Brexit - It's Still On!

**DrB0b** · 27-03-2019, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by NigelFarage

It didn't envisage the situation of Remainer Cameron refusing to make any plans

Why should it? That's an issue for the UK, not the EU.

Originally Posted by NigelFarage

Article 50 should have been designed around the full spectrum of possibilities, not only the one that it anticipated.

Ok. Show us then. What should it look like?

**DrB0b** · 27-03-2019, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by NigelFarage

You're not the sharpest tool. I'm no more capable of coming up with the comprehensive detail required than Baron Kerr was. It would take a lot of brainstorming out possible leave scenarios and then ensuring that each wouldn't result in chaos.

The particular situation we have now could have been predicted and catered for had the EU been diligent in wanting to prevent the chaos it now dislikes as much as the UK government dislikes, but nobody bothered to.

Ah right. I get it. You're one of those people who like to talk about how wrong everything is but unable to offer any solution or any alternative. Well, that was a waste of my time.

**DrB0b** · 27-03-2019, 05:54 PM

The motions for today's indicative votes in the commons. Note that some of these would still be unacceptable to the EU even if passed.

Labour plan

Labour has tabled a motion proposing its plan for a close economic relationship with the EU. The plan includes a comprehensive customs union with a UK say on future trade deals; close alignment with the single market; matching new EU rights and protections; participation in EU agencies and funding programmes; and agreement on future security arrangements, including access to the European arrest warrant.

Common market 2.0

Tabled by Conservatives Nick Boles, Robert Halfon and Andrew Percy and Labour’s Stephen Kinnock, Lucy Powell and Diana Johnson. The motion proposes UK membership of the European free trade association and European Economic Area. It allows continued participation in the single market and a “comprehensive customs arrangement” with the EU after Brexit, which would remain in place until the agreement of a wider trade deal which guarantees frictionless movement of goods and an open border in Ireland.

Confirmatory public vote

Drawn up by Labour MPs Peter Kyle and Phil Wilson and tabled by former foreign secretary Dame Margaret Beckett with the backing of scores of MPs across the House, this motion would require a public vote to confirm any Brexit deal passed by parliament before its ratification.

Customs union

Requires a commitment to negotiate a “permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union with the EU” in any Brexit deal. Tabled by veteran Conservative Europhile Ken Clarke, backed by Labour’s Yvette Cooper, Helen Goodman and chair of the Commons Brexit committee Hilary Benn and Tory former ministers Sir Oliver Letwin and Sarah Newton.

Malthouse compromise Plan A

A cross-party proposal calls for Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement to be implemented with the controversial “backstop” for the Irish border replaced by alternative arrangements. Backed by Conservatives from both the leave and remain wings of the party, including Nicky Morgan, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Damian Green, Steve Baker and Sir Graham Brady, as well as the DUP’s Nigel Dodds and Labour Brexiteer Kate Hoey.

Revoke article 50

Under this plan, if the government has not passed its withdrawal agreement, it would have to stage a vote on a no-deal Brexit two sitting days before the scheduled date of departure. If MPs refuse to authorise no-deal, the prime minister would be required to halt Brexit by revoking article 50. The motion, tabled by the SNP’s Joanna Cherry, has been signed by 33 MPs including Conservative former attorney general Dominic Grieve, Liberal Democrat leader Sir Vince Cable, Labour’s Ben Bradshaw and all 11 members of The Independent Group.

Revocation instead of no deal

Under this plan, the government is called on to “urgently” bring forward any legislation needed to revoke article 50 “in the event that the house fails to approve any withdrawal agreement four days before the end of the article 50 period”. It has been signed by 28 MPs, including the SNP’s Angus Brendan MacNeil and Tory MP Ken Clarke.

New customs union

Tabled by Labour’s MP for Stoke-on-Trent Central Gareth Snell, this motion simply states that it should be the government’s objective to implement a trade agreement including a customs union with the EU. It mirrors an amendment to the trade bill secured by Labour peers in the House of Lords.

EEA/EFTA without customs union

A motion tabled by Conservative MP George Eustice - who quit as agriculture minister this month to fight for Brexit - proposes remaining within the EEA and rejoining EFTA, but remaining outside a customs union with the EU. The motion was also signed by Conservative MPs including former minister Nicky Morgan and head of the Brexit Delivery Group Simon Hart.

No deal

Backed by Conservative MPs John Baron, David Amess, Martin Vickers and Stephen Metcalfe, the motion proposes leaving the European Union without a deal on April 12.

Unilateral right of exit from backstop

The same four Tory MPs, as well as Andrew Percy and Neil Parish, have also backed a motion to leave the EU on May 22 with Mrs May’s withdrawal agreement amended to allow the UK to unilaterally exit the Northern Ireland backstop.

Consent of devolved institutions

Backed by SNP MPs including Ian Blackford, Kirsty Blackman and Stephen Gethins, this motion requires an agreement that the UK will not leave without a deal, and that no action for leaving the EU will be taken without a consent motion passed in both the Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly.

Contingent preferential arrangements

A group of Conservative MPs, including Marcus Fysh, Steve Baker and Priti Patel, have signed a motion that calls for the government to seek to agree preferential trade arrangements with the EU, in case the UK is unable to implement a withdrawal agreement with the bloc.

Contingent reciprocal arrangements

A similar group of Tory MPs have backed a proposal calling for the government to “at least reciprocate the arrangements put in place by the EU and or its member states to manage the period following the UK’s departure from the EU”, in case the UK is unable to implement a withdrawal agreement.

Respect the referendum results

A cross-party proposal, signed by 94 MPs including the Conservatives’ Will Quince, Labour’s Frank Field and the DUP’s Nigel Dodds, urges the house to “reaffirm its commitment to honour the result of the referendum that the UK should leave the European Union”.

Constitutional and accountable government

Tabled by Sir Bill Cash and other Tory Brexiters, this backs leaving the EU, rejects the government’s withdrawal agreement and proposes changing Commons standing orders so that a two-thirds majority would be needed to allow any fresh attempt to allow indicative votes debates to take precedence over government business on any given day.

**foobar** · 27-03-2019, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by NigelFarage

Surely stupid would be to refer to votes for a party that was only created two months ago.

Think it's more stupid to not realize the Brexit Party are the Tories, seeing as they called the referendum and handled all the Brexit negotiations thus far ....& I did say they had been voted in twice which is a bit of a giveaway.

An unelectable party "created two months ago" with no MPs is neither here nor there.

**Dragonfly** · 27-03-2019, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by NigelFarage

Article 50 was designed to stump anyone trying to use it. It should have made reaching certain agreements mandatory before it could be triggered. This was compounded by the EU's rule that new trade deals can't be negotiated around the world until after brexit and its insistence that all withdraw procedures must be agreed before the new trade deal with itself could begin to be developed. Add to that Cameron refusing to make any government brexit plans for fear of encouraging a brexit vote and you had a serious problem.

Good points. I wouldn't say it was designed per se to create cahos, but as acknowledge by many EU members, it was there for principles because nobody expected it was ever going to be used. Was it vague and poorly designed for a real meaningful exit? probably, but again why would anyone design the perfect escape route if nobody is expected to use it. So instead they came up with something "acceptable" but a bit short of a comprehensible plan, and that's normal. It was open-ended and it was flexible enough to accommodate everyone.

The cahos happened because one party (the UK in case you had to guess) didn't play by the rules (as their usual) and their team was incompetent, and had their hands tied by the provisions of A50. Indeed, you had to be very prepared to invoke something as risky as A50, a bit like an emergency button for a crash landing on an isolated planet with your small fragile spaceship.

Really, under the circumstances, Barnier did a fantastic job for the EU and the UK

now, if the UK is not happy, they can just simply fuck off for good and everyone in the EU will cheer up the decision

**DrB0b** · 27-03-2019, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

So instead they came up with something "acceptable" but a bit short of a comprehensible plan,

Again, article 50 is ONLY about notifying the EU that a state is leaving. It does not deal with plans. Plans are dealt with elsewhere, not in A50. Am I the only person who actually thinks it's important to read this stuff before commenting on it?

**Switch** · 27-03-2019, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

he cahos happened because one party (the UK in case you had to guess) didn't play by the rules (as their usual) and their team was incompetent, and had their hands tied by the provisions of A50. Indeed, you had to be very prepared to invoke something as risky as A50, a bit like an emergency button for a crash landing on an isolated planet with your small fragile spaceship.

Really, under the circumstances, Barnier did a fantastic job for the EU and the UK

now, if the UK is not happy, they can just simply fuck off for good and everyone in the EU will cheer up the decision

"Some people are like Slinkys...They're really good for nothing, but can bring a smile to your face by pushing them down a flight of stairs.

**Dragonfly** · 27-03-2019, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by NigelFarage

Its simplicity did not anticipate it being able to be triggered by a remainer government with no leave plans and a parliament with a majority of MPs who wish Article 50 didn't exist. That is what has caused the current mess. It is a poorly thought out and flawed mechanism.

Article 50 purpose was not to predict the poor state of affair of a country internal politics, it's a starting point for a negotiation. You make it sounds like it had to be a decision tree for every possible case of political landscape, an impossible task.

Incidentally, I remember it was ONE country who asked for Article 50 to be designed when the EU constitution was being discussed back in 2004. I wonder which country would that be?

**DrB0b** · 27-03-2019, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by NigelFarage

Why does simplistic Article 50 assume that two years should be enough to finalise everything when the EU took seven years to put together its Canada trade agreement?

The expectation is that a50 is invoked once a country has got its act together. Can't blame the EU for the UKs premature invocation although, to be fair, the EU did ptess for it to be done quickly. The decision to invoke a50 at a ridiculously early stage was Camerons (although he was savvy enough not to invoke it himself) and he refused to allow the Civil Service to make any contingency plans, an act of criminal negligence IMO.

**foobar** · 27-03-2019, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by foobar

The UK could have secured current deals under new contracts awaiting signature + same for all the promised fabulous new deals to be made without the alleged hinderence of EU rules.

All the deals + 10yr detailed business plan presented to the public of what to expect as a result of leaving the EU.

Then hold a leave/remain Referendum.

Then trigger A50 if leave wins.

Instead we had Boris driving around in a bus with a union jack and Farage standing in front of a Photoshopped picture of queuing immigrants which was apparently a sound business model for triggering A50.

And, now the Brexiteers are blaming everyone( Communists, Soros, Corbyn, IRA, French people, German people, Socialism, Mafia, EU etc etc ) but themselves for the every growing steaming pile of Brexcrement that confronts and assaults their senses every day...

And, the best bit is that Brexit hasn't even started yet, Brexiteers are now wailing, 'leave or stay', 'we don't care any more we just want this over with' 'we will agree any terms' ...we're not even in the foothills of Brexit yet, we've not even reached the carpark, we're still on the Brexit Bus going down the motorway trying to find the off ramp.

**Dragonfly** · 27-03-2019, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Again, article 50 is ONLY about notifying the EU that a state is leaving. It does not deal with plans. Plans are dealt with elsewhere, not in A50. Am I the only person who actually thinks it's important to read this stuff before commenting on it?

right, it's the signal to start that process with timing conditions of the process. I think what Nigel is trying to say is that A50 should have included other provisions to conduct that process outside the timing question. Well yeah, but again, why would anyone do that if it was there just for show.

Fact is A50 is simply a door with a timer. It's not a transportation system to a new destination.

**DrB0b** · 27-03-2019, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by NigelFarage

That's not the point. It states that it must be triggered before the new relationship can be negotiated and that the country will leave the EU two years after that commences. Are you saying Canada didn't know what it wanted before the seven years of negotiations commenced?

It is the point. The problem with no deal is that no arrangements whatsoever have been made to deal with it. I am not talking here about negotiations with the EU, I am talking about the fact there are no plans for what happens after leaving, THAT is the issue. NOTHING has been arranged with other countries. Because of the premature invocation of a50 the UK has absolutely no fallback in the case of no deal and that gives the EU all the cards.

**DrB0b** · 27-03-2019, 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by NigelFarage

Surely you aren't daft enough to believe that. It was a threat

He was censured by the Foreign Office Select Committee for doing exactly that and ordering that no contingency plans were to be made, they described it as an act of gross negligence. Were they daft too?

**Dragonfly** · 27-03-2019, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by NigelFarage

Why does simplistic Article 50 assume that two years should be enough to finalise everything when the EU took seven years to put together its Canada trade agreement?

like the 3% budget rule, it's simply a number. Again, the provision is flexible enough for all parties to negotiate extensions. If Maybot had not been delusional and secretive about the whole thing (probably to hide her own incompetence and those in her cabinet), she could have asked immediately for an extension after invoking A50, and she would have got it. Maybe asking for 5 years min, and everyone in the EU would have got it and agreed to it, because yeah, 2 fucking years is way too short.

but instead, because of internal petty politics, that extension was never asked at the right reasonable time, and here we are with a fucking 2 weeks extension, and only to serve the EU to finish preparing for a hard brexit. Yeah, fucking ridiculous. Your country will never recover from that shit, it will plague UK politics for the next 50 years when economic shits are going to become unmanageable for everyone in the UK.

If you have a plan B to leave that sinking ship, go for it before it's too late.

**DrB0b** · 27-03-2019, 06:42 PM

29 Feb 2019. Seriously?

Of course I've read it, it's very recent and it predicts disaster.

Summary.

Economic
The UK economy would be 6.3-9% smaller in the long term in a no deal scenario (after around 15 years) than it otherwise would have been when compared with today’s arrangements, assuming no action is taken. There would also be significant variation across the UK (Wales -8.1%, Scotland -8.0%, Northern Ireland -9.1% and the North East of England -10.5%).

Border issues
In a no deal scenario, both the UK and EU would need to apply customs and excise rules and VAT to goods moving between the UK and EU, as they are currently applied to goods traded in the rest of the world. Every consignment would require a customs declaration, and so around 240,000 UK businesses that currently only trade with the EU would need to interact with customs processes for the first time, should they continue to trade with the EU. HMRC has estimated that the administrative burden on businesses from customs declarations alone, on current (2016) UK-EU trade in goods could be around £13bn.

Tariffs
In a no deal scenario there would be wider macroeconomic effects, in particular an increase to the price of imports. Such factors would include the resurrection of non-tariff barriers with the EU, and countries covered by EU free trade agreements but not yet new UK ones, and any restrictions at the border which could delay imports and exports.

Northern Ireland
The impact from a ‘no deal’ scenario is expected to be more severe in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain, and to last for longer, due to their geographical position.

In a no deal scenario there is an expectation of disruption to closely interwoven supply chains and increasing costs that would affect the viability of many businesses across Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland is particularly vulnerable given its high proportion of, and reliance upon SMEs (75% of all private sector employment) and the number of businesses who trade directly with Ireland (Northern Ireland’s largest international export market). It is particularly vulnerable given its reliance on cross-border supply chains in the production stage and in finished products.

Service Sectors
The service sector (which makes up around 80% of UK GDP) is supported by free movement of people. In a no deal scenario, UK businesses would be treated as third-country service providers by the EU. The UK would risk a loss of market access and increase in non-tariff barriers.

The Financial Policy Committee also said in its Financial Stability Report from November 2018 that the UK banking system is strong enough to continue to serve UK households and businesses even in the event of a disorderly exit.

Data flows
Uninterrupted personal data flows are critical for many UK businesses’ processes and all trading activity. The UK would need to seek adequacy decisions from the EU, which the EU has said they will not start until the UK is a third country. Therefore, in the event of a no deal exit, there would be a gap in the lawful free flow of personal data while the assessment takes place. To prepare for a no deal scenario, many UK businesses need to work with their EU partners to secure a legal basis for the continued transfer of personal data from the EEA to the UK.

Conclusion

The Government has been accelerating its preparations for a no deal scenario since September, with a particular emphasis since December 2018. However, the short time remaining before 29 March 2019 does not allow Government to unilaterally mitigate the effects of no deal. The lack of preparation by businesses and individuals is likely to add to the disruption experienced in a no deal scenario.

**Dragonfly** · 27-03-2019, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by DrB0b

The EU is not responsible for the dangerous ignorance and incompetence of those in the UK tasked with dealing with Brexit. The UK is responsible for them but is displaying an almost Thai-like ability to blame others for its self-inflicted wounds.The current mess is entirely the fault those who fed lies to an electorate almost completely ignorant of the facts.

there is something very familiar for us, Thai style in that whole political affair, I think it's about political mediocrity and political incompetence and self-interests

**Dragonfly** · 27-03-2019, 06:50 PM

jesus, a 9% drop in potential long run GDP is a major Aggregate supply curve shit, basically to the magnitude of 2008 or more

that would mean massive inflation and massive unemployment, nothing will run

with your public utility sector fully privatized, that could mean a shutdown of electricity and basic public transportation systems

and you think Thatcher was bad

**DrB0b** · 27-03-2019, 06:51 PM

Oh. You changed the link, very dodgy!!!! This is the link you originally posted. https://www.gov.uk/government/public...tent=immediate

**DrB0b** · 27-03-2019, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by NigelFarage

Today,[at]11:50 AM #10039
NigelFarage
Newbie

Join Date
Mar 2019
Last Online
Today @ 11:51 AM
Posts
22
So you don't think that Cameron hatched his Lets Make No Leave Plans Before the Referendum with his friends at the EU then. It was probably Junker's idea.

They all knew that remain would probably win, but if it didn't they could claim that people didn't know what they were voting for so there needs to be another referendum. It was all rigged.

Sorry, I'm not getting into Brexiteers tinfoil hat territory with you. You'll be ranting about Cultural Marxism and Remoaners any moment now.

**DrB0b** · 27-03-2019, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by NigelFarage

Oh ok, intentionally making no plans wasn't rigging the referendum then. Have it your way.

In fact he claimed that making plans would be interfering with the referendum by pre-empting the results.

I think he was just a smug idiot.

**Dragonfly** · 27-03-2019, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by NigelFarage

I'm not interested in anything he claimed. He claimed he'd steer the UK through brexit if that was chosen. He was full of shit.

of course he was, he is a Torry

**Dragonfly** · 27-03-2019, 07:06 PM

I think we can all blame the EU for that one

Road safety: UK set to adopt vehicle speed limiters
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47715415

**foobar** · 27-03-2019, 07:12 PM

I will need to expand my glue huffing memes to defy the mods.

**DrB0b** · 27-03-2019, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by NigelFarage

What was needed was two clear unbiased official plans to vote on, what to do if we choose to remain and what to do if we choose to leave

No argument from me on that.

**jabir** · 27-03-2019, 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by NigelFarage

So you don't think that Cameron hatched his Lets Make No Leave Plans Before the Referendum with his friends at the EU then. It was probably Junker's idea.

If it was Juncker's idea then it was Merkel's idea first; same Tusk, and May.

Does Cameron belong on her trophy shelf? I don't know, quite possible in view of his attitudes and actions.

Thread: Brexit - It's Still On!

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions