Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[summitclaret]

Sebastian Payne
@SebastianEPayne
At least 50 Conservative MPs including three cabinet ministers would revolt against a manifesto pledging to pursue no deal Brexit.

MPs call the idea of the Tories advocating no deal “lunacy”, “madness” and “ludicrous”.

There is no way it will say that. All BJ has to do in a manifesto is say we want a WA leading to a clean break free trade deal, but will leave without one if the EU insist on a never ending backstop. That should take enough BP votes and keep enough middle ground democrats to get a majority.

Contrast that to LD ******** to brexit and Labour's nonsense and he should be ok. Go for no deal only and it lets JC in imo.

[Lancasterclaret]

There is no way it will say that. All BJ has to do in a manifesto is say we want a WA leading to a clean break free trade deal, but will leave without one if the EU insist on a never ending backstop. That should take enough BP votes and keep enough middle ground democrats to get a majority.

Contrast that to LD ******** to brexit and Labour's nonsense and he should be ok. Go for no deal only and it lets JC in imo.

Are you sure though?

There are a lot of people in the Conservative Party who are so far down that road that they might well force it.

[Mala591]

More problems already

- Pretty major EU concession on backstop timing already rejected by the DUP, which sums up I think where they want to go.

https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/statu ... 2392503296" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We can get a deal here, but we have to accept that the dogmatic DUP probably have to be sidelined if they are willing to refuse a perfectly reasonable request just because they don't have sole access to a veto.

EDIT - not as clear as originally reported. Would require a UK pivot on Customs so DUP not as out of order as it originally looked

Basically a NI only backstop which must be democratically approved by the NI electorate every 4-5 years. It might just get through parliament as well. DUP and some ERG votes lost but up to 50 Labour MPs might support it.

[Lancasterclaret]

Basically a NI only backstop which must be democratically approved by the NI electorate every 4-5 years. It might just get through parliament as well. DUP and some ERG votes lost but up to 50 Labour MPs might support it.

My fault Mala, its not as clear cut as that.

This is more up to date reading of it I think

https://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/stat ... 7874053120" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Apologies again

[summitclaret]

Are you sure though?

There are a lot of people in the Conservative Party who are so far down that road that they might well force it.

Pretty sure. They are almost all on message atm playing hard hardball in a game with the EU. When an election comes common sense should prevail. Personally I would find it hard to vote for BJ if it is just no deal. I could however vote BP saying it because they ain't going to form a Government but will stop pathetic Labour and LD views.

Edit. Tory candidates will quite rightly be asked to sign up to their manifesto in blood after the back tracking last time. If they can't they should not be allowed to stand.

[Lancasterclaret]

Pretty sure. They are almost all on message atm playing hard hardball in a game with the EU. When an election comes common sense should prevail. Personally I would find it hard to vote for BJ if it is just no deal. I could however vote BP saying it because they ain't going to form a Government but will stop pathetic Labour and LD views.

We are defo in need of some common sense at the moment!

[Lancasterclaret]

Group of 60+ Conservative MPs meeting Johnson today to insist a block on a "No Deal" Manifesto

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/sta ... 9381466112" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[martin_p]

Pretty sure. They are almost all on message atm playing hard hardball in a game with the EU. When an election comes common sense should prevail. Personally I would find it hard to vote for BJ if it is just no deal. I could however vote BP saying it because they ain't going to form a Government but will stop pathetic Labour and LD views.

Edit. Tory candidates will quite rightly be asked to sign up to their manifesto in blood after the back tracking last time. If they can't they should not be allowed to stand.

So you wouldn’t vote for Johnson if he stood on no deal but would vote BP to stop Labour and Liberal getting any power? If the BP can’t form a government and neither can Labour or Liberal who do you think will?

[summitclaret]

Think about it. Burnley won't votd tory but will BP. That's i seat for brexit.

[dsr]

Group of 60+ Conservative MPs meeting Johnson today to insist a block on a "No Deal" Manifesto

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/sta ... 9381466112" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I would be very interested to see what these alleged 60 are saying their policy should be. They are limiting themselves to either (1) signing any deal the EU cares to offer, or (2) staying in the EU.

Which is their preferred stance? Would they be willing to offer a referendum on either of these options? Would they be willing to offer a referendum on "no deal"?

[Spijed]

Think about it. Burnley won't votd tory but will BP. That's i seat for brexit.

That's why I can't see how Boris Johnson can win an outright majority. In die hard Labour seats they may really want to leave the EU but voters will never vote Tory in a million years.

[martin_p]

Think about it. Burnley won't votd tory but will BP. That's i seat for brexit.

Think about it, if you don’t want a ‘no deal’ government then you have to vote for a party that is offering to negotiate a deal. A BP MP will clearly vote for no deal whenever the opportunity arises.

[martin_p]

I would be very interested to see what these alleged 60 are saying their policy should be. They are limiting themselves to either (1) signing any deal the EU cares to offer, or (2) staying in the EU.

Which is their preferred stance? Would they be willing to offer a referendum on either of these options? Would they be willing to offer a referendum on "no deal"?

Well no. If we relaxed our red lines we could get a deal tomorrow. I realise this doesn’t fit with your Brexit vision, but it’s a compromise that gets us out of the EU (and it only said ‘Leave’ on the ballot paper).

[dsr]

Well no. If we relaxed our red lines we could get a deal tomorrow. I realise this doesn’t fit with your Brexit vision, but it’s a compromise that gets us out of the EU (and it only said ‘Leave’ in the ballot paper).

That's what I said, pretty much. These MPs are saying that they will either agree a deal on the EU's terms, or they will stay in the EU. I want to know which they prefer. Bearing in mind that the EU's terms have been rejected by the following parties: Conservative, Labour, Liberal, SNP, Plaid Cymru, Green, Change UK, DUP, and for that matter UKIP and Brexit parties. Every party in the House of Commons dislikes this deal. So is that what they want to sign up to? And if it won't go through, do they want to stay in? And are they planning to put this to a referendum?

[Mala591]

Well no. If we relaxed our red lines we could get a deal tomorrow. I realise this doesn’t fit with your Brexit vision, but it’s a compromise that gets us out of the EU (and it only said ‘Leave’ in the ballot paper).

But we have relaxed our red lines by offering an EU single market across the whole of Ireland. The EU haven't relaxed their red lines at all. The ball is now in their court to make some sort of compromise.

[Quickenthetempo]

Well no. If we relaxed our red lines we could get a deal tomorrow. I realise this doesn’t fit with your Brexit vision, but it’s a compromise that gets us out of the EU (and it only said ‘Leave’ on the ballot paper).

Martin, Why do you always want the UK to compromise?

You always seem like you want the best deal for the EU? It's a little strange if you live over here.

[martin_p]

That's what I said, pretty much.

No, it really isn’t.

[martin_p]

But we have relaxed our red lines by offering an EU single market across the whole of Ireland. The EU haven't relaxed their red lines at all. The ball is now in their court to make some sort of compromise.

But we haven’t really have we, it smoke and mirrors. Stormont can veto that so it could very quickly be back to square one.

[martin_p]

Martin, Why do you always want the UK to compromise?

You always seem like you want the best deal for the EU? It's a little strange if you live over here.

Because no deal would be ruinous for the uk. Some of the uber Brexiteers swallowing their pride and going for some sort of customs union to get this over the line seems a much better option all round.

[Quickenthetempo]

Because no deal would be ruinous for the uk. Some of the uber Brexiteers swallowing their pride and going for some sort of customs union to get this over the line seems a much better option all round.

I know that's been your opinion for a long time but I don't think I've ever seen you post hoping for the EU to compromise to get the deal you want done?

[Lancasterclaret]

I know that's been your opinion for a long time but I don't think I've ever seen you post hoping for the EU to compromise to get the deal you want done?

You are aware that the EU have compromised already I take it?

[Quickenthetempo]

You are aware that the EU have compromised already I take it?

I would Imagine both sides have compromised already.

[summitclaret]

That's what I said, pretty much. These MPs are saying that they will either agree a deal on the EU's terms, or they will stay in the EU. I want to know which they prefer. Bearing in mind that the EU's terms have been rejected by the following parties: Conservative, Labour, Liberal, SNP, Plaid Cymru, Green, Change UK, DUP, and for that matter UKIP and Brexit parties. Every party in the House of Commons dislikes this deal. So is that what they want to sign up to? And if it won't go through, do they want to stay in? And are they planning to put this to a referendum?

Let's try again. I doubt anyone that voted leave thinks that being trapped in a backstop at the behest of the EU is actually leaving in any meaningfully way.

[Lancasterclaret]

I would Imagine both sides have compromised already.

Exactly

And there will be more compromises made.

But the sticking block is the backstop.

Both can't give way on that, the EU because of its commitment to the GFA (an international treaty), the Uk because of promises to the DUP.

Now one of them is very, very, very, very vulnerable as its going against what NI actually wants.

The compromise if the UK are serious about a deal is really obvious.

[JohnMcGreal]

That's what I said, pretty much. These MPs are saying that they will either agree a deal on the EU's terms, or they will stay in the EU. I want to know which they prefer. Bearing in mind that the EU's terms have been rejected by the following parties: Conservative, Labour, Liberal, SNP, Plaid Cymru, Green, Change UK, DUP, and for that matter UKIP and Brexit parties. Every party in the House of Commons dislikes this deal. So is that what they want to sign up to? And if it won't go through, do they want to stay in? And are they planning to put this to a referendum?

All roads lead to remaining in the European Union as a full member state.

[summitclaret]

Think about it, if you don’t want a ‘no deal’ government then you have to vote for a party that is offering to negotiate a deal. A BP MP will clearly vote for no deal whenever the opportunity arises.

Of course they will in the unlikely event of them getting to vote on it. Anyway, there wouldn't be many of them. Better to keep out lab in burnley and guarantee a vote for leaving in the Parliament. When it comes to it, I think the tory candidate in Burnley will have a light touch campaign.

[Mala591]

If the EU have made any recent compromises then they don't seem to have been reported in the press/media or have I missed something?

[willsclarets]

Hi wills, good to be reminded of this EU poll. I believe it supports a view that the EU will be better off with the UK outside, as a friend and not a member. Majority of other member states seem to be more positive with this prospect.

So, a question for remainers: should we revoke Art 50 and make the popularity of the EU within the other 27 member states decline?

Or, should we be their friend and leave, graciously?

Well, firstly the objective of producing this evidence was in response to Colburn's assertion that there was an appetite across member states to leave the EU. I still await his response to this, and what evidence he has to back up that assertion.

If I've read you right, you're trying to interpret this survey in a way that supports the idea that EU support has risen as a direct result of the prospect the UK is leaving? And, that if we revoke article 50, the prospect of the UK "rejoining" will see a reverse of that trend. Furthermore, as a result this therefore strengthens the argument we should leave quietly? Well blow me down, I have to applaud the creativity with which you've used that data Paul.

[Paul Waine]

The NFU is a Union - should we believe everything they say? Only a fool would do that (we have plenty on this thread).

Does what they say have SOME merit? Of course.

Farmers currently get UK taxpayers money in the form of a subsidy, coming via the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy.

70% of the CAP goes to 20% of farms - mainly the largest. Many small European farmers as well as African farmers are forced out of business by the CAP.

So some of them may well be paying Lancs to do their books, and they may be doing OK out of it (also from cheap foreign labour I bet) but that doesn’t make it the best future system.

A system based on environmental protection, not just rewarding over-production, rewarding high quality too, helping small holdings as well as big farms. That would be a start. These farms need to be encouraged to up their game. But yes, there needs to be some form of financial support obviously because we need our farms to last for ever.

Thanks, CPC. A thoughtful post. A good contribution to the thread.

We'd have a better discussion if some of the ""uber remainers" (is that the phrase?) could engage a bit more in our shared exploration of the issues. I'd value a contribution from a poster knowledgeable about hill farming east of Lancashire if any of our posters want to "step up" and take that role.

Strange fact - and I'd usually overlook it and I don't think I've ever put it on my cv - I was once the finance manager for a small farm in Carrington. Yes, in the area that is now better known for football training facilities. The farm managed around 60-90 head of cattle, buying them in, feeding them up and selling them on later in the season. It was only a small ancillary activity around the operation of a very large petrochemical plant. Yes, I guess I've filled in some of the forms to claim CAP subsidies.

[Quickenthetempo]

Exactly

And there will be more compromises made.

But the sticking block is the backstop.

Both can't give way on that, the EU because of its commitment to the GFA (an international treaty), the Uk because of promises to the DUP.

Now one of them is very, very, very, very vulnerable as its going against what NI actually wants.

The compromise if the UK are serious about a deal is really obvious.

I'm sure you're more up on it than me, but I'm under the impression nobody wants to put a border there (quite rightly) and the problem is it's not time limited. The EU could just keep us in as long as they wanted? Which the UK can't compromise on.

But the question to Martin was 'Why he doesn't hope either side compromises to get the deal done?' If it's just the deal he wants getting done?

[AndrewJB]

I would be very interested to see what these alleged 60 are saying their policy should be. They are limiting themselves to either (1) signing any deal the EU cares to offer, or (2) staying in the EU.

Which is their preferred stance? Would they be willing to offer a referendum on either of these options? Would they be willing to offer a referendum on "no deal"?

It doesn’t limit Britain’s ability to do a deal if we rule out no deal. What deal objective could we achieve by holding on to no deal as a tactic, that will be worth all the billions we have to spend on no deal preparations?

[Lancasterclaret]

Thanks, CPC. A thoughtful post. A good contribution to the thread.

We'd have a better discussion if some of the ""uber remainers" (is that the phrase?) could engage a bit more in our shared exploration of the issues. I'd value a contribution from a poster knowledgeable about hill farming east of Lancashire if any of our posters want to "step up" and take that role.

Strange fact - and I'd usually overlook it and I don't think I've ever put it on my cv - I was once the finance manager for a small farm in Carrington. Yes, in the area that is now better known for football training facilities. The farm managed around 60-90 head of cattle, buying them in, feeding them up and selling them on later in the season. It was only a small ancillary activity around the operation of a very large petrochemical plant. Yes, I guess I've filled in some of the forms to claim CAP subsidies.

The head of the NFU has highlighted the problems in the link I provided for you.

Neither you, or Crosspool have even attempted to answer the questions raised.

Its not a shock, but it would be nice if you actually took some evidence from an expert and replied to them.

[dsr]

No, it really isn’t.

Yes, what you said and what I said were basically the same but coming from different sides. You said that if the UK would relax its red lines (ie. remove the bits of the deal that the EU doesn't like) we could get a deal tomorrow; I said that the alleged 60 MPs might agree a deal on the EU's terms. The two are very similar.

[Lancasterclaret]

I think its worth putting then out there isn't it?

"It is a monumental day in the Brexit process and one that I bitterly disagree with. There is NO excuse for Govt not to apply a reciprocal tariff for grains. 99.8% of households eat bread made with 85% British wheat. And we have a huge harvest surplus of grain.

And then there's eggs. We consume 13 billion eggs a year. 90% produced here. 56% Retail, 23% Food Service 21% liquid and dried egg. And now 0% tariff on all imports. We'll be importing eggs that would be illegal for our farmers to produce here.

And all fruit and vegetables NO reciprocal tariff.

And back to grains. 12 million loaves of bread, 10 million cakes and biscuits and 2 million pizzas made here in the UK every day using over 85% British Wheat and with NO tariff protection we will open our doors to lower standard grains.

And for Dairy - skimmed milk powder and yogurt plus some cheeses NO tariff or TRQ. Which all begs the question on how you negotiate from here, when you're allowing everyone free access."

This is from Minette Batters, Chairman NFU

Thoughts Paul/Crosspool?

[dsr]

It doesn’t limit Britain’s ability to do a deal if we rule out no deal. What deal objective could we achieve by holding on to no deal as a tactic, that will be worth all the billions we have to spend on no deal preparations?

If "no deal" is an option, then our negotiating position is "give us something in return or you lose €39bn cah in hand, €10bn per annum, and the right to €600bn value of free trade".

If no deal is not an option, then our negotiating position is "give us something in return or we will be unhappy".

I reckon the former is a stronger negotiating position.

[aggi]

It doesn’t limit Britain’s ability to do a deal if we rule out no deal. What deal objective could we achieve by holding on to no deal as a tactic, that will be worth all the billions we have to spend on no deal preparations?

We're losing the Leave at all costs position.

Obviously that's a pretty short-term position where people are glossing over the fact that we'll really need to sort out a trade deal with the EU ASAP and exactly the same issues will arise again when we try and do that deal but the plan is that if we shout "No deal is better than a bad deal" no-one will question what's going to happen after that.

I've said before that the Leave campaign has done an excellent job convincing people that No Deal is the end of the process.

[aggi]

Only if they distort international trade, and even then the only available sanctions are permission to install retaliatory tariffs, not recourse to the courts. This might or might not become relevant, I don't know. But what has to made completely clear is the WTO rules are absolutely nothing like the Single Market rules.

Agreed, WTO state aid rules are much more relaxed than the EU's. They'd capture Crosspool's scenario though where we'd be hugely subsiding an industry sector to make its exports cheap after it had lost its key export markets.

The point was more that his blase dismissal of the issue didn't really stand up to scrutiny.

[Paul Waine]

Well, firstly the objective of producing this evidence was in response to Colburn's assertion that there was an appetite across member states to leave the EU. I still await his response to this, and what evidence he has to back up that assertion.

If I've read you right, you're trying to interpret this survey in a way that supports the idea that EU support has risen as a direct result of the prospect the UK is leaving? And, that if we revoke article 50, the prospect of the UK "rejoining" will see a reverse of that trend. Furthermore, as a result this therefore strengthens the argument we should leave quietly? Well blow me down, I have to applaud the creativity with which you've used that data Paul.

Hi wills, thanks for your comments.

So, way, way back even before June-2016 I have commented that the UK is "out of step" with a lot of the plans of other EU member states. We can see this in the euro - and the UK being outside the eurozone. If you are an "avid EU activity follower" or someone like me who's work has brought them into contact with EU debate and proposals and counter-proposals you will know that there are many times when there are divergent views. Often these views have seen the UK on one side and many of the other large member states on the other.

I believe the divergence of views is acknowledged by many who post on here. Often these posters state "well, the UK can use it's veto" whenever the EU proposes something we don't like.

I'm a "believer in the EU project." I'd love that some time in the future the nations of Europe could all work together a lot more closely and do all the great things that a major group of nations can achieve. But, I don't think that time is any time soon and I think the current set up of the EU is creating problems in the way that "Brussels political ambitions" are being pursued.

So, I worry that the UK being out of step with the EU (i.e. other member states) and vetoing their aims will result in increasing frustrations - and negative outcomes for the EU, as well as, of course, negative outcomes for the UK. Much better, therefore, for the EU if the UK "steps aside" and becomes a friendly ex-member state, supporting the EU from the outside. And, being a link between the EU and all those other parts of the world where the UK has strong heritage links, including members of the Commonwealth and many other nations.

I would argue that for the EU to be healthy it must be comfortable to agree to one or more member states exiting the EU and being on the outside with friendship. This would be the case whether it was, as now, the UK brexiting, or whether the UK was firmly in (imagine if "remain" had won in 2016) and it was another member state who was now electing to leave.

I hope I'm not making the mistake of linking the UK's prospective departure from the EU as directly making the EU more popular in the rEU. That would be sad if the UK was so unpopular. Of course, simple stats, we all know that if you remove an outlier then the popularity of the remaining member states will show a higher average score.

No, revoking Art 50 wouldn't directly reverse the trend among the other member states. Maybe the UK vetoing ideas that were popular amongst other members would be a negative, though I'd doubt anything would be "that big" for most of the people living in the EU. I would suggest that the EU being seen to be taking a "friendly" approach to the UK leaving - and demonstrating this "friendly" approach with any other member state that might elect to leave - would be a positive for the popularity of the EU with the electorates in the EU27.

What do you think?

[willsclarets]

If "no deal" is an option, then our negotiating position is "give us something in return or you lose €39bn cah in hand, €10bn per annum, and the right to €600bn value of free trade".

If no deal is not an option, then our negotiating position is "give us something in return or we will be unhappy".

I reckon the former is a stronger negotiating position.

This is based on the assumption that a no deal brexit is the worst case for the EU, and not for the UK. Usually in negotiations your net position on failure to reach a deal is where you started more or less. In this case, we are much, much worse off. The EU are too of course, but the concessions they simply cannot make mean a no deal for the EU is more palatable to them than us. As someone else has mentioned, the leave campaign did a marvellous job of overstating the strength of the negotiating position you describe.

[aggi]

Yes, but we can do that by talking amongst ourselves in the leave camp, whilst you can talk about how to go about remaining in the remain camp. Paths don't really have to cross now - the referendum has already taken place.

It makes the whole thing less objectionable.

And that is exactly why Brexit hasn't yet happened.

The suggestion that 48% of the voters should have no say in a future deal is why a deal hasn't been arrived at yet that the country can go forward with.

[willsclarets]

Hi wills, thanks for your comments.

So, way, way back even before June-2016 I have commented that the UK is "out of step" with a lot of the plans of other EU member states. We can see this in the euro - and the UK being outside the eurozone. If you are an "avid EU activity follower" or someone like me who's work has brought them into contact with EU debate and proposals and counter-proposals you will know that there are many times when there are divergent views. Often these views have seen the UK on one side and many of the other large member states on the other.

I believe the divergence of views is acknowledged by many who post on here. Often these posters state "well, the UK can use it's veto" whenever the EU proposes something we don't like.

I'm a "believer in the EU project." I'd love that some time in the future the nations of Europe could all work together a lot more closely and do all the great things that a major group of nations can achieve. But, I don't think that time is any time soon and I think the current set up of the EU is creating problems in the way that "Brussels political ambitions" are being pursued.

So, I worry that the UK being out of step with the EU (i.e. other member states) and vetoing their aims will result in increasing frustrations - and negative outcomes for the EU, as well as, of course, negative outcomes for the UK. Much better, therefore, for the EU if the UK "steps aside" and becomes a friendly ex-member state, supporting the EU from the outside. And, being a link between the EU and all those other parts of the world where the UK has strong heritage links, including members of the Commonwealth and many other nations.

I would argue that for the EU to be healthy it must be comfortable to agree to one or more member states exiting the EU and being on the outside with friendship. This would be the case whether it was, as now, the UK brexiting, or whether the UK was firmly in (imagine if "remain" had won in 2016) and it was another member state who was now electing to leave.

I hope I'm not making the mistake of linking the UK's prospective departure from the EU as directly making the EU more popular in the rEU. That would be sad if the UK was so unpopular. Of course, simple stats, we all know that if you remove an outlier then the popularity of the remaining member states will show a higher average score.

No, revoking Art 50 wouldn't directly reverse the trend among the other member states. Maybe the UK vetoing ideas that were popular amongst other members would be a negative, though I'd doubt anything would be "that big" for most of the people living in the EU. I would suggest that the EU being seen to be taking a "friendly" approach to the UK leaving - and demonstrating this "friendly" approach with any other member state that might elect to leave - would be a positive for the popularity of the EU with the electorates in the EU27.

What do you think?

I think I need a while to unpick all that I will respond though when I can. At first read there seems to be a divergence of issues there that aren't necessarily related to that poll.

[martin_p]

If "no deal" is an option, then our negotiating position is "give us something in return or you lose €39bn cah in hand, €10bn per annum, and the right to €600bn value of free trade".

If no deal is not an option, then our negotiating position is "give us something in return or we will be unhappy".

I reckon the former is a stronger negotiating position.

That would be a decent argument if any of it stood up to scrutiny.

The 39 billion (which was the figure as of March 2019, it's smaller now) is likely to be payable however we leave. Legal opinion (which has been fairly accurate on all things Brexit so far) is that if the EU took us to court for the money they'd win.

The annual 10 billion is for our membership of the EU, so we'd stop paying that however we left (apart from any transition period, currently the end of 2020)

Loss of free trade would only be an issue until the end of next year anyway as the government are refusing the ask for an extension to the transition period. At that point even with a Withdrawal Areement, unless we've negotiated a trade deal in 12 months, we trade on WTO terms as I understand it.

[aggi]

I've explained before, many times, that too many of the member states are up **** creek, and if we are still in the EU come the next recession and theres always another recession, it will be a mill stone around our necks. We need to be free to take whatever steps are necessary to protect our economy. We wont be free to act unilaterally, to take those necessary steps.
That's all important, but the main issue has nothing to do with finances, long term or short term, it's about democracy, and the EU isnt, and never has been a democracy. You, and so many remainers seem to think that democracy is a small price to pay, if it means you can be solvent, or make money. I disagree completely. I dont think we will be worse off outside the EU, but even if I did, it wouldnt change my opinion on wanting to leave. People all over the world, going back centuries, have paid the ultimate price for freedom, to live in a democracy, and yet people lucky enough to have been born into such a society, are willing to sell it for 30 pieces of silver.
I just dont get it.
Support for the EU isnt increasing, many Europeans see it just as I do, an undemocratic body inflating it's own importance at the expense of its citizens, but just like you they live in this instilled fear of the consequences of leaving.
If Brexit is a success we will just be the first to pull out.

Or, people believe that an EU that has elections, has a council selected by democratically elected leaders, etc. is democratic.

Please try and explain exactly why you don't think the EU is democratic. What specific elements do you have issues with?

[Paul Waine]

Exactly

Both can't give way on that, the EU because of its commitment to the GFA (an international treaty),

.

Hi Lancs, I posted last night (or was it Monday) about the GFA. I asked if we knew would signed GFA. I mentioned that I'd seen many mentions that "it's an international treaty" as though this was in some way a barrier to leaving the EU.

DA replied - here's the link. But, that wasn't the response I was looking for - I'd already read GFA before my post. I was interested in what posters on here know - as well as what a lot of politicians know - and what they "don't know."

So, what does "an international treaty" mean in your comment about "the EU because of its commitment to the GFA?"

There are only two countries that have signed the GFA, UK and RoI. The other signatories - with different "rights and responsibilities" are the multiple political parties of Norther Ireland And, that's it.

The EU is not a party to the GFA. The EU has no "rights and obligations" under the GFA. Neither, before anyone asks, does the USA (a Senator chaired the negotiations) and neither does any other country or supra-national organisation.

The GFA references the EU - but only as UK and RoI co-operating on EU matters. The GFA does not require either UK or ROI to be a member of EU because the two countries were members when they signed.

The GFA references ECHR - the European Convention on Human Rights - and we all know that the ECHR is not the EU.

The GFA does not say anything about "infrastructure" on the NI/RoI border. It doesn't say "there cannot be a hard border" or that "there cannot be checks on goods being transported across the border...." We all know that at the time GFA was signed, RoI was planning to join the euro zone - which I think commenced the following year (1999 - and notes and coins in 2001) - and that UK wasn't joining euro. We also all know that different rates of VAT operate in the two countries - and that the import and export of goods has to be reported for VAT purposes.

So, the EU has no commitments under the GFA - and RoI "rights and obligations" under GFA are not impacted by UK leaving the EU.

So, what's the "problem that is impossible to solve?"

[CrosspoolClarets]

I think its worth putting then out there isn't it?

"It is a monumental day in the Brexit process and one that I bitterly disagree with. There is NO excuse for Govt not to apply a reciprocal tariff for grains. 99.8% of households eat bread made with 85% British wheat. And we have a huge harvest surplus of grain.

And then there's eggs. We consume 13 billion eggs a year. 90% produced here. 56% Retail, 23% Food Service 21% liquid and dried egg. And now 0% tariff on all imports. We'll be importing eggs that would be illegal for our farmers to produce here.

And all fruit and vegetables NO reciprocal tariff.

And back to grains. 12 million loaves of bread, 10 million cakes and biscuits and 2 million pizzas made here in the UK every day using over 85% British Wheat and with NO tariff protection we will open our doors to lower standard grains.

And for Dairy - skimmed milk powder and yogurt plus some cheeses NO tariff or TRQ. Which all begs the question on how you negotiate from here, when you're allowing everyone free access."

This is from Minette Batters, Chairman NFU

Thoughts Paul/Crosspool?

Sadly I only have 5 minutes while grabbing some lunch so can only post quickly.

I’m not sure how I have ended up being challenged on this because as I said up the thread I don’t have a dog in this fight - I can see both sides, and it is a hugely complex set of variables that mean none of us, including Lancs, is qualified to answer it.

My hunch is that food security (I.e. producing our own) is of paramount long term importance, but that the government will try to avoid a short term Brexit recession as a top priority by keeping costs low (a consequence of the People’s Revote campaign, the Govt have to win arguments like food prices rather than simply doing the right thing such as ensuring food security).

My other hunch is that farming needs rebalancing - are we producing the correct proportions of each product such as cereal grains and eggs? Highly unlikely. Farming needs to become more niche, especially for exporting. How can a UK wheat farmer compete with Russia who can produce it for two thirds of the cost? Wheat also suffers from moisture problems in the UK - is it viable to produce in such quantities?

So......I’m not seeing much evidence of the NFU giving a vision on this whole thing, just grumbling about tariffs and quotas. I don’t know if those are spot on by each product type, nothing is perfect, but we need a strategic vision for each commodity setting out, containing all stakeholders including the NFU. That would be more credible. It would include things like the product standards we demand for imports, even if they are at zero tariff.

[Paul Waine]

Or, people believe that an EU that has elections, has a council selected by democratically elected leaders, etc. is democratic.

Please try and explain exactly why you don't think the EU is democratic. What specific elements do you have issues with?

Hi aggi, I'd expect a democratic institution to have political parties that stood for election across the whole of that institution. The EU structure isn't this. At present, no one in the UK can express their electoral support for a political party which is based in, for example, France or Spain or Italy or Germany.

Also, I'd want the politically elected leaders to be the leaders of the EU, rather than a separate "Commission class." The latter should be civil servants - and, generally, "seen and not heard. "

[Lancasterclaret]

Sadly I only have 5 minutes while grabbing some lunch so can only post quickly.

I’m not sure how I have ended up being challenged on this because as I said up the thread I don’t have a dog in this fight - I can see both sides, and it is a hugely complex set of variables that mean none of us, including Lancs, is qualified to answer it.

My hunch is that food security (I.e. producing our own) is of paramount long term importance, but that the government will try to avoid a short term Brexit recession as a top priority by keeping costs low (a consequence of the People’s Revote campaign, the Govt have to win arguments like food prices rather than simply doing the right thing such as ensuring food security).

My other hunch is that farming needs rebalancing - are we producing the correct proportions of each product such as cereal grains and eggs? Highly unlikely. Farming needs to become more niche, especially for exporting. How can a UK wheat farmer compete with Russia who can produce it for two thirds of the cost? Wheat also suffers from moisture problems in the UK - is it viable to produce in such quantities?

So......I’m not seeing much evidence of the NFU giving a vision on this whole thing, just grumbling about tariffs and quotas. I don’t know if those are spot on by each product type, nothing is perfect, but we need a strategic vision for each commodity setting out, containing all stakeholders including the NFU. That would be more credible. It would include things like the product standards we demand for imports, even if they are at zero tariff.

Right

So reform of the Uk agriculture system (Gove has done some good work on this as part of his green vision btw)

Long term, no problem with that

Short term, you are talking about a very damaging situation for farming in the UK.

Short to medium term, you are looking at the employment prospects and economy in rural areas getting absolutely decimated.

The NFU are rightly bricking it, because all the promises and soothing comments from the UK Government have proved to be (as is depressingly becoming the norm) to be completely unreliable.

I would be absolutely amazed if any farmer backs a "No Deal".

I'd be very surprised if the vast majority don't regret their vote.

[AndrewJB]

If "no deal" is an option, then our negotiating position is "give us something in return or you lose €39bn cah in hand, €10bn per annum, and the right to €600bn value of free trade".

If no deal is not an option, then our negotiating position is "give us something in return or we will be unhappy".

I reckon the former is a stronger negotiating position.

Give us what in return for avoiding a no deal (which will negatively affect us more than the EU anyway)? It’s lose lose for us. Are you of the opinion that once we leave with no deal, the EU will no longer want the £39 Billion anymore?

[Barry_Chuckle]

I would be absolutely amazed if any farmer backs a "No Deal".

I'd be very surprised if the vast majority don't regret their vote.

Prepare to be surprised Lancaster, I work for a rural insurer and speak with farmers on a daily basis. I too am amazed at some comments I hear, but I can assure you, there's a good number of Farmers, both livestock and arable, who remain 100% behind Brexit. The biggest surprise for me is that most appear happy to leave without a deal

[If it be your will]

I'm sure you're more up on it than me, but I'm under the impression nobody wants to put a border there (quite rightly) and the problem is it's not time limited. The EU could just keep us in as long as they wanted? Which the UK can't compromise on.

But the question to Martin was 'Why he doesn't hope either side compromises to get the deal done?' If it's just the deal he wants getting done?

My understanding is the GFA prohibits British government 'security installations'. It doesn't, so far as I know, prohibit border customs checks etc. The problem arises when a customs post is attacked or bombed or something, which is reasonably likely. What do you do then, if you can't put up security installations to protect customs staff?

This is immensely tricky. The options seem to be: 1) Just don't bother with any customs checks, see what happens, and deal with the consequences as they arise. 2) Hold a NI referendum between 'NI to stay in the SM/CU' and 'Rip up GFA' or words to that effect. 3) Hold a referendum on a United Ireland (which is also part of the GFA, as it happens), making it clear that a 'No' involves ripping up the GFA.

None of these are good options. But what is certain is that, as you suggest, these options will probably never change, so we will be under the backstop forever, if we agree to it. That is, we will be subject to all EU rules, without having any say on them, under a May's backstop. That is we will be a permanent vassal state to the EU if we agree to the backstop.

Or, alternatively, we just remain in the EU forever, and accept that A50 simply doesn't apply to us - that the GFA actually means we cannot ever leave the EU. (I bet we didn't consider that when we signed the GFA.)

I'd just go with option 1. But that's just me.