Cont: Brexit: Now What? Magic 8 Ball's up

[BadBoy]

He has just said in the people's pmqs that staying in the EU will cost us £250m a week.

He is clearly trying to correct the big fat liar who wrote it was £350m a week 3 years ago.

Oh.

The thing that had bugged me about this is that (apart from the net figure being 150 million to the EU) presumably this doesn't take into account all the economic advantages, profits and savings for UK commerce while being in the EU. Obviously there is much more capital advantages to being in the EU that isn't included in that net figure. i.e. its not as simple as that.

I suspect the real figure is some hundreds of millions in the black for the UK.

 

[angrysoba]

The thing that had bugged me about this is that (apart from the net figure being 150 million to the EU) presumably this doesn't take into account all the economic advantages, profits and savings for UK commerce while being in the EU. Obviously there is much more capital advantages to being in the EU that isn't included in that net figure. i.e. its not as simple as that.

I suspect the real figure is some hundreds of millions in the black for the UK.

I think that that particular brick wall stopped listening many, many years ago.

 

[The Don]

It seems that the Conservative Party are continuing to adopt the tactics of the GOP and President Trump. When they break the law, and courts rule against them, claim that the courts are biased and throw the whole idea of an impartial judiciary away so as to achieve your extremist political agenda.

....and use the ol' "people are saying" ploy to do it

Kwasi Kwarteng said it is "fact" that people think judges are not impartial after a Scottish court ruled that suspending Parliament was illegal.

The business minister told the BBC's Andrew Neil Show: "I'm not saying this, but, many people... are saying that the judges are biased."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49670901

Then again, it's effective so I guess why not ? (apart from it undermining the foundations of the British legal system)

 

[McHrozni]

No deal is still the default outcome.
tl;dr News Youtube about 8 ways Boris Johnson can still get his no-deal

I managed to watch this. It doesn't seem like BJ has all that many options left. His best best looks like calling a no confidence vote in himself, but that would probably backfire and result in Corbyn asking for the extension before triggering a new GE. Beyond that his options are to send the letter and hoping beyond hope EU doesn't grant another extension. The options descend rapidly from there on, some simply wouldn't work, others come with a probable jail sentence.

EU not granting the extension is somewhat unlikely, given than BJ already asked for an election twice and the opposition already stated they wanted one, after the extension is secured. EU knows this because they have access British news.

Hm. His best bet is probably to go along with the extension, claiming he was coherced into it by Parliament (which is - uncharacteristically - true) and face the election, asking for a Brexit mandate. He would lose votes to Brexit party, but Labour and LibDem may be splitting the Bremain vote too. It's a roll of the dice that might go his way still.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

The thing that had bugged me about this is that (apart from the net figure being 150 million to the EU) presumably this doesn't take into account all the economic advantages, profits and savings for UK commerce while being in the EU. Obviously there is much more capital advantages to being in the EU that isn't included in that net figure. i.e. its not as simple as that.

I suspect the real figure is some hundreds of millions in the black for the UK.

I suspect that it depends on what you include/exclude.

At the very start of the first iteration of this thread we started to put together a list of the "services" provided by the EU which, as a member, the UK takes advantage of. Things like negotiating trade deals, developing and enforcing standards and so on. The costs of setting up these functions in the UK (which would almost certainly be much greater than 1/28 of the cost of the EU doing it) would likely far exceed the £x a week of UK net contributions.

Then we have the cost of implementing EU customs controls and fishing patrols and all those things which are either unnecessary or significantly scaled back because the UK is a member of the EU and dealing with partners rather than third parties. The department of Brexit is costing billions annually, and other departments' workload is increasing significantly. This too would likely far exceed the £x a week of UK net contributions.

We haven't even got to the value of the benefits of being a member of the EU, whether it's simply having a much bigger market to buy from/sell to, the ability to have extended JIT supply chains, access to global markets through EU trade deals, immediate access to a large and highly skilled workforce and so on. These benefits would also likely far exceed the £x a week of UK net contributions.

The Bank of England has forecast a range of values for the "hit" that the UK economy would take as a result of Brexit. Even taking the low value of 3% sets the annual cost of Brexit at more than £500m a week - and that's in perpetuity.

Then again, it was never about lower costs, increased trade and economic growth. For Brexiteers it was about keeping brown people out and returning to the heady days of Empire and for the architects of Brexit it's been about the creation of economic turbulence out of which they plan to personally enrich themselves at the expense of the country, and world, at large.

 

[Vixen]

Theyve changed the title of the yellowhammer document before releasing it to pretend once again its a worst case.

at the same time its revealed that 4 and a half billion pounds of short positions are invested on brexit by hedge funds linked to Bojo and Vote Leave.

and a minister goes on tv to disparage the impartiality if the judiciary.

utterly criminal.

According to the GRAUNIAD the original version says 'base case' not 'worst case'. So Michael Gove lied to the Commons.

If that is the 'base case' I hate to think what the 'worst case' model looks like.

 

[Vixen]

If the queen has no authority to deny assent, what does it matter if the prime minister lies to her?

She has legal advisers. Enquiring minds (for example, the GRAUNIAD) are asking today what is the point of getting Queen's assent if she can never say, 'no'.

General speaking, she does whatever is advised by the Privy Council (a bunch of government senior ministers). However, one wonders what her own advisers told her.

 

[Vixen]

I managed to watch this. It doesn't seem like BJ has all that many options left. His best best looks like calling a no confidence vote in himself, but that would probably backfire and result in Corbyn asking for the extension before triggering a new GE. Beyond that his options are to send the letter and hoping beyond hope EU doesn't grant another extension. The options descend rapidly from there on, some simply wouldn't work, others come with a probable jail sentence.

EU not granting the extension is somewhat unlikely, given than BJ already asked for an election twice and the opposition already stated they wanted one, after the extension is secured. EU knows this because they have access British news.

Hm. His best bet is probably to go along with the extension, claiming he was coherced into it by Parliament (which is - uncharacteristically - true) and face the election, asking for a Brexit mandate. He would lose votes to Brexit party, but Labour and LibDem may be splitting the Bremain vote too. It's a roll of the dice that might go his way still.

McHrozni

I cannot wait to see 'chicken' BoJo surrendering to...the 'Surrender Bill', as he provocatively calls it.

 

[The Don]

According to the GRAUNIAD the original version says 'base case' not 'worst case'. So Michael Gove lied to the Commons.

If that is the 'base case' I hate to think what the 'worst case' model looks like.

We'll find out in about 7 weeks time

 

[Vixen]

Quote:
15. Facing EU tariffs makes petrol exports to the EU uncompetitive. Industry had plans to mitigate the impact on refinery margins and profitability but UK Government policy to set petrol import tariffs at 0% inadvertently undermines these plans. This leads to significant financial losses and announcement of two refinery closures (and transition to import terminals) and direct job losses (about 2000). Resulting strike action at refineries would lead to disruptions to fuel availability for 1-2 weeks in the regions directly supplied by the refineries.
Source : https://twitter.com/RosamundUrwin/st...74282017869824

This is the redacted part as claimed by a tweeter, Rosamund Urwin. According to the rest of Yellowhammer, the impact will be most severe on the lower income groups in t'Grim North. I can foresee long queues at the petrol stations just before 31 October 2019, with rationing having to be imposed. Fights breaking out amongst motorists.

Do these refineries supply fuel to keep manufacturing industries running smoothly (for example, plastics and cosmetics)? What is the likely impact on the closure of two refineries and the loss of 2,000 jobs that made Whitehall insist on redacting this paragraph as even more alarming than two-day delays of lorries bearing fresh food supplies, amongst other commodities?

Presumably there will be a knock on effect on the communities. Rather like when the mines were shut down.

Whole villages and towns dependent generation-to-generation on these jobs.

 

[The Don]

Meanwhile the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg is suggesting that Boris Johnson might very well be playing a very canny long game of "divide and rule". The idea is that the 30% to 40% of no-deal Brexiteers will be firmly behind him and enough of the rest will be so sickened by the whole thing that they'll agree to anything just to get this mess over and done with.

Selected quotes from the article.

This is Downing Street's fundamental gamble, that in the end, most of the public are in the camp of the fed up and frustrated, who just want this to be over, and therefore they will tolerate a few prime ministerial bumps and scrapes along the way.

And that's why, shocking though it may sound given No 10 has today been found to have misled the monarch and broken the law, in Downing Street, today's result is not entirely seen as bad thing, giving - as some of those close to the PM see it - yet more evidence of the "establishment" trying to stand in the way of allowing Brexit to happen.

Throughout the Vote Leave campaign the approach was consistent - if the controversial things they claimed were challenged, their answer was not to demur, but to double down.

The parallels are already there. Listening to government minister Kwasi Kwarteng suggest tonight that independent judges doing their jobs are "interfering" tells us that - even though he used a classic political technique of saying he was only articulating what others were saying.

They have made a clear decision about taking a controversial strategy, which could ultimately be successful, from which they won't be diverted.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49669266

Sounds like classic Dom/Bannon

 

[Lothian]

According to the GRAUNIAD the original version says 'base case' not 'worst case'. So Michael Gove lied to the Commons.

If that is the 'base case' I hate to think what the 'worst case' model looks like.

Yellowhammer is a realistic worst case. It is what all government departments are currently preparing for.

 

[The Don]

This is the redacted part as claimed by a tweeter, Rosamund Urwin. According to the rest of Yellowhammer, the impact will be most severe on the lower income groups in t'Grim North. I can foresee long queues at the petrol stations just before 31 October 2019, with rationing having to be imposed. Fights breaking out amongst motorists.

Which reminds me, must fill the Jag and MG at some point in the next few weeks. It's useful having a 145 litre (2,400 km in the Skoda) petrol reserve in the garage (even if syphoning is less than pleasurable) in case of emergency.

 

[Vixen]

From Bloomberg 19 August 2019:

The U.K. Petroleum Industry Association, which represents the country’s downstream oil sector, urged the U.K. government to adopt a policy of reciprocal tariffs so that British exports are on a level playing field with EU refiners. It says that while gasoline imports to the U.K. could benefit from zero tariffs, its exports of the fuel could face a 4.7% charge if the U.K. exits the EU without a deal and defaults to World Trade Organization rules.


“Refining is a margin-tight industry and these tariffs would put a severe amount of pressure on the sector’s competitiveness,” William James, a UKPIA spokesman, said in an interview.

<snip

The U.K. has six oil refineries which combined produce about 400,000 barrels a day of gasoline. About 30% of that -- or 127,000 barrels a day -- is exported, according to Wood Mackenzie estimates.

However, tariffs could cause existing fuel supply routes to be redirected, Wood Mackenzie said. Some of Britain’s current export volumes could be diverted back into the U.K. market, while countries that currently export to the London area, from the Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Antwerp oil shipping hub, could instead send those volumes to the U.S., Gelder said.

As gasoline exports aren’t a primary income stream for every refinery, potential tariffs may not have a significant impact on some plants, according to energy consultant Facts Global Energy.

So it seems two refineries are likely to close because of the tight margins (between cost of production and what it can be sold for). The problems will lie in redistribution and the logistics associated with it.

 

[Pixel42]

The idea is that the 30% to 40% of no-deal Brexiteers will be firmly behind him and enough of the rest will be so sickened by the whole thing that they'll agree to anything just to get this mess over and done with.

The only way to "just to get this mess over and done with" is to revoke Article 50. Any other option means years, if not decades, more mess.

I haven't seen anything in the stuff about fuel shortages which says what the likely impact is on supplies of the fuel I (and a million other people who aren't on the gas main) need to heat my home. I have enough LPG in my tank to last until January, so if the supply is disrupted I'll be running out during the coldest time of the year.

 

[Tolls]

The only way to "just to get this mess over and done with" is to revoke Article 50. Any other option means years, if not decades, more mess.

Exactly.
Why the hell the media (the Beeb in particular) refrain from pointing this out is really frustrating.

No Deal is not the end of Brexit...it's the start.

 

[uke2se]

The only way to "just to get this mess over and done with" is to revoke Article 50. Any other option means years, if not decades, more mess.

I haven't seen anything in the stuff about fuel shortages which says what the likely impact is on supplies of the fuel I (and a million other people who aren't on the gas main) need to heat my home. I have enough LPG in my tank to last until January, so if the supply is disrupted I'll be running out during the coldest time of the year.

I don't think even revoking Article 50 will get the mess over and done with. It will create a "stab in the back" narrative that will be used by the extreme right to get political power. Brexiteer newspapers will fan the flames. You should prepare for worse civil unrest.

 

[The Don]

The only way to "just to get this mess over and done with" is to revoke Article 50. Any other option means years, if not decades, more mess.

I haven't seen anything in the stuff about fuel shortages which says what the likely impact is on supplies of the fuel I (and a million other people who aren't on the gas main) need to heat my home. I have enough LPG in my tank to last until January, so if the supply is disrupted I'll be running out during the coldest time of the year.

We're on oil and have a similar issue.

If we don't switch on the AGA and keep the heating low (we have a multifuel stove in the living room) then we may be able to make it through the winter on the 2,000 litres or so that we have.

That said, if there's large-scale shortages of heating oil and LPG, it's likely that I'll have to make the the oil tank more secure

edited to add....

You're absolutely right about revoking article 50 but that appears to be politically impossible.

 

[The Don]

I don't think even revoking Article 50 will get the mess over and done with. It will create a "stab in the back" narrative that will be used by the extreme right to get political power. Brexiteer newspapers will fan the flames. You should prepare for worse civil unrest.

I think it unlikely that the extreme right would be able to get much political power, there really aren't enough of them - or at least enough who are willing to stay the course.

Then again in the EU but with far right extremists steering the ship would still be less damaging than out of the EU (and with the far right de-facto steering the ship) because the EU would provide a moderating influence.

 

[uke2se]

I think it unlikely that the extreme right would be able to get much political power, there really aren't enough of them - or at least enough who are willing to stay the course.

Then again in the EU but with far right extremists steering the ship would still be less damaging than out of the EU (and with the far right de-facto steering the ship) because the EU would provide a moderating influence.

You are right. My point is that Brexit is a radicalizing factor for extreme rightwingers.