readytotaxi wrote:

Don't panic Capt Mainwaring !!!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47028748

"A no-deal Brexit threatens the UK's food security and will lead to higher prices and empty shelves in the short-term, retailers are warning.
Sainsbury's, Asda and McDonald's are among those warning stockpiling fresh food is impossible and that the UK is very reliant on the EU for produce."

Nothing like getting a bit of fear into the public early so we can say I told you so.

except read what they say.

Currently we have tariffs on only 10% of UK food imports - everything else is covered by Single Market and by the many FTA's provided through membership of the Customs Union

On a crash out and WTO terms we lose single market access and all the FTA's.

We can then either:

1) Have zero tariffs - meaning we devastate farming within the UK through cheap unlimited imports, which would not be reciprocated for UK exports (other countries can maintain their own tariffs and quotas), or
2) We impose our own tariffs - meaning higher costs are passed on to consumers.

Remember also favoured nation rules - WTO terms does not allow us to cherry pick tariffs and quotas by territory - it is a blanket system covering every country.

Which do you want on crash out / WTO terms , bankrupt farmers or higher prices?.... you choose.... it is not even belief anymore... it is simple maths.

and that is even before we factor in delays through customs and availability of produce.....

This was not on a red bus in 2016.

Amiga500 wrote:

readytotaxi wrote:

Nothing like getting a bit of fear into the public early so we can say I told you so.

From that, am I correct in interpreting that you don't believe it will be a problem?

It's another one of these stupid situations where Brexiteers are crying Project Fear, yet anyone who has worked in logistics for any length of time or watched any tv program about food production, distribution or delivery knows it's completely true. I mean seriously, there was a BBC2 program a few months back called 'the factory' and it showed how various foods and clothes are made in the UK. They showed you the warehouse sizes, the production process, where the ingredients came from. They explained how long finished goods stocked last, how much can fit in a warehouse and they ALL clearly showed why JIT deliveries is so important. Jeeze watch the One Show for a week or that farming program on a Sunday and they'll likely have something about food and how much of it is imported because it can't be grown year round in the UK.

The rest of it about tarrifs is written down in black and white, it's as clear as day. If you can be bothered to read up on it. Heaven forbid we deal with facts, rather than regurgitating something some dodgy MP with a vested interest has spouted out, or a bloke who runs a sh** chain of pubs, paying his employees minimum wage who can't read WTO rules.

The longer this goes on, the longer I think the UK has a serious deficiency in intelligence.

Richard28 wrote:

except read what they say.

Currently we have tariffs on only 10% of UK food imports - everything else is covered by Single Market and by the many FTA's provided through membership of the Customs Union

On a crash out and WTO terms we lose single market access and all the FTA's......

Great post.

readytotaxi wrote:

Nothing like getting a bit of fear into the public early so we can say I told you so.

In Dutch Parlement, a law is being processed where the Dutch Government is getting unprecedented power to implement laws without first going through Parlement, has to be rectified after a couple of months, but still. This Law is implemented because the Dutch government wants to be prepared for the unknowns unknowns in case of a hard Brexit. Thus.......

readytotaxi wrote:

Nothing like getting a bit of fear into the public early so we can say I told you so.

Just as Trump uses #FakeNews to gloss over any negative press, Brexiteers use #ProjectFear to gloss over anything negative about Brexit.

seahawk wrote:

And in the end it is as much a British problem as a problem between the EU and the UK. The GFA is part of the constitution of the UK and it will be interesting to see how the UK will handle this, as for one the GFA guarantees the residents of Northern Ireland access to the European Court of Human rights, which the inhabitants of the rest of the UK would loose after the Brexit.

Other parts of the constitution like the Human Rights Act are also problematic after Brexit.

But, let us just say it is the EU´s fault.

Thanks. I was not aware of how explicit the GFA was with the EU, it would be interesting for someone to provide a link for the other problematic parts.

Again, a border in the sea would not have major day to day inconveniences.

How will farmers in Spain, Italy, Greece and other EC countries, innocent victims of Brexit, react when their perishable products are ruined waiting on a HGV for UK customs, prices drop due to those delays, cost of lost product. I suspect it won't be pretty. How will workers in the UK feel - ones who were the biggest voters for Brexit - when they lose jobs from custom delays getting into EC countries. That is going to get very ugly.

ltbewr wrote:

How will farmers in Spain, Italy, Greece and other EC countries, innocent victims of Brexit, react when their perishable products are ruined waiting on a HGV for UK customs, prices drop due to those delays, cost of lost product. I suspect it won't be pretty. How will workers in the UK feel - ones who were the biggest voters for Brexit - when they lose jobs from custom delays getting into EC countries. That is going to get very ugly.

No one wins from a crash out no deal.

However at lest farmers in Spain, Italy, Greece and other EU countries will be able to sell their produce elsewhere using continuing single market access existing FTA’s and approved WTO schedules.

The UK farmers on the other hand will have none of these... moving perishable goods in that environment and attempting to export under other countries existing WTO tariffs and quotas which UK cannot control will quite clearly impact them much much harder.

Richard28 wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

How will farmers in Spain, Italy, Greece and other EC countries, innocent victims of Brexit, react when their perishable products are ruined waiting on a HGV for UK customs, prices drop due to those delays, cost of lost product. I suspect it won't be pretty. How will workers in the UK feel - ones who were the biggest voters for Brexit - when they lose jobs from custom delays getting into EC countries. That is going to get very ugly.

No one wins from a crash out no deal.

However at lest farmers in Spain, Italy, Greece and other EU countries will be able to sell their produce elsewhere using continuing single market access existing FTA’s and approved WTO schedules.

The UK farmers on the other hand will have none of these... moving perishable goods in that environment and attempting to export under other countries existing WTO tariffs and quotas which UK cannot control will quite clearly impact them much much harder.

So rather than eating EU goods spoiled at the border because of UK customs, folks in the UK will just have to become self sufficient and eat their own produce. I can only imagine the shock and horror of being independent for some food stuffs like the UN tries to teach poor African countries.

But the UK is far from being self sufficient for food. From memory it can only produce 60 % for its market. I don't doubt that overtime the uk will be able to produce more for his internal market but it will need years....

Amiga500 wrote:

This whole thing is getting on my nerves.

Yes, I can understand your frustration

Amiga500 wrote:

It is seemingly impossible to explain to the Brexiteer simpletons just how royally screwed the entire UK is going to be if there is a no-deal Brexit*. Even if I tried to do it slowly, with Crayons in big letters - I doubt any would be able to grasp much beyond the first sentence.

*even the mainstream journalists don't get it to the extent they need to.

Look we are both entitled to our views, I not that naive to know that there will be implications in the short term, but me being the optimist believe long term the UK will move ahead if our collective elected members start putting thought into implications of their actions. I blame Cameron for this mess as it was under his stewardship that putting out a referendum without any thought on what would and how it needs to happen on the results under his watch.

Both referendums on the question of the EU was simplistic, but it also should have had a rider on if this is the result for yes blah blah blah and the no result this is wat we want to achieve blah blah blah. The leave and remain campaign was to sway to reach a certain result it’s was up to the incumbent to deal with the result not run away with his tail between his legs.

A101 - what do you class as short and long-term? Some Brexiteers (JRM for example) have stated up to 50 years before benefits are felt?

A101 wrote:

I blame Cameron for this mess as it was under his stewardship that putting out a referendum without any thought on what would and how it needs to happen on the results under his watch.

Where do you see any responsibility for this mess with the people whom voted for Brexit? You didn't know what you were voting for and yet you voted anyway Brexit.

A101 wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

This whole thing is getting on my nerves.

Yes, I can understand your frustration

Do you? I think that Amiga feels more than just frustration.

I think your views on Brexit are quite extremistic, you do not seem to care a bit what the consequences are, just as long as you keep believing in your unicorn.

sbworcs wrote:

A101 - what do you class as short and long-term? Some Brexiteers (JRM for example) have stated up to 50 years before benefits are felt?

Good question.

In 50 years nobody is accountable if it doesn't come true and most of the people whom voted Brexit have passed away anyway. Just a few days ago, if the demographic would vote exactly the same way, the result would have been remain.

par13del wrote:

Richard28 wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

How will farmers in Spain, Italy, Greece and other EC countries, innocent victims of Brexit, react when their perishable products are ruined waiting on a HGV for UK customs, prices drop due to those delays, cost of lost product. I suspect it won't be pretty. How will workers in the UK feel - ones who were the biggest voters for Brexit - when they lose jobs from custom delays getting into EC countries. That is going to get very ugly.

No one wins from a crash out no deal.

However at lest farmers in Spain, Italy, Greece and other EU countries will be able to sell their produce elsewhere using continuing single market access existing FTA’s and approved WTO schedules.

The UK farmers on the other hand will have none of these... moving perishable goods in that environment and attempting to export under other countries existing WTO tariffs and quotas which UK cannot control will quite clearly impact them much much harder.

So rather than eating EU goods spoiled at the border because of UK customs, folks in the UK will just have to become self sufficient and eat their own produce. I can only imagine the shock and horror of being independent for some food stuffs like the UN tries to teach poor African countries.

They could start by eating more fish !

Well they could eat more fish if the Royal Navy could protect the waters, but that another story.
As for the 50 years, I like how a statement by JRM, a non-government official is taken as gospel, this is the same individual who has a lot
to say about the EU Court System, Commissions, etc etc etc.
Let's see if he follows Dyson lead, and how many think that is only related to Brexit and not high taxation.

sbworcs wrote:

A101 - what do you class as short and long-term? Some Brexiteers (JRM for example) have stated up to 50 years before benefits are felt?

Short term is 2/3 years while an orderly transition takes place, meanwhile NI have the majority wanting to stay in the CU at referendum Will have to decide if they value being in the UK or stayin the CU, it’s therechoice

Long term benefits will occur progressively agreements are put in place, it’s just like the Paris climate agreements, no ones say the planet will benefit overnight, some scientist are say it will take 100 years for the planet to benefit

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

This whole thing is getting on my nerves.

Yes, I can understand your frustration

Do you? I think that Amiga feels more than just frustration.

I think your views on Brexit are quite extremistic, you do not seem to care a bit what the consequences are, just as long as you keep believing in your unicorn.

Sorry I don’t believe in unicorns but what was voted for was very simplistic leave or remain, and the answer is simple and return LEAVE, Simple

A101 wrote:

sbworcs wrote:

A101 - what do you class as short and long-term? Some Brexiteers (JRM for example) have stated up to 50 years before benefits are felt?

Short term is 2/3 years while an orderly transition takes place, meanwhile NI have the majority wanting to stay in the CU at referendum Will have to decide if they value being in the UK or stayin the CU, it’s therechoice

Without a ratified Withdrawal Agreement there will be no "orderly transition", but a sharp and brutal shock, followed by years of slowly trying to climb out of the crater within the hole the country will have tumbled into without ever being able to hope to reach the pre-Brexit level again.

Long term benefits will occur progressively agreements are put in place, it’s just like the Paris climate agreements, no ones say the planet will benefit overnight, some scientist are say it will take 100 years for the planet to benefit

There will be no "long-term benefits". The best the UK could hope for is to maybe approximate some part of what it had before Brexit.

ltbewr wrote:

How will farmers in Spain, Italy, Greece and other EC countries, innocent victims of Brexit, react when their perishable products are ruined waiting on a HGV for UK customs, prices drop due to those delays, cost of lost product.

Not for the Dutch tomato growers. They say they're 100% hard Brexit proof. Thus, at least the Dutch tomatoes will be going to the UK after March 29th (though at a higher costs and less quality, but that's not relevant).

Olddog wrote:

But the UK is far from being self sufficient for food. From memory it can only produce 60 % for its market. I don't doubt that overtime the uk will be able to produce more for his internal market but it will need years....

And still the costs will go up. I doubt UK farmers are working as a charity. Thus when supply remains equal and demand increases, one can assume prices will go up.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Yes, I can understand your frustration

Do you? I think that Amiga feels more than just frustration.

I think your views on Brexit are quite extremistic, you do not seem to care a bit what the consequences are, just as long as you keep believing in your unicorn.

Sorry I don’t believe in unicorns but what was voted for was very simplistic leave or remain, and the answer is simple and return LEAVE, Simple

That does not wash.

The vote was based on promises that nothing would change for the worse, and it is extremely implausible that even back then a majority would have wanted to crash out without a deal, much less now with many of the Leave voters died off and many fresh Remain voters being able to vote.

There was zero "instruction" as to the "how" (in sharp contrast to the scottish IndyRef where a voluminous, detailed proposal was part of the campaign), and as we know by now the Leave campaigns painstakingly avoided any discussion of that in order to reel in votes without taking any actual responsibility.

And they've succeeded – you're still not holding your own leaders to their responsibility to this day!
Why is that?

par13del wrote:

Well they could eat more fish if the Royal Navy could protect the waters, but that another story..

That would also mean that the British start eating the fish which are in the UK waters. AFAIK there isn't a big market in the UK for herring, which is primarily eaten in The Netherlands and Norway, both in the EEA.

Tidies now propose to replace the Backstop with ‘an alternative arrangement’.

Any idea what this is.

Klaus wrote:

That does not wash.

The vote was based on promises that nothing would change for the worse, and it is extremely implausible that even back then a majority would have wanted to crash out without a deal, much less now with many of the Leave voters died off and many fresh Remain voters being able to vote.

There was zero "instruction" as to the "how" (in sharp contrast to the scottish IndyRef where a voluminous, detailed proposal was part of the campaign), and as we know by now the Leave campaigns painstakingly avoided any discussion of that in order to reel in votes without taking any actual responsibility.

Did the people vote as directed as per the question, yep
It’s up to the individual to do vote as they wish and their prerogative irrespective if they follow the narrative or not.

The question was not leave but remain tied to the CU, blame Cameron for the calamity for which it became.

Klaus wrote:

And they've succeeded – you're still not holding your own leaders to their responsibility to this day!
Why is that?

It’s in the polling both when leaders are held responsible and they only way joe public can really vent their spleen

ltbewr wrote:

How will farmers in Spain, Italy, Greece and other EC countries, innocent victims of Brexit, react when their perishable products are ruined waiting on a HGV for UK customs, prices drop due to those delays, cost of lost product. I suspect it won't be pretty.

No problem whatsoever!

The EU exporters will of course demand payment up front - before shipment on FOB conditions.

They won't take any responsibility for a transport when they have no influence on its success.

The UK importer can protect himself by buying an insurance. The insurance fee will cover the risk and the insurance company profit.

That's nothing new. It is standard procedure for international trade when the countries involved have not agreed on common rules and/or efficient physical infrastructure isn't in place.

We are here talking about the very heart of the EU. Everything, product standards, single market, ECJ, infrastructure projects, you name it, its all there only to protect the consumers from the costs and consequences of this mess, and to make multinational production more cost efficient, and that way make EU production more competitive also on non-EU markets.

Does anybody believe that a Brexiteer will reconsider his position, because the supermarket ran out of fresh tomatoes? Just stockpile some cans.

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/no ... s-15744288

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Thanks. I was not aware of how explicit the GFA was with the EU, it would be interesting for someone to provide a link for the other problematic parts.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/e ... L_STU(2017)596826_EN.pdf

A101 wrote:

Sorry I don’t believe in unicorns but what was voted for was very simplistic leave or remain, and the answer is simple and return LEAVE, Simple

If a dopey f__kwit told you to put your hand in the fire to warm it up would you?

A101 wrote:

It’s in the polling both when leaders are held responsible and they only way joe public can really vent their spleen

Grow a set of balls and take responsibility for your own stupidity.

And meanwhile, the Tories keep negotiating with themselves…

Seems like now they have come up with PLAN C all amongst themselves (!), which is basically just an amendement to their cunning PLAN B which was simply to ask the EU to just be so kind to remove the backstop from the WA.

Their latest idea is to:
1- still aks the EU to take out the backstop from the deal
2- but to extend the transition from 2 years to 3 in return in order to increase the likelihood of reaching the point where currently non-existing technology + a comprehensive future FTA combined will avoid a hard border.

Another variation on the 'have my cake and eat it at the same time' as it obviously shows that the Tories still:
1- do not understand what a backstop means: it means a guaranteed default position, without time limit to it or escape from it, period!
2- do not see that their economy will need more than 2, probably even more than 3 years of transition period anyway, so rather than pretending to be offering something to the EU, they are actually asking for even more time, and for free this time even...
Oh, and they seem themselves to know this is a bit of a weak spot (yet another one…) of their new cunning plan (sic), since:
3- they "generously' accept to pay the full 39BN settlement which -I remind you- covers both past commitments as well as the expected cost of the UK remaining effectively within the SM and the CU for another 2 years… now if you want to extend that to 3 years like they propose now, then the costs will go up, don't they?
Talking about going around in circles!

Obviously, this is not going to pass with the EU, so it's just window dressing and buying ever more time as the clock runs down: one EU diplomat already called the idea "nonsense", and Mr. Barnier has once again repeated that without the backstop, there will be no WA whatsoever and also no transition period at all, meaning the UK will simply crash out of the EU at the end of March.

.

sabenapilot wrote:

And meanwhile, the Tories keep negotiating with themselves…

Seems like now they have come up with PLAN C all amongst themselves (!), which is basically just an amendement to their cunning PLAN B which was simply to ask the EU to just be so kind to remove the backstop from the WA.

Their latest idea is to:
1- still aks the EU to take out the backstop from the deal
2- but to extend the transition from 2 years to 3 in return in order to increase the likelihood of reaching the point where currently non-existing technology + a comprehensive future FTA combined will avoid a hard border.

Another variation on the 'have my cake and eat it at the same time' as it obviously shows that the Tories still:
1- do not understand what a backstop means: it means a guaranteed default position, without time limit to it or escape from it, period!
2- do not see that their economy will need more than 2, probably even more than 3 years of transition period anyway, so rather than pretending to be offering something to the EU, they are actually asking for even more time, and for free this time even...
Oh, and they seem to know this is a bit of a weak spot of their plane (yet another one…), since
3- they "generously' accept to pay the full 39BN settlement which -I remind you- covers both past commitments as well as the expected cost of the UK remaining effectively within the SM and the CU for another 2 years… now if you want to extend that to 3 years like they propose now, then the costs will go up, don't they?
Talking about going around in circles!

Obviously, this is not going to pass with the EU, so it's just window dressing and buying ever more time as the clock runs down: one EU diplomat already called the idea "nonsense", and Mr. Barnier has once again repeated that without the backstop, there will be no WA whatsoever and also no transition period at all, meaning the UK will simply crash out of the EU at the end of March.

.

The only 2 options are that the UK will either crash out of the EU come 29th March, or Brexit will be delayed indefinitely/eventually cancelled.

People stupid enough to choose the first option clearly have no idea what the implications of leaving the EU without any sort of deal. They will find out very quickly though. I feel sorry for the poor people who voted remain who are being dragged into this epic disaster.

And the ERG are still clinging to this ridiculous idea that somehow technology will both be invented and implemented to be able to efficiently track the contents of all trucks and vans crossing the border!

simple truths:

1) A Crash out No Deal means a border in Ireland. WTO rules and legal implications demand it.

2) Acceptance of the Withdrawal Agreement will entail in the trade negotiations complete standard equivalence (with possibly exception of services) across the border and a customs union, or on failure to do this the implementation of the backstop, which will do exactly the same.

As Jo Johnson said previously - the Governments Brexit options are either painful or pointless.

Richard28 wrote:

And the ERG are still clinging to this ridiculous idea that somehow technology will both be invented and implemented to be able to efficiently track the contents of all trucks and vans crossing the border!

simple truths:

1) A Crash out No Deal means a border in Ireland. WTO rules and legal implications demand it.

Not automatically, actually. In that situation the UK would be in no position to start diverging from EU rules and regulations and the EU could probably keep it in line long enough for the NI population to make up their minds whether to stick to that train wreck or steer towards reunification as a safe harbour (while Scotland would likely stake out its own course back to the EU).

So in the interim the border could probably be kept open.

Whether the ensuing chaos and decline might trigger new troubles anyway would still remain to be seen, however.

2) Acceptance of the Withdrawal Agreement will entail in the trade negotiations complete standard equivalence (with possibly exception of services) across the border and a customs union, or on failure to do this the implementation of the backstop, which will do exactly the same.

As Jo Johnson said previously - the Governments Brexit options are either painful or pointless.

Of course they are – Brexit is a stupid idea, with completely incompetent execution on the UK side.

bgm wrote:

People stupid enough to choose the first option clearly have no idea what the implications of leaving the EU without any sort of deal. They will find out very quickly though. I feel sorry for the poor people who voted remain who are being dragged into this epic disaster.

This is why I advocated for banning Brexit (or rather the Brexit movement in it's current form). It's not fair to mess up the 48 percent (and more), and I wouldn't blame remainers if they demand compensation from Brexit supporters.

I would advocate for mass deprogramming of Brexiteerism. It's a cult: nothing more, nothing less.

Klaus wrote:

Not automatically, actually. In that situation the UK would be in no position to start diverging from EU rules and regulations and the EU could probably keep it in line long enough for the NI population to make up their minds whether to stick to that train wreck or steer towards reunification as a safe harbour (while Scotland would likely stake out its own course back to the EU).

So in the interim the border could probably be kept open.

Whether the ensuing chaos and decline might trigger new troubles anyway would still remain to be seen, however.

Yep... that could happen... its a shame that (currently) Northern Ireland and Scotland have possible ways out of this mess, whilst here in England we are stuck with "the will of the people" whatever that means.... as incredibly no one still has the guts to go back and check if this mess is what we actually want...

So now I hear in addition to Brady amendment there is a Malthouse amendment, and ministers could be sacked today for not following Brady and following Cooper, unless they get comfirmation form May that they can re-visit Cooper (i.e. to block No Deal) in two weeks time, which apparently is how long May thinks she needs to sort this all out.

I'm exhausted keeping up and Commons hasn't even started yet....!

sabenapilot wrote:

it's just window dressing and buying ever more time as the clock runs down: one EU diplomat already called the idea "nonsense", and Mr. Barnier has once again repeated that without the backstop, there will be no WA whatsoever and also no transition period at all

Richard28 wrote:

So now I hear in addition to Brady amendment there is a Malthouse amendment, and ministers could be sacked today for not following Brady and following Cooper, unless they get comfirmation form May that they can re-visit Cooper (i.e. to block No Deal) in two weeks time, which apparently is how long May thinks she needs to sort this all out.

I said it back in November - I still wonder if this is all a cunning plan to force a last minute article 50 revocation on the 28th of March.

It makes as much sense as any of the other "plans" at the moment!

scbriml wrote:

readytotaxi wrote:

Nothing like getting a bit of fear into the public early so we can say I told you so.

Just as Trump uses #FakeNews to gloss over any negative press, Brexiteers use #ProjectFear to gloss over anything negative about Brexit.

They've also started with liberal elite and other crap.. In the brexiters book... Being a clueless moron is their default badge of honor.

vrbarreto wrote:

They've also started with liberal elite and other crap.. In the brexiters book... Being a clueless moron is their default badge of honor.

Although the Brexit camp is now split into two:

1) "It isn't true - The grocers, car manufacturers, aeroplane makers and restaurants are conspiring against us!" (Project Fear)
2) "We knew it would be bad all along" (Ignorance of 2016 promises)

It is a cult who embrace the lack of critical thinking.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

I said it back in November - I still wonder if this is all a cunning plan to force a last minute article 50 revocation on the 28th of March.

It makes as much sense as any of the other "plans" at the moment!

I have wondered all along what Theresa Mays endgame is, and what a fascinating read her memoirs would be.

Now however I am totally convinced there is not one. It is now purely about the survival of the Conservative Party.

What happens today in Parliament will feed the extremists some more blood but likely not move the debate. We will be back where we are today again in a matter of weeks... with the same questions and the same problems.

revoke Article 50? I hope so.

Richard28 wrote:

It is now purely about the survival of the Conservative Party.

What happens today in Parliament will feed the extremists some more blood but likely not move the debate.

We will be back where we are today again in a matter of weeks... with the same questions and the same problems.

It is indeed purely about survival of the Conservative party now and the latest way to try to kick the can a little bit further down the road is an amendment from a Tory MP which calls for the Government to renegotiate the backstop from the WA....

Incredibly enough, TM and her government will vote for this amendment from Mr. Brady, meaning the PM is now agreeing the WA she's been selling to MPs for several months as the ONLY possible possible deal, should be renegotiated?

Not to mention that a renegotiation could mean extending the exit date, since it would further delay ratification of the WA.... but that's all forgotten by Conservatives tonight as TM tries to keep their party from splitting for at least a few more weeks.

However, her new plan to renegotiate with the EU is likely not even going to give her a quit night as the EU (the European Commission and the ambassadors of the EU27) have apparently already drafted an official response should the Parliament in Westminster decide to demand a renegotiation, possibly to be issued tonight even, to immediately kill off any momentum: https://twitter.com/IanWishart/status/1 ... 29/photo/1

In short, it sounds as if the EU will issue a diplomatic ultimatum in response: the UK just has to accept the WA as it was previously agreed, or crash out without anything in its hands.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47036119

Seems that the US has a plan for Post Brexit.

Not sure I like the sound of it though.

Pardon my ignorance of the machinations of the UK, but if Scotland and Ireland ARE separate countries, why couldn't they join they join the EU under their own flags? I thought the EU is a ECONOMIC organization, not a POLITICAL one...

They are not independent not separate countries. The EU will not let them start an article 49 process unless they become legally independent as catalonia discovered...

bhill wrote:

Pardon my ignorance of the machinations of the UK, but if Scotland and Ireland ARE separate countries, why couldn't they join they join the EU under their own flags? I thought the EU is a ECONOMIC organization, not a POLITICAL one...

Oh and the scots just put an amendment:

Here is the full text of the SNP amendment.

Line 1, leave out from “House” to end and add “notes that the Scottish parliament, national assembly for Wales and House of Commons all voted overwhelmingly to reject the prime minister’s deal; calls for the government to seek an extension of the period specified under article 50(3) of the treaty on European Union; agrees a no deal outcome should be ruled out; and recognises that if the UK is an equal partnership of nations, the 62% vote to remain at the EU referendum on 23 June 2016 in Scotland should be respected and that the people of Scotland should not be taken out of the EU against their will.”.

[quote="bennett123"]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47036119

Seems that the US has a plan for Post Brexit.

Not sure I like the sound of it though.[/quote]

The US wants to spread his toxic “food”....

marcelh wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47036119

Seems that the US has a plan for Post Brexit.

Not sure I like the sound of it though.

The US wants to spread his toxic “food”....

Of course, if the UK government went along with that it would kiss goodbye to exporting those products to our closest and largest trading partner.

Olddog wrote:

bhill wrote:

Pardon my ignorance of the machinations of the UK, but if Scotland and Ireland ARE separate countries, why couldn't they join they join the EU under their own flags? I thought the EU is a ECONOMIC organization, not a POLITICAL one...

Oh and the scots just put an amendment:

Here is the full text of the SNP amendment.

Line 1, leave out from “House” to end and add “notes that the Scottish parliament, national assembly for Wales and House of Commons all voted overwhelmingly to reject the prime minister’s deal; calls for the government to seek an extension of the period specified under article 50(3) of the treaty on European Union; agrees a no deal outcome should be ruled out; and recognises that if the UK is an equal partnership of nations, the 62% vote to remain at the EU referendum on 23 June 2016 in Scotland should be respected and that the people of Scotland should not be taken out of the EU against their will.”.

Which was utterly crushed. I gather Labour told its members to abstain, so only SNP and presumably Plaid Cymru members voted for it.

So, to sum up the events of the evening, as put by Sky's political editor:

We totally reject May’s Deal
We reject No Deal
We reject the power to stop No Deal ourselves.

Now voting to give the PM a mandate to change a backstop she negotiated that has already been rejected by negotiation partners.

What a farce.

So a re-cap of tonight....

Government has whipped along party lines, and passed the Brady amendment to enable the PM to attempt to re-negotiate the WA, which as we all know is very unlikely to happen form the EU side.

Government has also decided to pass the Spelman amendment that a No Deal Brexit should not go ahead, leaving it in tricky position should Parliament not accept the WA.

The government has been given by its own MP's 2 weeks to sort this all out, after which we can expect the real fireworks to begin as the pressure cranks up and we get closer to 29/3 - cabinet may well split should things not go to plan at that point.

I guess the only thing here that could work for TM is some side agreement, separate from the WA, that gives the Commons confidence enough to back the current WA... and that the ERG fall into line on fear that the other alternative is no Brexit.

Finally Corbyn has agreed to meet with TM, not that this will make any difference based on past performance, this is all about the Tory party for the next two weeks.. after that who knows....

Richard28 wrote:

Government has also decided to pass the Spelman amendment that a No Deal Brexit should not go ahead, leaving it in tricky position should Parliament not accept the WA.

I disagree, because it isn't legally binding. Everyone already knows British MPs don't want No Deal, but they rejected the Amendments which might have given them opportunity to actually avoid that. This expression of opinion has no more legal force than your own.

KLDC10 wrote:

Richard28 wrote:

Government has also decided to pass the Spelman amendment that a No Deal Brexit should not go ahead, leaving it in tricky position should Parliament not accept the WA.

I disagree, because it isn't legally binding. Everyone already knows British MPs don't want No Deal, but they rejected the Amendments which might have given them opportunity to actually avoid that. This expression of opinion has no more legal force than your own.

I may have got this wrong (it is tough following this!), but my understanding is that TM will allow another debate, with amendments in a couple off weeks.

At that point, should TM not get what she wants, the rumoured 40 or so in the cabinet who do not like No Deal could come off the fence and state their intentions, together with many back benchers who have thus far towed the party line.

It is this move which has got Tories on side tonight, i.e. the promise that this is not the last word.

So yes this is purely intentions expressed tonight... the real decisions are in a couple of weeks....