite it being pretty obvious none of them had much of a clue about how it was going to be possible is the killer blow for me in my respect for our democratic process.
I'd far rather someone say "ok people, yes we voted out of the EU but frankly we hadn't thought through what that meant, didn't expect it, never prepared for it and now we're in disarray as even three years on we don't appear to even have reached consensus in our own country what we want. Let's for the sake of our best long term opportunity put things on pause and try to do this properly. Our country and economy deserve better than crashing out through nothing more than dogma".
dazwalsh said:
Quite clear now there is stalemate, and we are heading for the default position of brexit until one side blinks. The logical thing to do, as unpalatable as it sounds, is to put our resources and efforts into mitigating the damaging effects of a no deal brexit. Forget trying to get the EU to budge, and forget trying to get that heap of shyte May deal through parliament. If Boris fails to leave one way or another by October the tories are done for, so i think a No deal brexit is still better for them than missing another deadline.
Entirely agree, although it seems that our Government has ordered the Civil Service to post haste(turbocharged) with preparations for a no deal exit.
biggles330d said:
"If Boris fails to leave one way or another by October the tories are done for, so i think a No deal brexit is still BETTER FOR THEM than missing another deadline".
The scary thing about this statement is the suggestion that it's not the best outcome of our country or our future that matters, but the survival of the conservative party. If that is the case, and I can fully believe self interested survival and clinging onto power will be seen as more important than the right long term national outcome, then we really are knackered.
I read all the comments about rowing back on the referendum being leading to the destruction of democracy and confidence in our political system and think that's so wrong. Our politicians have already demonstrated adequately that the whole structure is unfit for purpose and ruling by referendum is a monumentally stupid thing to do. The irony being any referendum is nothing more than a process to seek a collective opinion. A referendum result doesn't create a legal obligation to deliver the outcome. That our main political parties so quickly pandered to this public opinion and cast it into manifesto promises despite it being pretty obvious none of them had much of a clue about how it was going to be possible is the killer blow for me in my respect for our democratic process.
I'd far rather someone say "ok people, yes we voted out of the EU but frankly we hadn't thought through what that meant, didn't expect it, never prepared for it and now we're in disarray as even three years on we don't appear to even have reached consensus in our own country what we want. Let's for the sake of our best long term opportunity put things on pause and try to do this properly. Our country and economy deserve better than crashing out through nothing more than dogma".
I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree with this. The scary thing about this statement is the suggestion that it's not the best outcome of our country or our future that matters, but the survival of the conservative party. If that is the case, and I can fully believe self interested survival and clinging onto power will be seen as more important than the right long term national outcome, then we really are knackered.
I read all the comments about rowing back on the referendum being leading to the destruction of democracy and confidence in our political system and think that's so wrong. Our politicians have already demonstrated adequately that the whole structure is unfit for purpose and ruling by referendum is a monumentally stupid thing to do. The irony being any referendum is nothing more than a process to seek a collective opinion. A referendum result doesn't create a legal obligation to deliver the outcome. That our main political parties so quickly pandered to this public opinion and cast it into manifesto promises despite it being pretty obvious none of them had much of a clue about how it was going to be possible is the killer blow for me in my respect for our democratic process.
I'd far rather someone say "ok people, yes we voted out of the EU but frankly we hadn't thought through what that meant, didn't expect it, never prepared for it and now we're in disarray as even three years on we don't appear to even have reached consensus in our own country what we want. Let's for the sake of our best long term opportunity put things on pause and try to do this properly. Our country and economy deserve better than crashing out through nothing more than dogma".
Unfortunately we are being driven by fear as much as dogma. Leavers are afraid that they may no longer be in the majority and they see any attempt to slow things as an attempt to deny them of their prize.
As James O’Brien says in his book “I still don’t understand what they think they have won”.
Elysium said:
I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree with this.
Unfortunately we are being driven by fear as much as dogma. Leavers are afraid that they may no longer be in the majority and they see any attempt to slow things as an attempt to deny them of their prize.
As James O’Brien says in his book “I still don’t understand what they think they have won”.
leavers have a bigger majority than ever Unfortunately we are being driven by fear as much as dogma. Leavers are afraid that they may no longer be in the majority and they see any attempt to slow things as an attempt to deny them of their prize.
As James O’Brien says in his book “I still don’t understand what they think they have won”.
You talk some crap
biggles330d said:
"If Boris fails to leave one way or another by October the tories are done for, so i think a No deal brexit is still BETTER FOR THEM than missing another deadline".
The scary thing about this statement is the suggestion that it's not the best outcome of our country or our future that matters, but the survival of the conservative party. If that is the case, and I can fully believe self interested survival and clinging onto power will be seen as more important than the right long term national outcome, then we really are knackered.
I read all the comments about rowing back on the referendum being leading to the destruction of democracy and confidence in our political system and think that's so wrong. Our politicians have already demonstrated adequately that the whole structure is unfit for purpose and ruling by referendum is a monumentally stupid thing to do. The irony being any referendum is nothing more than a process to seek a collective opinion. A referendum result doesn't create a legal obligation to deliver the outcome. That our main political parties so quickly pandered to this public opinion and cast it into manifesto promises despite it being pretty obvious none of them had much of a clue about how it was going to be possible is the killer blow for me in my respect for our democratic process.
I'd far rather someone say "ok people, yes we voted out of the EU but frankly we hadn't thought through what that meant, didn't expect it, never prepared for it and now we're in disarray as even three years on we don't appear to even have reached consensus in our own country what we want. Let's for the sake of our best long term opportunity put things on pause and try to do this properly. Our country and economy deserve better than crashing out through nothing more than dogma".
Spoken like a true remainer. The scary thing about this statement is the suggestion that it's not the best outcome of our country or our future that matters, but the survival of the conservative party. If that is the case, and I can fully believe self interested survival and clinging onto power will be seen as more important than the right long term national outcome, then we really are knackered.
I read all the comments about rowing back on the referendum being leading to the destruction of democracy and confidence in our political system and think that's so wrong. Our politicians have already demonstrated adequately that the whole structure is unfit for purpose and ruling by referendum is a monumentally stupid thing to do. The irony being any referendum is nothing more than a process to seek a collective opinion. A referendum result doesn't create a legal obligation to deliver the outcome. That our main political parties so quickly pandered to this public opinion and cast it into manifesto promises despite it being pretty obvious none of them had much of a clue about how it was going to be possible is the killer blow for me in my respect for our democratic process.
I'd far rather someone say "ok people, yes we voted out of the EU but frankly we hadn't thought through what that meant, didn't expect it, never prepared for it and now we're in disarray as even three years on we don't appear to even have reached consensus in our own country what we want. Let's for the sake of our best long term opportunity put things on pause and try to do this properly. Our country and economy deserve better than crashing out through nothing more than dogma".
You are convincing no-one.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff