Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 6. Pick up sticks...

[P.J. Denyer]

The thing is, the core Leave vote is older than average, but not so old as those who remember the war. Elderly voters who lived through the war tended to vote Remain.

So it seems to me the attitude that the Germans are the baddies is strongest among those with a "memory" of the war based on being brought up on flag-waving movies.

It is however the generation that has seemed to take away everything that has worked out well for them every step of of the way. Perhaps that's their objection to leaving good relations with our neighbours?

 

[Michel H]

Switzerland and UK strike bilateral trade agreement

Liam Fox, the secretary of state for international trade, has announced the UK has reached an agreement for a transitional trade deal with Switzerland to allow it to continue trading freely after Brexit.

It is one of 40 “continuity” agreements he is seeking to strike with countries that currently trade with the UK through an EU agreement.

The deals will need to be ratified by parliament and would kick in in the event of no deal or an orderly exit from the bloc.

“This is one of the most significant existing trade agreements, with British companies exporting £19bn worth of goods and services last year and it will provide the certainty that businesses need to continue trading freely,” said Fox.

He said “many other agreements are also close to being agreed” and would come into effect as soon as the implementation period ended in January 2021 or on 29 March 2019 if the UK leaves the EU without a deal.

(https://www.theguardian.com/politic...b025637fe95c81#block-5c13e5dde4b025637fe95c81 )
This leads me to ask the question: Why does it seem to be so much easier for the United Kingdom to strike a trade agreement with Switzerland, than with the European Union? Perhaps, because Switzerland does not demand payment? Something wrong with the EU?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

(https://www.theguardian.com/politic...b025637fe95c81#block-5c13e5dde4b025637fe95c81 )
This leads me to ask the question: Why does it seem to be so much easier for the United Kingdom to strike a trade agreement with Switzerland, than with the European Union? Perhaps, because Switzerland does not demand payment? Something wrong with the EU?

Well, this is just one of hundreds of agreements that need to be done just to formalize "continuity" of the status quo a while.

These are all tenuous documents meant to keep things patched together, but do not signal long-term stability that businesses are looking for to plant infrastructure and set up big operations.

 

[Michel H]

Well, this is just one of hundreds of agreements that need to be done just to formalize "continuity" of the status quo a while.

These are all tenuous documents meant to keep things patched together, but do not signal long-term stability that businesses are looking for to plant infrastructure and set up big operations.

But I didn't see any limitation in scope, or size, or time in this bilateral trade agreement.

 

[Strawberry]

But I didn't see any limitation in scope, or size, or time in this bilateral trade agreement.

I guess every nation has its Quislings, including, as we see here, Belgium.

As for Brexit, its obvious to those of us with eyes to see that its a problem between Britain and Britain. There's nothing the rest of Europe can do to help them with their slide into madness other than try and support the sane voices left there.

 

[Amazer]

(https://www.theguardian.com/politic...b025637fe95c81#block-5c13e5dde4b025637fe95c81 )
This leads me to ask the question: Why does it seem to be so much easier for the United Kingdom to strike a trade agreement with Switzerland, than with the European Union? Perhaps, because Switzerland does not demand payment? Something wrong with the EU?

The UK and the EU haven't even started talking about a trade agreement yet... so why are you comparing the talks which the UK has with Switzerland with those it has with the EU? Apples and Oranges comparison.

And the UK could choose a model of trade agreement where they do not have to pay the EU... it all depends on the level of access that the UK wants to the EU single market.

 

[Wildy]

(https://www.theguardian.com/politic...b025637fe95c81#block-5c13e5dde4b025637fe95c81 )
This leads me to ask the question: Why does it seem to be so much easier for the United Kingdom to strike a trade agreement with Switzerland, than with the European Union? Perhaps, because Switzerland does not demand payment? Something wrong with the EU?

Because Switzerland is only one country while the EU is 27. The agreements also probably cover the small number of things that Switzerland and the UK already trade which makes things much easier.

 

[quadraginta]

You don't blame them for having an irrational dislike of an entire nation that has been nothing but friendly for 70-odd years and yet, like battered wives, continue to re-elect a Tory Party that makes their lives worse every second of every day because they continually believe that 'this time will be different'?

Repeating the same action over and over ... expecting a different result ... has always been a mainstay of conservative thinking. And of the politicians they choose.

There's something else it is indicative of as well. Can't quite put my finger on it, though.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Since a deal seems to be impossible I guess we should expect a "hard Brexit" now, right?

Will the consequences really be so dire if there's no deal or is there a bit of scaremongering going on?

Perhaps the PM should stop trying to negotiate and start preparing the country for this scenario.

If the UK parliament rejects May's deal and does nothing else then hard Brexit just happens by default. Estimates vary on how much damage will result but after the considerable initial disruption we're looking at something like 8% loss of GDP, compared with maybe 3% loss for a softer, more orderly Brexit.

There is, however, stuff parliament can do. They could vote to rescind Article 50 and stop the whole process. Not likely due to the political backlash from the voters seeing the referendum result ignored. They could vote for a second referendum, on the basis that the government has failed to secure an acceptable deal as requested by the referendum, so the people need to choose whether to revert to the status quo or crash out. That's a bit more likely. They could probably invent some compromise middle way which withdraws Art.50 temporarily, pending what, I cannot guess.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

(https://www.theguardian.com/politic...b025637fe95c81#block-5c13e5dde4b025637fe95c81 )
This leads me to ask the question: Why does it seem to be so much easier for the United Kingdom to strike a trade agreement with Switzerland, than with the European Union? Perhaps, because Switzerland does not demand payment? Something wrong with the EU?

No. The problem is UK demands.
Switzerland and the UK agreed to preserve the current situation as much as possible. This is what the EU would prefer, as well, but the UK is refusing.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

If the UK parliament rejects May's deal and does nothing else then hard Brexit just happens by default. Estimates vary on how much damage will result but after the considerable initial disruption we're looking at something like 8% loss of GDP, compared with maybe 3% loss for a softer, more orderly Brexit.

There is, however, stuff parliament can do. They could vote to rescind Article 50 and stop the whole process. Not likely due to the political backlash from the voters seeing the referendum result ignored. They could vote for a second referendum, on the basis that the government has failed to secure an acceptable deal as requested by the referendum, so the people need to choose whether to revert to the status quo or crash out. That's a bit more likely. They could probably invent some compromise middle way which withdraws Art.50 temporarily, pending what, I cannot guess.

And this shows up that Labour are just as culpable in all of this.

If they could agree their own policy and come up with a sensible way forward then things could be resolved in Parliament as probably enough waverers would back it but instead they have decided that unicorns aren't enough and they need flying unicorns from the EU.

It's now a game of chicken - are MPs willing to sit and do nothing while the country falls off a cliff edge or will they act to prevent this by withdrawing Article 50.

There really needs to be a 2nd vote now but I'm not sure it can happen. All 3 options need to be available. Take the deal, leave with no deal or remain in some form of preference vote.

Those are the only 3 choices we have and Corbyn needs to sort himself out and start doing something about it.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I'm sure May and Corbyn are both more concerned about the next general election than however Brexit turns out. Corbyn's strategy so far has been to say and do absolutely nothing of any consequence, just watching the Tories accumulate all the damage from Brexit.

Come to think of it, Corbyn became the invisible man in 2016, when he should have been campaigning for Remain (but didn't want to) and quite possibly tipped the referendum result. I'm beginning to wonder if it's not a cunning strategy but he genuinely is just totally ineffectual as a party leader.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Think Mhairi Black MP nailed it today on Corbyn:

Brexit under any scenario, whether it is Canada Plus, Norway Plus Plus, no deal or the Prime Minister’s deal, will leave the country worse off. Jeremy Corbyn knows this, and he doesn’t want to take the blame.

Many of his supporters disagree with me. I have seen a lot of people claiming that Jeremy Corbyn was playing some 4D, underwater, chess in space, where he somehow knows every single move on the board and can read the Prime Minister with ease. I am afraid, these claims seem as baseless as those in America who make the same claims about Donald Trump

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Rees-Mogg is an arse who can't accept that he has failed in his coup attempt...for the second time in a month.

The last thing we need is a leadership election.

He only wants it so it increases the odds of us crashing out by chewing up the time between now and the end of March.

Did I mention he's an arse?

You may have, but it's one of those things that really can't be said enough.

Rees-Mogg is an arse.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

At least he is clear on where he stands.

I missed when he publicly declared he plans to make a fortune, sorry a bigger fortune, from the damage to Britain's economy?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

But I didn't see any limitation in scope, or size, or time in this bilateral trade agreement.

My take on the statements surrounding it is that it covers the transitional period and a starting framework for post-transition or no deal.

I haven't read the text, but carefully qualified hopeful statements do not a permanent stable agreement make.

 

[Darat]

When Thatcher had a VONC she received 104 votes against and resigned. May got 117 votes against and vows to carry on to 2022.

Different times, different rules.

 

[Darat]

At least he is clear on where he stands. I can't stand all those fakes and phonies like Gove, Leadsom and co., who claim to back the PM, yet stab her in the back secretively. People who change their opinion depending on which way the wind's blowing. Rather like the office creep half way up the boss' backside.

No he isn't, he repeatedly lies.

 

[Darat]

He stands for his own personal profit and power.
Screw the rest of the country.

I still am at a loss as to why he keeps getting interviewed on matters he has no expertise on in regards to Brexit. Yes if you want an expert on the internal fighting within the Tory party interview him otherwise he had nothing more to add to the debate than any other back bench MP.

 

[Darat]

Anyway a couple of days ago, I heard on the today programme, one of the Tories who submitted a letter of no confidence explain that the ERG has a perfectly viable option for the Irish border that would be acceptable to everyone and it just needs a bit of vision to implement.

Because of this I'm sure the Irish government will be reassured.

Admittedly, it wasn't made entirely* clear exactly how the ERG option would work in detail, or why various so-called experts objected to the general idea, but I imagine it's just a failure of imagination and a disinclination to get to the nitty-gritty of implementing a working version og yhe ERG's proposal on their part.




*Okay, if I'm being honest, "remotely" would be more accurate here.

I think I heard the same report. If so the cunning plan was to use hi-tec to mean there'd be no hard border.... Which to be fair when compared to the likes of Johnson and Moog ideas is a very detailed proposal!