Politically it has advantages. We were told that outside the EU we would be making lots of our own trade deals. If we take the usual 10 years or so to negotiate a deal then we'd go into the next election sitting outside the EU without having negotiated a deal with anyone. The Tory Party would be slaughtered at the polls (they probably will be anyway), their only hope is to come up with a "Brexit is working" story - a rapid trade deal with the US would do that. Plus, Trump would possibly get political capital out of such a deal and he'd need that before starting the next Presidential campaign so he can use that to try and hold on for a second term. Both sides therefore would benefit politically from a quick deal, though it would be a desperate throw if the dice to give something to sell to the electorate and would be very unlikely to be a good deal.
In The Applecart (not often performed nowadays, sadly) the plot is driven by the Americans tearing up the Declaration of Independence, thus instantly taking over the UK.
Sadly I don't think we've had enough punishment yet. If there was a snap GE I believe it would end up in a very similar situation as today.
Which is monsterous given the damage the Tories are inflicting on the country.
The majority of middle England vote Tory out of Loyalty. That could seal another Tory government.
Where I come from people do the same but are loyal to Labour. So swing voters have a lot of power across the country
Britain will have to make concessions on standards the Americans find irksome, especially in food, agriculture and other goods. The things the US complains about and wants conceded include limits on pesticide residues and hormone-disrupting chemicals in food, nutritional labelling, the use of genetically modified organisms, the export of animal byproducts including some specified risk material for BSE, food additives such as flavourings that the EU has banned because of concerns over safety, hygiene rules including chlorine treatments on poultry and other meats, and animal-rearing standards such as the use of growth-promoting chemicals in pork and hormones in beef production.
¹5 February article from Guardian continuing the story of Plan A+ with an article entitled: Right-Wing Think Tank Breached Charity Law by Campaigning for Hard Brexit
The UK's trade with the US is relatively small compared with its trade with the EU, so any US-UK trade deal would not come close to making up for Brexit.
The UK's trade with the US is relatively small compared with its trade with the EU, so any US-UK trade deal would not come close to making up for Brexit.
And - most crucially (@Curiosity Killed has explained) - they would only come with lowered standards. I am not sure that we would stand for this, at least, not after a few deaths. There would be heads rolling. And continuing to roll, as the heads would not be the politicians.
Of course, the fact that most of us would be impoverished and unable to sustain the economy we have now means that trade deals will be of less relevance, and bring in less money than some people assume.
Jeremy has made an offer to Treeza but it involves keeping a customs union. She appears not to be keen. She said she is willing to talk but seems not to want to talk about that.
Meanwhile back in the real world, companies shipping to the Antipodes - a 60-day voyage, more or less - are already left with no idea of what duties, taxes or other restrictions their goods may encounter when the ships carrying them dock.
But then that's just real jobs and real lives, neither of which matter one jot to Treeza. God forgive her.
If the only direct experience I have of the procedures post "Crash-out" are typical, the government will simply convert every EU generated benefit to UK businesses into a UK equivalent one, free of charge and any effort. I doubt the benefits conferred by the EU to people will be converted, unless UK business demands it.
Treeza has called on MPs to back her in tonight's vote in order 'not to undermine her in the negotiations.'
What negotiations? There aren't any negotiations. What the Hell is going on?
Under the guise of not undermining the PM in negotiations (which as you say aren't going on because the negotiations finished last year) Mrs May wants to sneak through the vote on the negotiated deal. No one will be stupid enough to fall for that, although some may be loyal enough (True Blues) or desperate enough (any deal better than No deal), but she's out of her depth. Not that anyone else would be better.
Treeza has called on MPs to back her in tonight's vote in order 'not to undermine her in the negotiations.'
Well, there's a first time for everything... but I wouldn't hold my breath if I was her. Judging by past performances, very few of her so-called colleagues care about whether they're undermining her or not.
An actual headline I just saw: Porsche buyers to pay 10% more in event of hard Brexit (some automobile website in the newsfeed suggestions).
Oh the poor babies. Brexit’s really going to bite hard for those sad unfortunate people rich enough to buy a Porsche. Better start stockpiling them now. (I miss the rolling eyes smiley)
Or, on second thoughts, maybe if they are HBP(NLU)....
They could be usefully employed sitting propped up in the pews of otherwise empty churches, to show what a Christian Country this obviously is! And how accepting of HBP(NLU)!
Well, another week's gone by and the lady is still stalling because she's 'making progress in her talks' - a fact of which the EU leaders seem quite unaware. Can she really be lying? Surely not.
Her weekend speech to Tory activists in which she apparently promised that Britain really would be leaving the EU on March 29, has been undermined already by No. 10's suggestion (ie hers!) that the departure will be delayed until the end of May (Ha! there's a thought!) and this Wednesday's vote may see the whole thing parked in a siding.
Well, another week's gone by and the lady is still stalling because she's 'making progress in her talks' - a fact of which the EU leaders seem quite unaware. Can she really be lying? Surely not.
Her weekend speech to Tory activists in which she apparently promised that Britain really would be leaving the EU on March 29, has been undermined already by No. 10's suggestion (ie hers!) that the departure will be delayed until the end of May (Ha! there's a thought!) and this Wednesday's vote may see the whole thing parked in a siding.
We can only hope.
Except that she's just pulled the vote.
I am not sure who I have more contempt for right now; Theresa May or the MPs who prop her up. Essentially the only way to force her hand is a VONC - can't see that working, anytime soon....
AFZ
P.S. THE TWELFTH OF FUCKING MARCH!!! WHAT THE HELL?
Well, another week's gone by and the lady is still stalling because she's 'making progress in her talks' - a fact of which the EU leaders seem quite unaware. Can she really be lying? Surely not.
Her weekend speech to Tory activists in which she apparently promised that Britain really would be leaving the EU on March 29, has been undermined already by No. 10's suggestion (ie hers!) that the departure will be delayed until the end of May (Ha! there's a thought!) and this Wednesday's vote may see the whole thing parked in a siding.
We can only hope.
Except that she's just pulled the vote.
I am not sure who I have more contempt for right now; Theresa May or the MPs who prop her up. Essentially the only way to force her hand is a VONC - can't see that working, anytime soon....
AFZ
P.S. THE TWELFTH OF FUCKING MARCH!!! WHAT THE HELL?
I believe that this is a amendable vote to Receive her Statement, not a vote to accept or reject her proposed deal. This will provide an opportunity for MPs to insist that Leaving With No Deal be ruled out.
Let's hope they take it!
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
She could have made it the ides of March (15th). Certainly the knives will be out, but I'm still not sure who is going to gut whom.
Well, another week's gone by and the lady is still stalling because she's 'making progress in her talks' - a fact of which the EU leaders seem quite unaware.
I presume that was sarcasm, but in any case I think the EU are fully aware of what's going on, hence the preparatory work for a possible hard-Brexit in a number of countries.
Well, another week's gone by and the lady is still stalling because she's 'making progress in her talks' - a fact of which the EU leaders seem quite unaware.
I presume that was sarcasm, but in any case I think the EU are fully aware of what's going on, hence the preparatory work for a possible hard-Brexit in a number of countries.
I meant that they are unaware of her claimed 'progress'; that's a polite way of insinuating that she's lying through her teeth again, which does seem to be her default setting.
I agree that they are horribly aware of the possibility and perils of a hard Brexit. Indeed, the recent sterling work in the Irish Republic shows just how utterly incompetent our folk in Westminster really are by comparison. Ferry companies with no ships, anyone?
One, on the following day, on whether MPs support a no-deal Brexit - so the UK would "only leave without a deal on 29 March if there is explicit consent in the House for that outcome"
I can't even. Again. Does nobody in the house understand that No.vote.is.required to assure that outcome? That it's the default outcome? Whatever the HoC votes?
One, on the following day, on whether MPs support a no-deal Brexit - so the UK would "only leave without a deal on 29 March if there is explicit consent in the House for that outcome"
I can't even. Again. Does nobody in the house understand that No.vote.is.required to assure that outcome? That it's the default outcome? Whatever the HoC votes?
There's a difference between it being the default outcome and owning that outcome by putting your vote next to it. And having to defend the resulting shit-show to the electorate later.
JRM in today's Guardian:
Rees-Mogg seems relatively relaxed about the possible extension of article 50 that could happen following May’s announcement yesterday and, in his Today interview, he admitted that he was softening his position on the backstop. You could tell he was engaged in a U-turn because he started talking in Latin to obscure what he was up to. He told the programme:
I can live with the de facto removal of the backstop, even if it isn’t de jure. What do I mean by that? I mean that if there is a clear date that says the backstop ends, and that that is in the text of the treaty, or equivalent to the text of the treaty - if it were to be an appendix to the treaty; bear in mind, the Irish backstop is in itself an appendix to the treaty. So if you had a further appendix that said, ‘This will not go beyond a particular date’, and a short date, not a long date, then that would remove the backstop in the lifetime of parliament. That would have a reasonable effect from my point of view ...
A changed deal is a changed deal. Of course, I would be open to considering that.
That way he has more time to extract himself and his money from the Disaster Area.
A part of me is beginning to hope that the Fat Cats who are extricating themselves from Britain ahead of leaving the EU are caught out by Britain doing so successfully. The Brexiteers will be crowing "I told you so", but if the country is not in shit order I think I can handle that.
We're now in the Alice in Wonderland world where Treeza intends to propose legislation to delay the implementation of Article 50 while at the same time hoping it doesn't pass.
We're now in the Alice in Wonderland world where Treeza intends to propose legislation to delay the implementation of Article 50 while at the same time hoping it doesn't pass.
You couldn't make it up.
As an avid Lewis Carroll fan, I take offence at this. This isn't Alice. This is Iain Banks. This is Philip K Dick.
And so many of her decisions, not least the triggering of Article 50 ..., and the stupid, stupid decision to call an entirely unnecessary general election, have made things worse for her, her party and the country.
Yes, apparently the result of 'clearing her mind' on a walking holiday. My personal opinion is that the whole of parliament should be locked up in a padded room, allowed no holidays, intervals or breaks, and no chairs or tables, and no sustenance (I might allow them a bucket for calls of nature), until they've sorted themselves out and come to some workable compromise.
But I do not think the EU has shown much in the way of flexibility, either. Maybe their negotiating team, especially Tusk and Barnier, should be included in that padded room, also.
Or would that all be too similar to a papal conclave? I would hate the idea of ending up with a Pope Treeza or Pope Tusk, ruling us all by dictat.
Comments
Don't say we weren't warned!
Which is monsterous given the damage the Tories are inflicting on the country.
The majority of middle England vote Tory out of Loyalty. That could seal another Tory government.
Where I come from people do the same but are loyal to Labour. So swing voters have a lot of power across the country
But there's a Plan A + for a hard Brexit¹, pushed by our friends Rees-Mogg, Villiers and Davis, more on Plan A + from the first article from December:
¹5 February article from Guardian continuing the story of Plan A+ with an article entitled: Right-Wing Think Tank Breached Charity Law by Campaigning for Hard Brexit
And - most crucially (@Curiosity Killed has explained) - they would only come with lowered standards. I am not sure that we would stand for this, at least, not after a few deaths. There would be heads rolling. And continuing to roll, as the heads would not be the politicians.
Of course, the fact that most of us would be impoverished and unable to sustain the economy we have now means that trade deals will be of less relevance, and bring in less money than some people assume.
I hear that there is a good deal to be had for new migrants to Pitcairn Island.
But then that's just real jobs and real lives, neither of which matter one jot to Treeza. God forgive her.
So much for sovereignty. The voters get fuck all.
What negotiations? There aren't any negotiations. What the Hell is going on?
Under the guise of not undermining the PM in negotiations (which as you say aren't going on because the negotiations finished last year) Mrs May wants to sneak through the vote on the negotiated deal. No one will be stupid enough to fall for that, although some may be loyal enough (True Blues) or desperate enough (any deal better than No deal), but she's out of her depth. Not that anyone else would be better.
Well, there's a first time for everything... but I wouldn't hold my breath if I was her. Judging by past performances, very few of her so-called colleagues care about whether they're undermining her or not.
Oh the poor babies. Brexit’s really going to bite hard for those sad unfortunate people rich enough to buy a Porsche. Better start stockpiling them now. (I miss the rolling eyes smiley)
There was. Clearly, after Brexit, we will be world leaders in dead people.
With PIPs and Universal Credit, it isn't as if we aren't climbing the charts already.
Yes but they will still need an interview to prove they are dead
And they'll probably be found fit to work.
Or, on second thoughts, maybe if they are HBP(NLU)....
They could be usefully employed sitting propped up in the pews of otherwise empty churches, to show what a Christian Country this obviously is! And how accepting of HBP(NLU)!
I am just reading "You are dead (please sign here)", which makes me really scared of the afterlife. Apparently, it is an uber-beaurocracy.
Nah. They'll just get sanctioned for not showing up.
Possibly. Or they'll be sanctioned for not turning up to their interviews...
Her weekend speech to Tory activists in which she apparently promised that Britain really would be leaving the EU on March 29, has been undermined already by No. 10's suggestion (ie hers!) that the departure will be delayed until the end of May (Ha! there's a thought!) and this Wednesday's vote may see the whole thing parked in a siding.
We can only hope.
Except that she's just pulled the vote.
I am not sure who I have more contempt for right now; Theresa May or the MPs who prop her up. Essentially the only way to force her hand is a VONC - can't see that working, anytime soon....
AFZ
P.S. THE TWELFTH OF FUCKING MARCH!!! WHAT THE HELL?
I believe that this is a amendable vote to Receive her Statement, not a vote to accept or reject her proposed deal. This will provide an opportunity for MPs to insist that Leaving With No Deal be ruled out.
Let's hope they take it!
I presume that was sarcasm, but in any case I think the EU are fully aware of what's going on, hence the preparatory work for a possible hard-Brexit in a number of countries.
She would go up in my estimation if she did Kenneth Williams' "infamy" speech.
I meant that they are unaware of her claimed 'progress'; that's a polite way of insinuating that she's lying through her teeth again, which does seem to be her default setting.
I agree that they are horribly aware of the possibility and perils of a hard Brexit. Indeed, the recent sterling work in the Irish Republic shows just how utterly incompetent our folk in Westminster really are by comparison. Ferry companies with no ships, anyone?
I can't even. Again. Does nobody in the house understand that No.vote.is.required to assure that outcome? That it's the default outcome? Whatever the HoC votes?
There's a difference between it being the default outcome and owning that outcome by putting your vote next to it. And having to defend the resulting shit-show to the electorate later.
JRM in today's Guardian:
A part of me is beginning to hope that the Fat Cats who are extricating themselves from Britain ahead of leaving the EU are caught out by Britain doing so successfully. The Brexiteers will be crowing "I told you so", but if the country is not in shit order I think I can handle that.
You couldn't make it up.
As an avid Lewis Carroll fan, I take offence at this. This isn't Alice. This is Iain Banks. This is Philip K Dick.
Yes, apparently the result of 'clearing her mind' on a walking holiday. My personal opinion is that the whole of parliament should be locked up in a padded room, allowed no holidays, intervals or breaks, and no chairs or tables, and no sustenance (I might allow them a bucket for calls of nature), until they've sorted themselves out and come to some workable compromise.
But I do not think the EU has shown much in the way of flexibility, either. Maybe their negotiating team, especially Tusk and Barnier, should be included in that padded room, also.
Or would that all be too similar to a papal conclave? I would hate the idea of ending up with a Pope Treeza or Pope Tusk, ruling us all by dictat.
Best wishes, 2RM.