Fully prepared my arris.martin_p wrote: You do realise that the EU has been fully prepared for no deal for over six months now don’t you?
It's impossible to be fully prepared for a no deal.
Fully prepared my arris.martin_p wrote: You do realise that the EU has been fully prepared for no deal for over six months now don’t you?
Won't take long to get a trade deal sorted will it?BennyD wrote:The problem with all this leaked info regarding shortages, is that most of it has been leaked by remainers and then taken out of context. If you don’t prepare for the worst case, it will be THE worst case if it happens. Therefore the theoretical, food medicine, fuel, HRT drug shortages are just that; theoretical. There are many deals already in place and it won’t take long to get other deals in place with either the EU, the US or anybody else WE choose to have a deal with. The world won’t end and all our present trading partners will still want to take our money despite what the EU says. Remember, if the EU doesn’t trade with us their recession will happen sooner and be harder and they really, really don’t want that.
Why?Bin Ont Turf wrote:Fully prepared my arris.
It's impossible to be fully prepared for a no deal.
Someone in power really needs to speak to dsr about this.Devils_Advocate wrote:More good news on the No Deal front
https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-crisi ... e-11800263
Well you can't 'fully prepare' for something that hasn't happened yet, and have no way of knowing 'fully' what will happen.martin_p wrote:Why?
No need he's heading off to Dover as we speak to get things sortedaggi wrote:Someone in power really needs to speak to dsr about this.
Well you can’t prepare for something that has already happened because then it’d be called reacting.Bin Ont Turf wrote:Well you can't 'fully prepare' for something that hasn't happened yet, and have no way of knowing 'fully' what will happen.
The experience of May when she was repeatedly told that the deal on the table was non negotiable and the Oct 31st deadline was non moveable unless there was a second referendum or General election. Since no deal was put back on the table the EU are talking about an extension in order to get another deal done. The fact that the EU are preparing for a no deal exit does not mean they want one, because they most certainly don’t. They don’t want us to exit in any way shape or form and they will go to the ends of the earth to try and prevent one.martin_p wrote:What experience? When has this ‘big stick’ approach been successful? You do realise that the EU has been fully prepared for no deal for over six months now don’t you?
MP'S have been given numerous chances to move the brexit process forwards,on each and every occasion they have failed to come to a majority on anything,OK! they don't like TM'S WA i get that,i don't particularly like it either,so they were given a series of indicative votes to express their wishes,even then no single motion carried a majority,including a 2nd referendum or a form of CU,so as parliament didn't coalesce around any alternatives,they can't now complain that Boris is trying to get a deal,but clearly being serious about walking away if he doesn't get a decent deal.BennyD wrote:Another revisionist, so let me respond; since the referendum MPs have always held the whip hand: how many votes have there been? The results of these votes have stymied progress on every level. Just to remind you, May actively approached all MPs as to why her deal was the best we could achieve, especially ahead of the THIRD failed vote.
Whoever showed you it was patent bollx (sic) was talking bollx and your analogy was as daft as you. Please let me rephrase; If I don't get a better deal I will withhold £39billion and it will bollx your economy more than our’s because you are heading into recession and you desperately need it. Btw, If you worked for the Samaritans, people would most probably top themselves rather than listen to your bollx so please don’t volunteer.
This government do want to leave with a deal but experience has shown we need to wield a big stick to get the deal we want, and the threat of leaving with no deal is the biggest stick we have. If you can’t/won’t see that you must be just another ******* and whatever I post will fall on thick ears.
So the evidence that the ‘big stick’ approach works is the offer of an extension That’ll be the third extension, the first two happening before ‘no deal was put back on the table’.BennyD wrote:The experience of May when she was repeatedly told that the deal on the table was non negotiable and the Oct 31st deadline was non moveable unless there was a second referendum or General election. Since no deal was put back on the table the EU are talking about an extension in order to get another deal done. The fact that the EU are prepared for a no deal exit does not mean they want one, because they most certainly don’t. They don’t want us to exit in any way shape or form and they will go to the ends of the earth to try and prevent one.
It’s going to implode, it’s just a matter of when. The loss of our £39billion might well be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.Right_winger wrote:We don’t need or want a deal
With the EU. We should slash taxes to undercut them at every corner. They are genuinely scared of that scenario as it would cause the political block to implode on itself.
But there’s literally nowhere else to go without relaxing some of our red lines. If the government do that they can go and renegotiate with the EU and bring something back they can probably get through Parliament.BennyD wrote:Martin p, agreed. Without someone taking the lead and driving Brexit forward we would be forever doomed to the endless merry go round, until the people got so sick of it that they said “fuk it, it’s too much like hard work” and we stayed in. There was only one outcome the remainer MPs wanted and that was to remain. No deal forces them to come up with a plan and do something constructive rather than the institutional fuckery we’ve seen to date.
The offer of an extension is merely a ploy to allow remain MPs more time to try and get a second referendum or a GNU, it’s another desperate move to try and get the result they want. However, even that wasn’t possible until no deal came back. They haven’t thought no deal was a realistic possibility because they haven’t had to; as soon as it was taken off the table by MPs they had no reason to amend the buttfuck they presented to Mrs May. It makes a big difference because the possibility now exits of us withholding £39billion, a possibility that didn’t exist while no deal was off the table.martin_p wrote:So the evidence that the ‘big stick’ approach works is the offer of an extension That’ll be the third extension, the first two happening before ‘no deal was put back on the table’.
Of course the EU don’t want no deal, but they aren’t prepared to abandon one of their members (Ireland) to achieve it. But the fact they have prepared indicates that they’ve always thought no deal is a realistic possibility, so the fact that ‘no deal is back on the table’ doesn’t really make any difference to whether the EU will change their stance or not.
Definitely an apt username.Right_winger wrote:We don’t need or want a deal
With the EU. We should slash taxes to undercut them at every corner. They are genuinely scared of that scenario as it would cause the political block to implode on itself.
How was an extension ‘not possible’ given it’s happened twice before?BennyD wrote:The offer of an extension is merely a ploy to allow remain MPs more time to try and get a second referendum or a GNU, it’s another desperate move to try and get the result they want. However, even that wasn’t possible until no deal came back. They haven’t thought no deal was a realistic possibility because they haven’t had to; as soon as it was taken off the table by MPs they had no reason to amend the buttfuck they presented to Mrs May. It makes a big difference because the possibility now exits of us withholding £39billion, a possibility that didn’t exist while no deal was off the table.
I wouldn't disagree with most of that. Leave or remain, very few politicians have covered themselves in glory over the past few years.tiger76 wrote:MP'S have been given numerous chances to move the brexit process forwards,on each and every occasion they have failed to come to a majority on anything,OK! they don't like TM'S WA i get that,i don't particularly like it either,so they were given a series of indicative votes to express their wishes,even then no single motion carried a majority,including a 2nd referendum or a form of CU,so as parliament didn't coalesce around any alternatives,they can't now complain that Boris is trying to get a deal,but clearly being serious about walking away if he doesn't get a decent deal.
It's easy for parliament to say they aren't in favour of leaving with no deal,but ATM that's the default setting,until they pass legislation to change it.
They certainly do.aggi wrote:Someone in power really needs to speak to dsr about this.
Internal stalemate? There isn't an internal stalemate. We have a government going full steam ahead and a Parliament that can't be bothered coming back off holiday to take part. When Parliament eventually gets round to sitting again, there might be a stalemate.Devils_Advocate wrote:Best way to break the internal stalemate would be to get No Deal fully legislated against.
This would force the fight towards the centre ground and start giving us some realistic solutions that the EU could engage with and ultimately give us a chance of getting out of the EU with a sensible agreement.
So what about the tariff evasion?dsr wrote:They certainly do.
Does anyone else have any notion as to why the paperwork takes longer for non-EU vehicles than it does for EU? Answer - it's to stop smuggling and tariff evasion. All the lorries have paperwork which may or may not be checked.
Does anyone know how effective the current system is at stopping smuggling? I don't. But I know this - it's less than 100%.
And the crucial question - how vital is it that smuggling does not increase by so much as an aspirin? Answer - that depends on your point of view. Some people reckon that the potential for extra smuggling, especially petty smuggling in small amounts, is so serious that both the Brexit referendum and the Good Friday agreement are less important. Others don't - others see smuggling as relatively trivial, especially in the short term.
So here is a simple and foolproof suggestion for not causing any delays in the border controls. Let the wagon drivers have the same paperwork and do the same checks on the wagons as they do now. Is that simple? Yes. Is it effective for getting goods into the country? Yes. Will it increase smuggling? Marginally. Very marginally. The companies that are currently filling in the paperwork and importing a million pounds of widgets every day aren't going to suddenly lie about the contents of their wagons and say they're bringing them in empty. That would be too obvious.
And as we get into the system, they system will be improved. They will start to put customs men on the ferries and trains (if they don't already) to do physical stock checks while in transit. They will make even greater use of pre-authorised customs check-in. Other changes will happen. IT DOESN'T ALL HAVE TO BE ON DAY ONE.
Every single import is already documented with Customs & Excise. There is no foreign army standing by to enforce increased checks post-Brexit.
My first post for a month on a politics thread, for once it seems something new may be happening.aggi wrote:I wouldn't disagree with most of that. Leave or remain, very few politicians have covered themselves in glory over the past few years.
Far too much in the way of party politics rather than prioritising the country.
I can't say I'm particularly surprised by it though. The whole Brexit vote came about due to party politics. Voting leave and putting the future of the next few generations in the hands of the current crop of politicians was certainly an interesting idea.
How can they legislate against No Deal? Parliament has voted to leave the EU on 31st October, Deal or No Deal. To legislate against no deal would be the same as to legislate that 31st October won't happen - it would be meaningless.Devils_Advocate wrote:Best way to break the internal stalemate would be to get No Deal fully legislated against.
This would force the fight towards the centre ground and start giving us some realistic solutions that the EU could engage with and ultimately give us a chance of getting out of the EU with a sensible agreement.
I don't know. What about it?martin_p wrote:So what about the tariff evasion?
What part are parliament playing in negotiations with the eu and no deal presentations as that’s all that’s going on at the moment. Unless there’s a new deal to debate and vote on the only thing they can concern themselves with is trying to ensure the government doesn’t drive us off the edge of a cliff.dsr wrote:Internal stalemate? There isn't an internal stalemate. We have a government going full steam ahead and a Parliament that can't be bothered coming back off holiday to take part. When Parliament eventually gets round to sitting again, there might be a stalemate.
You mention smuggling and tariffs then the rest of your post is just about smuggling.dsr wrote:I don't know. What about it?
Why haven't they been doing that for the last 6 weeks? Boris Johnson became PM on 24th July which meant there were 99 days available to "do something about it". They knew Boris was heading for no deal unless the EU changed its mind; there is no new news on that. So far, 39 of those days have passed, and Parliament has sat for 1 of them, on which no business was done.martin_p wrote:What part are parliament playing in negotiations with the eu and no deal presentations as that’s all that’s going on at the moment. Unless there’s a new deal to debate and vote on the only thing they can concern themselves with is trying to ensure the government doesn’t drive us off the edge of a cliff.
No, you're wrong. We have to have the same rules for the EU as for the rest of the world, though as you well know they don't have to come in on day 1 - transition periods are allowed.martin_p wrote:You mention smuggling and tariffs then the rest of your post is just about smuggling.
Besides, if we are operating under WTO rules we can’t have a different system for the EU as the rest of the world. So it’s either checks for all or open borders for the whole world.
Why do they need to force an election before Brexit day? They need to get an extension then have a general election. There was zero chance of a successful vote of no confidence in the 36 days after Johnson was crowned anyway. MPs (certainly the Tories) were prepared to give him a bit of a chance, the numbers just wouldn’t have worked.dsr wrote:Why haven't they been doing that for the last 6 weeks? Boris Johnson became PM on 24th July which meant there were 99 days available to "do something about it". They knew Boris was heading for no deal unless the EU changed its mind; there is no new news on that. So far, 39 of those days have passed, and Parliament has sat for 1 of them, on which no business was done.
To force a general election on 24th October, the last Thursday before Brexit day, they had to force a vote of no confidence at least 8 weeks prior. That would be 29th August. They had 36 days between Johnson taking over as PM and the deadline to force a general election. What did they spend those 36 days doing? 1 day as the final day of the session, and 35 days on holiday.
This is Parliament's order of priorities:
1 - go on holiday
2 - deal with Brexit.
Ok same rules then, but it means checks for goods coming from the eu that we don’t have now or essentially no checks at all for anything coming from the rest of the world if we decide to stick to the current eu rules.dsr wrote:No, you're wrong. We have to have the same rules for the EU as for the rest of the world, though as you well know they don't have to come in on day 1 - transition periods are allowed.
But having the same system? Nonsense. Does Sweden, for example, have the same system for goods coming in from Norway as it does from Iceland? No, because one lot comes in by road and the other by sea. Goods coming from Norway are checked by unmanned cameras and number plate recognition as the lorries cross the border. They don't do that with lorries coming from Iceland because there aren't any roads - they use a different system.
Did they have to take Johnson's word for it?martin_p wrote:Why do they need to force an election before Brexit day? They need to get an extension then have a general election. There was zero chance of a successful vote of no confidence in the 36 days after Johnson was crowned anyway. MPs (certainly the Tories) were prepared to give him a bit of a chance, the numbers just wouldn’t have worked.
Besides according to Johnson the chance of no deal was ‘a million to one’.
No it doesn't. In time, the checks on goods from the EU will be different and more thorough than they are now. But not on November 1st. Who would or could enforce it?martin_p wrote:Ok same rules then, but it means checks for goods coming from the eu that we don’t have now or essentially no checks at all for anything coming from the rest of the world if we decide to stick to the current eu rules.
The indications are that they will grant an extension yes. A general election will effectively act as a second referendum I suspect. If the Tories win with or without the Brexit Party it will effectively clear the way for no deal. Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP will promise at least a second referendum and if they win a second referendum would probably get us to remain.dsr wrote:Did they have to take Johnson's word for it?
How will they get an extension? If they try and force Johnson to ask for one, he will treat it as a vote of no confidence and force a general election - or else stay in office, depending on the fixed parliament law - unless the GNU can be cobbled together. Will the EU grant an extension to a lame duck PM, when they know no more about the future than this - (i) the lame duck PM won't be PM for long; (ii) there will be a general election and Lord knows who will be PM after that; (iii) Parliament will almost certainly be hung again unless a Tories/Brexit alliance can win a majority; (iv) whoever wins in whatever combination doesn't like the May deal and has voted against it several times; (v) the resolution to the impasse will almost certainly involve another referendum; (vi) referendums don't solve anything anyway. Unanimous agreement? I wonder.
No one, but why would we want to be upsetting countries we are trying to negotiate trade deals with? For example Donald Trump is hardly known for his patience where he thinks the USA is being unfairly treated. As it stands WTO rules will apply from 1st November as I understand it.dsr wrote:No it doesn't. In time, the checks on goods from the EU will be different and more thorough than they are now. But not on November 1st. Who would or could enforce it?
Yes, they will. But WTO rules aren't prescriptive about exactly what checks have to be made, or even as to whether there has to be a "hard border". If, long term, the UK is seen to be treating the EU preferentially, then complaints will be made and action will be taken. But that isn't going to happen on 1st November.martin_p wrote:No one, but why would we want to be upsetting countries we are trying to negotiate trade deals with? For example Donald Trump is hardly known for his patience where he thinks the USA is being unfairly treated. As it stands WTO rules will apply from 1st November as I understand it.
WTO prescribes that the rules have to be non-discriminatory, so unless we change the non-EU rules those are the rules/checks that will apply from 1st November. It says as much on the governments own website (although it relates to possible no deal on 29th March).dsr wrote:Yes, they will. But WTO rules aren't prescriptive about exactly what checks have to be made, or even as to whether there has to be a "hard border". If, long term, the UK is seen to be treating the EU preferentially, then complaints will be made and action will be taken. But that isn't going to happen on 1st November.
You've convinced me, trying to explain anything to you is ******* in the wind.AndrewJB wrote:A. Leaving without a deal means leaving everything. You’ve said it yourself. Leaving with a May style deal means we have free trade yet to negotiate with a two year time limit (which will work in the EUs favour, because they can better absorb trade loss than us, and will therefore be able to get more concessions out of us as the clock ticks down). Leaving the EU but staying in everything else (or something similar) will command more support, give us an immediate free trade deal, and keep us in the areas of cooperation.
B.Not by any means all of them. Among MPs a majority are against no deal because they fear it could be terrible for our country, but there are a lot who also oppose a second referendum, and want to see a softer Brexit implemented.
C. We would know what the future relationship would be if we just left the EU and nothing else. The more we cut our ties with the EU (like leaving things like the the CU, etc), then the more uncertainty we introduce. The more uncertainty we introduce, the more likely we’ll see negative outcomes from that uncertainty. A no deal will bring our relationship with the EU to an all time low. This is a fact, because whatever our relationship has been like in the past, it has never gone from one point to a very negative other point overnight before. Based on these things, while we can’t see the future in this scenario, we can accurately predict it will be less good than now. A good future relationship will be far harder to hammer out in these circumstances than in more good natured ones. And nobody is getting in the way of negotiations. That’s just Johnson getting his excuses in beforehand. The facts remain that his position and that of the EU are too far apart. Nothing more.
D. I blame Cameron first and foremost, then May and her government; and now the Johnson clown show. Nobody else has had anything other than periphery participation to take any blame. Cameron’s ruinous austerity, as well as his purely partisan referendum. May’s refusal to engage with the world outside her own party, even after she lost her majority. And Johnson setting appalling parliamentary precedents (you won’t like it, but then won’t be able to complain if another government behaves the same way).
Just read the last reply, and then read your post again mate.AndrewJB wrote:I think more remainers would come on side if the deal Johnson struck involved closer ties to Europe. You say now that a Norway style deal is not acceptable (though I say it is) but during the referendum many leavers touted it as a viable option. Between the end of the referendum and when only leaving everything to do with the EU became the leaver position, don’t you see how far the leave position travelled away from the things it said during the referendum? If leavers had just said: “in three years we’ll be on the verge of leaving with no deal” - you would have lost. So leave owes it to everyone to actually canvas the country and see how we want to leave, and leaving with no deal is not going to win much support. You say a Norway option isn’t good enough for you, but if that’s what the public want, well you just have to accept it. A Norway option isn’t good enough for me, but if its what the public want then what more can I say?
So no, I’m not going to get behind Johnson, because he’s trying to achieve the impossible. The Irish border problem can not be solved while we turn our backs on a more sensible customs / market arrangement. Johnson can at best repackage Mays deal, and for the alternative to just be no deal - well you can understand why people are angry. What a stupid cul de sac to take us down. And while leavers are obstinate about this kind of hard Brexit, support for not leaving at all will grow.
I doubt he would need to deselect them. These MPs stood in 2015 on a platform of a referendum about Brexit, they voted to accept the result of the referendum, and they stood again in 2017 on a platform of leaving the EU. And now they're doing all they can to keep us in. That's a pretty hypocritical approach anyway, but even they surely couldn't vote to bring down the government and then expect to stand again on a policy of supporting the referendum and Brexit.martin_p wrote:So with Johnson threatening to withdraw the whip and deselect Tories who vote against him this week and plenty of Tories refusing to crumble under the threat, looks like we’ll officially have a minority government by the end of the week.
Would that be the case though?Colburn_Claret wrote:Yet despite all that if there was a GE tomorrow, his majority would be between 18 and 84.
Suspect they’ll stand as independents, taking votes off whoever the Tories select as candidates.dsr wrote:I doubt he would need to deselect them. These MPs stood in 2015 on a platform of a referendum about Brexit, they voted to accept the result of the referendum, and they stood again in 2017 on a platform of leaving the EU. And now they're doing all they can to keep us in. That's a pretty hypocritical approach anyway, but even they surely couldn't vote to bring down the government and then expect to stand again on a policy of supporting the referendum and Brexit.
It's a normal thing that MPs who vote to bring down their own government get the whip withdrawn from them. They'll all have to resign on their fat pensions and £80k tax free payoffs, or else stand as independents (and if they lose, still collect the fat pension and £80k tax-free payoffs).
It depends on a lot more than just that!Spijed wrote:Would that be the case though?
If an election is held before October 31st then it'll mean Brexit MP's will take a fare share of the Tory vote.
Also, in 2017 Teresa May had polls pointing towards a 17 point lead at one point.
In addition, in places such as Canterbury, there is no knowing whether the student vote will have an effect.
It all depends on whether Labour is willing to work with other groups. I
He didn't bring down the government. Also May was a very very weak PM.martin_p wrote:Suspect they’ll stand as independents, taking votes off whoever the Tories select as candidates.
When did Boris Johnson have the whip withdrawn for consistently voting against May’s withdrawal agreement?
The EU said it. They said they weren’t going to keep extending the deadline if things weren’t progressing in Westminster.martin_p wrote:How was an extension ‘not possible’ given it’s happened twice before?