Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

Status
Not open for further replies.
Although, as has been pointed out by others. No deal would be just the start of a years (decades ?) long process to agree a post-Brexit set of deals across a variety of subjects, including trade.

But, but, but...Get Brexit Done?!?!
 
No they won't. Why on Earth would you believe that?

Well not directly, but since the camps in Belgium and France are that at the request of a fellow EU member, I guess they wont control that much any more, nor will the UK be allowed to keep its customs inspection there.
 
Something I hope comes of leaving the EU will be more trade with Australia. I've always found it odd how little produce we buy from them, despite the fact that much of it (for e.g. preserves/jams, tinned fruit) is some of the best you'll ever find, and for which their should be no logistical/economic problems with shipping, despite the distance. I believe they could quite easily compete with the (expensive) continental brands that dominate in the UK.
Have you any comprehension of the resource cost involved in freighting short lived foodstuffs twenty thousand kilometres?
 
Following Brexit, the little-Englanders are going to get a heck of a shock when they go on their first "booze cruise" to France to find out that instead of an entire car full of wine and beer, they can only bring back 4 litres of wine, 16 litres of beer and a couple of bottles of spirits.
I lifted more than that from a (business) partner's Xmas party last week.
 
A number of my Conservative friends have suggested that Boris Johnson, now that he's no longer beholden to the ERG and DUP will pivot back to the centre and deliver a much "softer" Brexit than his, or Theresa May's deal.

Being Cassandra I've said that it does the complete opposite, it gives him carte blanche to satisfy his financial backers and deliver a no-deal Brexit whilst turning the UK into a regulation-free sweatshop.

Looking at the proposed terms of the Brexit bill, that pivot doesn't seem to be happening:

The government is to add a new clause to the Brexit bill to make it illegal for Parliament to extend the process beyond the end of next year.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50818134

Sounds like he's going to fritter away the transition period before those horrid Europeans force the UK to crash out with no-deal.

And how will the UK respond ? ......

As well as ruling out an extension, the Independent reports that the amended withdrawal agreement may omit previous "provisions to ensure that workers' rights were not weakened after Brexit".

Wow, what a shock :rolleyes:, hope those working-class turkeys are looking forward to Christmas
 
A number of my Conservative friends have suggested that Boris Johnson, now that he's no longer beholden to the ERG and DUP will pivot back to the centre and deliver a much "softer" Brexit than his, or Theresa May's deal.

Being Cassandra I've said that it does the complete opposite, it gives him carte blanche to satisfy his financial backers and deliver a no-deal Brexit whilst turning the UK into a regulation-free sweatshop.

I disagree, this is the reason:

The government is to add a new clause to the Brexit bill to make it illegal for Parliament to extend the process beyond the end of next year.

If BJ wants a no-deal Brexit any extension is harmful to his cause. Parliamentarians defect, they get their wits together, they see the pit where this is all going and pick their country over their party. Businesses lobby, people take to the streets, he doesn't want any of that. BJ has a majority but it would be foolish beyond words to allow any extension whatsoever if he really wants a no deal Brexit.

BJ wants a Unicorn Brexit he promised - with all the upsides and none of the downsides. He'll probably pass the Brexit deal then ask for a technical extension of a few weeks in order to pass all the relevant laws. Then the real work begins, the future trade deal.

McHrozni
 
If BJ wants a no-deal Brexit any extension is harmful to his cause. Parliamentarians defect, they get their wits together, they see the pit where this is all going and pick their country over their party. Businesses lobby, people take to the streets, he doesn't want any of that. BJ has a majority but it would be foolish beyond words to allow any extension whatsoever if he really wants a no deal Brexit.

The transition period is part of his deal - as is the extension provision. Preventing an extension beyond the end of the transition period is as aggressive as Boris Johnson can make the timing unless he lobbies to have his own deal rejected.

BJ wants a Unicorn Brexit he promised - with all the upsides and none of the downsides. He'll probably pass the Brexit deal then ask for a technical extension of a few weeks in order to pass all the relevant laws. Then the real work begins, the future trade deal.

McHrozni

The current timeline is:

  • The bill is passed in January and the UK leaves the EU on, say 31 January 2020
  • There is a transition period during which the future deals are negotiated and all the arrangements to facilitate the deal are put in place which ends 31 December 2020
  • At the end of that transition period the new deals are either implemented or, if no deals are negotiated, the UK is treated as a third country from 1 January 2021

I'm not sure how your suggestion accelerates this :confused:
 
The transition period is part of his deal - as is the extension provision. Preventing an extension beyond the end of the transition period is as aggressive as Boris Johnson can make the timing unless he lobbies to have his own deal rejected.



The current timeline is:

  • The bill is passed in January and the UK leaves the EU on, say 31 January 2020
  • There is a transition period during which the future deals are negotiated and all the arrangements to facilitate the deal are put in place which ends 31 December 2020
  • At the end of that transition period the new deals are either implemented or, if no deals are negotiated, the UK is treated as a third country from 1 January 2021

I'm not sure how your suggestion accelerates this :confused:

Hm, right - he wants to block the ability of Parliament to vote for an extension, my bad. :o

It's still somewhat disinegnious though. If he wants a no-deal Brexit he needs to act fast and have it on 31st January. Another 11-month delay increases the risk of Parliament growing if not a spine then at least a system of fluid-filled bladders than can complicate things for him.
On the other hand if BJ wants to have a Brexit deal he personally supports he needs to keep the timeline on a short leash to reduce scrutiny.

McHrozni
 
Yeah, that announcement re: "no more extensions" is a pretty big pointer to what he wants. There's no way a proper trade agreement will be in place in the space of a year.

If the removal of the workers rights guarantee is correct as well, then I think we can see where we're heading.
 
Parliament won't "grow a spine".
He has an 80 seat majority.

The Don and I are of a similar age and remember the 80s...no one "grew a spine" over any of Thacher's more absurd ideas.
 
Hm, right - he wants to block the ability of Parliament to vote for an extension, my bad. :o

Seems pretty pointless to me. It's fundamental to the British Constitution, isn't it, that Parliament can pass any law it chooses, including one that repeals any previous law? In effect, that means that no law passed in Parliament can block the ability of Parliament to do anything.

Dave
 
Seems pretty pointless to me. It's fundamental to the British Constitution, isn't it, that Parliament can pass any law it chooses, including one that repeals any previous law? In effect, that means that no law passed in Parliament can block the ability of Parliament to do anything.

Dave
I agree. The laws can take extra time to overturn, but that's all. There has been an increasing amount of this nonsense going on lately - Boris is going to do it with his NHS funding plan. Saying that something will be written into law, when that law only applies to politicians and not the general public, is just the fashionable way for a politician to say that they 'really really mean it.'.

It would be much better if politicians just stuck to their promises instead of wasting time writing them into law.
 
The Don and I are of a similar age and remember the 80s...no one "grew a spine" over any of Thacher's more absurd ideas.
It's worth remembering that some of them - e.g. Michael Heseltine and Kenneth Clarke - did eventually grow a spine when faced with Johnson and the far right crackpots he fronts for. Which must be an indication of how much further right than Thatcher the current bunch are.
 
A number of my Conservative friends have suggested that Boris Johnson, now that he's no longer beholden to the ERG and DUP will pivot back to the centre and deliver a much "softer" Brexit than his, or Theresa May's deal.

This seemed like more remain plotting to me from the moment I first heard it. Why would he do that? It would be contrary to the very clear Conservative manifesto, for which the voters have just delivered a strong mandate.

Remainers never give up. Some remainer thought, "Let's spin the idea that now we've lost, we'll get what we wanted - and see if we can make the public believe that lie."
 
It's worth remembering that some of them - e.g. Michael Heseltine and Kenneth Clarke - did eventually grow a spine when faced with Johnson and the far right crackpots he fronts for. Which must be an indication of how much further right than Thatcher the current bunch are.

The Thatcher/Conservative relationship reminds me of the Reagan/GOP relationship - an idol of the party who is revered by the rank and file but whose policies would be considered C (or R) INO by the current standards of the party.
 
Imagining that Johnson would pivot now he and his backers have got exactly what they schemed and paid for is wishful thinking at its most desperate.
 
Seems pretty pointless to me. It's fundamental to the British Constitution, isn't it, that Parliament can pass any law it chooses, including one that repeals any previous law? In effect, that means that no law passed in Parliament can block the ability of Parliament to do anything.

Dave

Well sure, any extension could simply read "Nonwithstanding the law prohibiting the extension, we vote for an extension".

It's part theatrics, part politics and part psychological pressure - if Parliamentarians voted once not to allow any further extensions, it is more difficult both politically and phychologically to go against that decision.

Therefore it's not at all pointless.

McHrozni
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom