David Davis resigns

[dsr]

Again, shows your lack of understanding - we can buy all the food we want from the EU, but its subject to the same border checks that have to be in place in the event of a "No deal" - You blithely saying there won't be checks when its one of the key parts of any Brexiteers belief for the future is ridiculous.

You are totally ruling out the possibility that systems might change. If the current system doesn't work as it stands, they can either (your viewpoint) accept that there will be food shortages for ever more, or (my viewpoint) change the system. OF COURSE they will change the system. And while the system is changing, there will be flexibility.

Let me try and get one thing straight. I am not saying there will not be checks. I am not saying there will not be checks. I am not saying there will not be checks. Do you understand that sentence? I am not saying there will not be checks. Is the double negative confusing? I am saying there will be checks. In my opinion, there will be checks. I believe there will be checks. There will be checks. Do you understand?

But just because there aren't the staff or systems to institute the full level of checks that will follow when the system is fully up and running, does not mean there will be food shortages. It means there will be fewer checks (not zero checks, because I still believe there will be checks) while the new system is brought up to scratch.

There will not be food shortages. You mention KFC - they had a problem. There may be similar problems. People might be forced to have tinned pears because the tinned peaches are a day late. But there will be no food shortages.

[claretandy]

Correct me if i'm wrong but isn't the majority of our trade already done with the rest of the world on WTO terms and seems to run pretty smoothly ?

[Paul Waine]

Sorry Paul, I was under the clear implication that a No deal scenario would end freedom of movement.....*checks*

Yup, I'm right, there is absolutely no way that a Brexit supporting government will allow freedom of movement so they would have to check and control the borders.

Hi Lancs,

My question was concerning WTO rules and customs checks on imports and exports.

I agree, the UK Government (whatever political persuasion) will have sole right to determine border controls when (if) UK has exited EU. I don't think there's any doubt or debate about the that right, is there?

But, where does WTO say that if country A (or the EU "single market") has certain border controls on entry of goods, then country B, where the goods originate from, must also impose the same border controls?

And, where does the WTO say anything about country A having to control the exit of goods that are being exported for possible sale in country B, or any other country?

[nil_desperandum]

I was offered the choice of stay or leave. This entire two year farce is to prevent the EU breaking up should the leavers be proved right, and mitigate the margins.Had the hockey-cockey been an option I may have been offered a formula that fit my views. I wasn't.

So, which area would I be classed a winner?

I'm not sure I understand the first paragraph, but if you want to know who "won" and "lost" then Ringo's posts make it clear.
"Leave won - remain lost- get over it".

[Devils_Advocate]

Id be a bit confused too if I'd won a £1 prize in a £10 raffle

[Paul Waine]

I suggest one or two of the posters refresh their knowledge of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy. The CAP means that food sourced from the EU is more expensive that food produced in much of the rest of the world.

A spokeperson for New Zealand (I don't recall if the speaker was a government minister, farming representative of another position) was on the radio at the w/end. New Zealand is happy to supply the UK with as much New Zealand lamb as we would like. It is cheaper, despite its "sea miles" than EU produced lamb subject to the CAP.

[RingoMcCartney]

The Spectator reporting - "At Chequers, I hear, one of her responses to suggested changes in her blueprint was to say, 'No, that's not possible, because I've already cleared it with Mrs Merkel'.'

If this, a British PM running past the future trading plans and economic welfare of the United kingdom, with a foreign RIVAL political leader, to seek her approval FIRST. Before discussing it with the, elected by the British People, cabinet is true.

Then Teresa May is should be tried for treason.

She's no more than a conniving, conspiratorial duplicitous treacherous rat.

The people already hold politicians, and politics as a whole, in very low esteem. This will kill the conservative party and people's trust in the whole political and democratic process for decades. Potentially permanently.

This treasonous act by May is bad for those who voted Leave and remain alike. Because it's a disaster for trust in the democratic process.

[aggi]

And I actually applaud the govt here.

If we are going to go for a No deal, then the only thing worse than a No deal will be a No deal with no planning and no infrastructure put in place to deal with it*

*we've left it far too late btw, but at least plans might be in place so if it does go all tits up we won't be starting from scratch**

**though it will still be far worse than it needs to be because we haven't started early enough

Hmm, some of the preparation sounds a bit comedy

[Bordeauxclaret]

#triggered

[aggi]

I suggest one or two of the posters refresh their knowledge of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy. The CAP means that food sourced from the EU is more expensive that food produced in much of the rest of the world.

A spokeperson for New Zealand (I don't recall if the speaker was a government minister, farming representative of another position) was on the radio at the w/end. New Zealand is happy to supply the UK with as much New Zealand lamb as we would like. It is cheaper, despite its "sea miles" than EU produced lamb subject to the CAP.

The EU already imports zero tariff lamb from New Zealand (there is theoretically a tariff on it but only after a certain level is imported which hasn't been near hit for the past 7 or 8 years) so that is no different from the situation we have at the moment.

What would be an issue is that a lot of the lamb produced here gets exported to the EU (over 90% of Welsh lamb) which would obviously be impacted if tariffs were introduced.

[dsr]

Hmm, some of the preparation sounds a bit comedy

Aggi - it's the same old assumption that if we aren't in the single market, all trade with the EU will cease. It won't. In any case, the Republic of Ireland is a net importer of energy, and where does it come from? The UK national grid, mostly. If the connections were closed, the Republic would suffer more.

[aggi]

Aggi - it's the same old assumption that if we aren't in the single market, all trade with the EU will cease. It won't. In any case, the Republic of Ireland is a net importer of energy, and where does it come from? The UK national grid, mostly. If the connections were closed, the Republic would suffer more.

Well it's more the assumption that if we go "No deal" then there won't be a deal (hence the name) for the single Irish electricity market.

I've said repeatedly that I don't think it will happen (I think we'll end up with some form of inferior EU status with lots of regulatory alignment and none of the influence we used to have) but the fact that such things are having to be considered shows what a farce this has become.

[Quickenthetempo]

All the food wagons will drive straight in with there being no other trade at all going on. No queues, perfect.

According to some barmpots on here.

[dsr]

Well it's more the assumption that if we go "No deal" then there won't be a deal (hence the name) for the single Irish electricity market.

I've said repeatedly that I don't think it will happen (I think we'll end up with some form of inferior EU status with lots of regulatory alignment and none of the influence we used to have) but the fact that such things are having to be considered shows what a farce this has become.

It is a farce, on both sides. I'm sure there would be no difficulty in the Irish single electricity market working then as it does now. Ireland isn't even connected to any foreign National Grid, apart from ours. So why does it have to be linked to (say) the Gibraltar border and the German car exports? Why can't the UK and Irish PMs just get together, have two minutes' discussion, agree in principle that we carry on as before, and move on?

It's so obvious that unless it is agreed that everything goes on as before, we are going to have to pick the bits where both sides agree that change is not needed, and formalise it. Air regulation is another one. So why don't they?

[aggi]

It is a farce, on both sides. I'm sure there would be no difficulty in the Irish single electricity market working then as it does now. Ireland isn't even connected to any foreign National Grid, apart from ours. So why does it have to be linked to (say) the Gibraltar border and the German car exports? Why can't the UK and Irish PMs just get together, have two minutes' discussion, agree in principle that we carry on as before, and move on?

It's so obvious that unless it is agreed that everything goes on as before, we are going to have to pick the bits where both sides agree that change is not needed, and formalise it. Air regulation is another one. So why don't they?

Obviously one of the main issues is that a load of these are tied into stuff like the ECJ. We can't agree that things should just carry on as they are on one hand whilst on the other hand saying we're not going to be bound by the body that is the arbitrator for the agreement, it just doesn't work.

Same with the airlines, we could continue on as part of the European Aviation Safety Agency but that is clear that the ECJ is the ultimate arbiter and, in theory, that is one of the "red lines".

It's easy to say things can carry on as they are but it falls down when you look at the detail.

We've backed ourselves into a corner with those "red lines" and no-one can work out how to get round it.

[Lancasterclaret]

I mean, its almost like people haven't really looked at this is any great detail.

I mean, why would you when "Brexit means Brexit" is clearly all you need to know.

[If it be your will]

.

[nil_desperandum]

Obviously one of the main issues is that a load of these are tied into stuff like the ECJ. We can't agree that things should just carry on as they are on one hand whilst on the other hand saying we're not going to be bound by the body that is the arbitrator for the agreement, it just doesn't work.

Same with the airlines, we could continue on as part of the European Aviation Safety Agency but that is clear that the ECJ is the ultimate arbiter and, in theory, that is one of the "red lines".

It's easy to say things can carry on as they are but it falls down when you look at the detail.

We've backed ourselves into a corner with those "red lines" and no-one can work out how to get round it.

That's just about it in a nutshell, and fortunately May and her "team" seem to have finally grasped it, and in the seriously flawed Chequers "agreement" have acknowledged this . Unfortunately it's taken far too long to get to this understanding, and one or two still haven't quite got there.

[dsr]

Obviously one of the main issues is that a load of these are tied into stuff like the ECJ. We can't agree that things should just carry on as they are on one hand whilst on the other hand saying we're not going to be bound by the body that is the arbitrator for the agreement, it just doesn't work.

Same with the airlines, we could continue on as part of the European Aviation Safety Agency but that is clear that the ECJ is the ultimate arbiter and, in theory, that is one of the "red lines".

It's easy to say things can carry on as they are but it falls down when you look at the detail.

We've backed ourselves into a corner with those "red lines" and no-one can work out how to get round it.

It would be perfectly reasonable to accept the ECJ as arbiter for the EASA but only the EASA. Accepting the ECJ for that purpose need not mean accepting it has supremacy over all British law.

[Lancasterclaret]

But that isn't what the government (and most Brexiteers) want.

They want no ECJ at all, at any cost

And again, its cherry picking which bits of the EU we want.

There is some leeway about bits of it no doubt, but not with their four freedoms or the British governments red lines.

[nil_desperandum]

And just when you think that the governments handling of Brexit is a total shambles, it descends into total farce with the speaker having to suspend Parliament so that the "white paper" can be distributed to MPs.

"Shadow exiting the EU secretary Sir Keir Starmer says he "genuinely" wishes Dominic Raab well but says the new Brexit secretary has "not got off to a very good start". He says that to suspend the Commons during a statement "is clear evidence of why the government is in such a mess".
He asks why the government thought it was appropriate to share the white paper with journalists this morning before Labour received it at midday.
He says this is a "breach of protocol," and believes that this is "in breach of the ministerial code" and is "deeply discourteous and unacceptable".

And now with business resumed JRM is laying into it.
It's really not going well on the day that we are laying out he carpet for POTUS.

[If it be your will]

.

[Lancasterclaret]

Key word there IIBYW is the agreements that said country has already.

All ours are tied up in the EU, as that has been our default position since 1975

How anyone could possibly think it is possible to just go "thats it, we are off" and then just go is either ideologically unstable or really doesn't have a clue.

[RingoMcCartney]

Keir Starmer unhappy that he hadn't seen the white paper before the debate on it had began.

I've got news for you little man.

Angela Merkel saw it before any body else!

And apparently the emperoress of Greater Germania (The EU) gives it her approval. And it can't be modified because of that, according to Teresonous May.

[dsr]

But that isn't what the government (and most Brexiteers) want.

They want no ECJ at all, at any cost

And again, its cherry picking which bits of the EU we want.

There is some leeway about bits of it no doubt, but not with their four freedoms or the British governments red lines.

You say "cherry picking" as if it's the UK trying to get something for nothing. Can you honestly not see that the Irish Single Electricity market is a benefit for us and for Ireland? That the smooth running of the EASA is of benefit to the EU as well as to the UK? If Rolls Royce engines are suddenly unlicensed and unserviceable, it will impact European airlines as well as ours. It would be to the mutual benefit of both the EU and the UK to accept stuff like this will carry on as before regardless of free trade and the Irish border, and make that part of the agreement and move on. We need to get away from the idea that "this policy is good for the UK and therefore the EU must be against".

[dsr]

I've no idea how international aviation works, but Australia, say, seems to be able to fly planes in and out of the EU. The problems are on both sides: Hard leavers paint a ludicrous picture how we'll sail away into international seas of prosperity, and visceral remainers tell us planes will be grounded and we'll all starve unless we stock up on canned goods. Neither of these make any sense, because we can just point at a random country outside the EU and say "Well that doesn't appear to be the case in x country".

But it will take longer than 6 months to sort it all out.

There is a global body (International Civil Aviations Authority, a part of the United Nations) that regulates flying; the EASA (which has 32 members, it's not restricted to the EU) is a member of this global body en bloc. All that would be needed is an agreement that the UK remains as one of the 32 members of the EASA, and there is literally no issue. It's agreeing that the UK can stay on that causes the problem. If we can't stay in the EASA then we have to agree independent membership of the ICAA and the various protocols for doing that may take too long - I wouldn't know. But (with reference to Rolls Royce as above) it would be of interest to the whole world to get it done asap, so I should think it would be.

[Edit - it's International Civil Aviation Organisation, ICAO]

[aggi]

It would be perfectly reasonable to accept the ECJ as arbiter for the EASA but only the EASA. Accepting the ECJ for that purpose need not mean accepting it has supremacy over all British law.

I'd agree with that (although I wouldn't be surprised if there were knock-on issues such as employment rights for airline staff or something which would be hard to untangle) but arch-Brexiteers such as Rees-Mogg who seem to have such undue influence wouldn't

As I say, we've painted ourselves into a corner with those red lines.

[RingoMcCartney]

Listening to Shelagh Fogarty on BBC. And there's a Remoaner from Richmond called in. And unbelievably, the Chequers based white paper is miraculous. It's United brexiteers and Remoaners in agreeing it's a non starter!

Well done Olly Robbins! You treasonous anti democratic weasel!

[Caballo]

How are we going to fly all the generators back from Afghanistan to power Northern ireland with all the planes grounded? Asking for a friend.

[Spiral]

Peak Brexit.

[martin_p]

Listening to Shelagh Fogarty on BBC. And there's a Remoaner from Richmond called in. And unbelievably, the Chequers based white paper is miraculous. It's United brexiteers and Remoaners in agreeing it's a non starter!

Well done Olly Robbins! You treasonous anti democratic weasel!

Can you tell me why a deal to leave the EU is anti democratic given that’s what people voted for?

[Imploding Turtle]

Peak Brexit is when you're so unhinged that you refer to people as traitors or treasonous because they disagree with Brexit and refuse to accept a hard Brexit.

[Spiral]

I dunno, that's just plain old fashioned insanity, I think. Unfair on a lot of leave voters to say that Ringo speaks or them. Caballo's post sound like it was written by Armando Iannucci, though.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Unprecedented interview in the Sun tomorrow with Trump.

The front page looks tasty. May has wrecked Brexit. The US trade deal is off. Boris would make a great PM. Etc.

This makes Obama’s back of the queue intervention look minuscule by comparison. Never seen anything like it before. Amazing if May can survive this, he’s trying to finish her off. Even if he’s a numpty, he’s still the most powerful politician in the world.

[Lancasterclaret]

But does it bother you though?

People went mental when Obama tried it, will they show the same reaction if its Trump?

Somehow I seriously doubt it sadly.

[Imploding Turtle]

Unprecedented interview in the Sun tomorrow with Trump.

The front page looks tasty. May has wrecked Brexit. The US trade deal is off. Boris would make a great PM. Etc.

This makes Obama’s back of the queue intervention look minuscule by comparison. Never seen anything like it before. Amazing if May can survive this, he’s trying to finish her off. Even if he’s a numpty, he’s still the most powerful politician in the world.

Trump's not trying to finish her off. Putin is. Trump's just doing his bidding, as he's always been doing.

[martin_p]

ClaretMoffit will be on soon to tell us this is Trump’s response to the balloon and he told us this would happen.

[RingoMcCartney]

Jean-Claude Juncker stumbles, loses his balance and has to be held up by the presidents of Finland and Ukraine ahead of gala dinner at NATO summit 

He's an alcoholic clown.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -help.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He needed to be propped up. And to think people on here who consider themselves as "educated" "enlightened" and "sophisticated" worship the ground he walks on!

To call him a hapless clown would give him, and his UTC message board poster devotees a promotion.

[RingoMcCartney]

Can you tell me why a deal to leave the EU is anti democratic given that’s what people voted for?

Marty you're finally making a bit of progress!

You seem to be acknowledging that Leave is "is what the People voted for" YOUR WORDS Marty!

So thats brilliant well done!

And in answer to your question.

It's not...

[martin_p]

Marty you're finally making a bit of progress!

You seem to be acknowledging that Leave is "is what the People voted for" YOUR WORDS Marty!

So thats brilliant well done!

And in answer to your question.

It's not...

You’re making even more progress! Admitting you’re wrong to call Olly Robbins anti democratic.

[RingoMcCartney]

You’re making even more progress! Admitting you’re wrong to call Olly Robbins anti democratic.

I didn't. Specsavers Marty!

[martin_p]

I didn't. Specsavers Marty!

Sigh! I’m not playing this game with you again, go play with yourself!

[RingoMcCartney]

Sigh! I’m not playing this game with you again, go play with yourself!

7.0

Capitulation. It's getting easier and easier for you!!

[martin_p]

7.0

Capitulation. It's getting easier and easier for you!!

Oh you did, well done. Remember to wipe it up with a tissue.

[Paul Waine]

The EU already imports zero tariff lamb from New Zealand (there is theoretically a tariff on it but only after a certain level is imported which hasn't been near hit for the past 7 or 8 years) so that is no different from the situation we have at the moment.

What would be an issue is that a lot of the lamb produced here gets exported to the EU (over 90% of Welsh lamb) which would obviously be impacted if tariffs were introduced.

Hi aggi, thanks for the correction. Yes, there is a quota for zero tariff NZ lamb. The report I heard suggested that NZ would like to sell much more lamb to the UK when we've left the EU.

I didn't know that over 90% of Welsh lamb is exported from UK to the "rest of EU."

Where does the concern after food shortages arise from - especially if there are food exports that could, I assume, be retained in the UK if the EU blocks the UK buying foods from EU27? (I've only seen these "food shortage" stories on this site).

[Paul Waine]

Unprecedented interview in the Sun tomorrow with Trump.

The front page looks tasty. May has wrecked Brexit. The US trade deal is off. Boris would make a great PM. Etc.

This makes Obama’s back of the queue intervention look minuscule by comparison. Never seen anything like it before. Amazing if May can survive this, he’s trying to finish her off. Even if he’s a numpty, he’s still the most powerful politician in the world.

But does it bother you though?

People went mental when Obama tried it, will they show the same reaction if its Trump?

Somehow I seriously doubt it sadly.

1) Trump: surely it should be a "badge of honour" to be called out by Trump, and not a threat position. POTUS can only fire his own advisors, not the leaders of any other countries.

What would we prefer: PDT telling TM what to do and she does it, or PDT telling TM what to do and she doesn't follow Trump's advice?

2) Obama was seeking to tell the UK electorate how to vote. I assume we should be concerned about "crossing the line" in another countries democratic process. I believe there have been concerns in one or two countries that Russia may have interfered via social media.

Of course, in the past few weeks there have been reports that David Cameron asked Obama to make his "back of the queue" comments. Cameron was wrong to do that. Obama was also wrong to say what he said.

[CrosspoolClarets]

1) Trump: surely it should be a "badge of honour" to be called out by Trump, and not a threat position. POTUS can only fire his own advisors, not the leaders of any other countries.

What would we prefer: PDT telling TM what to do and she does it, or PDT telling TM what to do and she doesn't follow Trump's advice?

2) Obama was seeking to tell the UK electorate how to vote. I assume we should be concerned about "crossing the line" in another countries democratic process. I believe there have been concerns in one or two countries that Russia may have interfered via social media.

Of course, in the past few weeks there have been reports that David Cameron asked Obama to make his "back of the queue" comments. Cameron was wrong to do that. Obama was also wrong to say what he said.

I agree that Trump is doing the same as Obama, i.e. saying that we are at the back of the queue if we go a certain way. The difference is, he is starting a trade war with the EU and will be here for 6 years in all probability. He is thus saying that if we are shackled to the EU, the trade war will also be with us. That isn’t rhetoric, he is actually doing it.

The reason we aren’t leaving the EU is due almost entirely to the economy. Nobody is disputing other reasons, Remainer MPS are saying the economy rules everything else (to the disagreement of 17m voters) so we cannot afford to leave without a deal. But this is wrong. Trump’s trade war is another reason why the economic modelling doesn’t stay static - there is no such thing as “status quo”, just 2 or more evolving options. The economic merits of staying in, or the “gap” between no deal and staying in if you like, and if you believe there is one, has surely now got narrower, as the EU economy comes under attack from the US? Are we so sure that Chequers is the best of the bad options?

The media get fixated on Trump’s etiquette, but one thing Remainers believe strongly is that we should be entirely fixed on the pound in our pocket. I think May would thus do well to listen to Trump. The EU cannot fight economic battles on every frontier - if we left without a deal, they would come crawling back ASAP, particularly Ireland, who depend on us totally as their land bridge. If we strike this deal, it will be worse.

(We all accept though the Parliamentary arithmetic isn’t there for no deal, so she is, frankly, stuffed. As are we.)

[Imploding Turtle]

So now we should leave the EU because if we don't then one of our allies will deliberately harm us economically?

Lol.

BTW were still leaving the EU. But it's nice to know just how easily you're cowed by an economic argument if it's in favour of the Leave agenda. If you were consistent though, you'd have been listening to the economic argument made for years that leaving would be economic suicide.

It's funny how quickly you come around to the economic argument when you think it's on your side.

[aggi]

Hi aggi, thanks for the correction. Yes, there is a quota for zero tariff NZ lamb. The report I heard suggested that NZ would like to sell much more lamb to the UK when we've left the EU.

I didn't know that over 90% of Welsh lamb is exported from UK to the "rest of EU."

Where does the concern after food shortages arise from - especially if there are food exports that could, I assume, be retained in the UK if the EU blocks the UK buying foods from EU27? (I've only seen these "food shortage" stories on this site).

I guess the concern is that even including exports we are a net importer of food (with a large amount of that food coming from the EU). I think the stories are coming from the worse case scenario papers that the government seem to be preparing.

[Paul Waine]

I agree that Trump is doing the same as Obama, i.e. saying that we are at the back of the queue if we go a certain way. The difference is, he is starting a trade war with the EU and will be here for 6 years in all probability. He is thus saying that if we are shackled to the EU, the trade war will also be with us. That isn’t rhetoric, he is actually doing it.

The reason we aren’t leaving the EU is due almost entirely to the economy. Nobody is disputing other reasons, Remainer MPS are saying the economy rules everything else (to the disagreement of 17m voters) so we cannot afford to leave without a deal. But this is wrong. Trump’s trade war is another reason why the economic modelling doesn’t stay static - there is no such thing as “status quo”, just 2 or more evolving options. The economic merits of staying in, or the “gap” between no deal and staying in if you like, and if you believe there is one, has surely now got narrower, as the EU economy comes under attack from the US? Are we so sure that Chequers is the best of the bad options?

The media get fixated on Trump’s etiquette, but one thing Remainers believe strongly is that we should be entirely fixed on the pound in our pocket. I think May would thus do well to listen to Trump. The EU cannot fight economic battles on every frontier - if we left without a deal, they would come crawling back ASAP, particularly Ireland, who depend on us totally as their land bridge. If we strike this deal, it will be worse.

(We all accept though the Parliamentary arithmetic isn’t there for no deal, so she is, frankly, stuffed. As are we.)

I think you've got the analysis right. The only argument against leaving seems to be "but we will be worse off..." Interesting that some (many ?) making this case have often been the ones not bothered about business success of the strength of the economy.

Trump initiating a trade war is "dumb" - no politicial leader in the western world should be doing this. On the other hadn, we can't escape the truth that the EU single market is a protectionist trade zone and the EU has erected barriers to trade with external nations.

Given where we are - and I wish we weren't here, but the truth is we are - we should be looking for a deal that maintains as much as possible of the "economic status quo." We should be doing this not solely for the UK's benefit, but also for the benefit of our neighbours in the EU (and, not least, the Republic of Ireland). if we have to do, we should sacrifice all the early gains in "free trade" with the rest of the world.

The big political reason for doing this is (1) to start to re-build relations within the UK, including UK politics/politicians; (2) to re-build relations with the EU27, particularly the ones who have dominated the brexit debate and have said that the UK "cannot be better off outside..." (3) to re-build relations within the wider international groups, including G7, G20, UN and all the rest. The world has enough challenges without UK politics adding to them.

A really big, grown up approach will win for me. Some grown up politicians will also be welcome.