Politics, politics, politics

[SpurMeUp]

Mr Johnson said Mrs May's Chequers plan would mean "abandoning our seat around the table in Brussels and continuing to accept the single market legislation".

He added: "That seems to me to be a particular economic risk in Chequers and makes it substantially worse than the status quo."

Why are people not on top of a few pretty simple truisms? Is any of this wrong>

• Boris is correct a soft Brexit is worse than the status quo.

We lose our influence, but still abide by EU legislation. We can't help shape the EU anymore, just suck up some of it's rules.

• There is 1, just one, economist who has modelled a hard Brexit that isn’t painful for the UK.

Patrick Minford or whatever his name is, is the exception that proves the rule. Every other credible economist thinks a hard Brexit will have negative, often highly negative effects on us. As the FT outline Minfords analysis is selective presenting what he wants rather than a balanced analysis. Ballanced analysis shows at best serious challenges and negative economic impacts for UK.

• All countries trade most with their neighbours.

• Why has Germany and Italy managed to sell a lot more than us to outside the EU? If they can do it from within the EU why can’t we? What exactly will Brexit bring to change anything to allow more non-EU sales?

• Which leads to – there is no Brexit plan. We’ve had 2-3 years of Brexit campaigning/planning. At some point you have to say, hold on something is amiss. There are many intelligent people in the UK and huge attention paid to Brexit, so why is there no obvious plan for post Brexit emerging? If it was such an oppotunity, why can't anyone see it or plan it out? I suggest it is not incompetence but simply that Brexit itself is not conducive to bringing about meaningful change in the UK. The things the UK needs to do to make positive change, are not contingent on Brexit at all. And that is why there is no post Brexit plan emerging.

Brexit, sadly, is a chronic waste of government time (which Boris correctly guessed pre-vote in his telegraph column. Can you call that ironic when it's Boris who's ideals and principles float around in the wind? In this current climate its post-ironic!). As Brexit stumbles on, the UK government is in limbo and real issues stagnate. Education, health, stimulating innovation, increasing training opportunities, creating a more unified and fairer society….they are all on the back burner. Civil servants have been more or less dormant waiting to see how things pan out. Investers likewise have stopped spending on projects here as they await the outcome of this nonsense. The UK should be booming, but instead its on pause.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Are Eurosceptic Tories really ready to move against May?
Laura Kuenssberg

As the BBC has been reporting, conversations about how and when to remove Theresa May took place with deadly seriousness last night among a group of Eurosceptic MPs.

There is massive frustration with her leadership, her position on Chequers and the way her proposals tuck the UK closely into the EU in perpetuity. And yes, there are some MPs who want to see her gone immediately.

However senior voices in the European Research Group - yes them - are adamant that it is not the time to try to oust the PM. It would be "stupid", one told me last night.

Imagine in these critical weeks of the Brexit negotiations if the UK started to try to change the prime minister.

Right now those jostling to remove her know they don't have any guarantees they would have the numbers to force her out, even though they may well be able to pull together enough MPs to submit letters to the chair of 1922 committee to trigger a contest.

So are the Eurosceptics coldly gaming the options for how to get their way? Does that include discussing if, when and how, they could try to push the prime minister out of office? Absolutely.

But does it mean we are on the verge of a coup being launched against Number 10? Things can change very fast these days. But don't be so sure.






They were reporting this morning that they easily have the 48 needed to trigger a challenge, but fall short of the 150(?) to get their desired candidate in, currently sitting at 70-80.

Seems the real delay in challenging her is simply waiting for the numbers to do so, a case of when and not if?

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Jean-Claude Juncker says the Commisison will table a proposal by the end of the year to allow the euro currency to play its "full role" on the world stage.

Pointing to "European companies buying European planes in dollars", he adds: "that's something we will have to change".

He also calls for the EU to take a greater number of foreign policy decisions by qualified majority rather than the current unanimity so it can "speak with one voice".

This can be done without revising the current treaties, he adds.

He also calls for qualified majority voting to be extended to "certain tax matters" - where again, unanimous approval is currently required.

 

[r-u-s-x]

They were reporting this morning that they easily have the 48 needed to trigger a challenge, but fall short of the 150(?) to get their desired candidate in, currently sitting at 70-80.

Seems the real delay in challenging her is simply waiting for the numbers to do so, a case of when and not if?

No she is comfortable at the moment and they wont challenge her unless they can get the majority in a straight head to head (which the very right of the party will not ever be able to), no credible candidate wants the job at the moment. Let her take the brick for the BREXIT brick show and then come in later as a new brush.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

No she is comfortable at the moment and they wont challenge her unless they can get the majority in a straight head to head (which the very right of the party will not ever be able to), no credible candidate wants the job at the moment. Let her take the brick for the BREXIT brick show and then come in later as a new brush.

Unless they see the Chequers deal as that catastrophic they need to move sooner?

Or (more likely), if they see enough of the party see's the Chequers deal as that catastrophic they have the chance to get the numbers they need?

 

[glorygloryeze]

Jean-Claude Juncker says the Commisison will table a proposal by the end of the year to allow the euro currency to play its "full role" on the world stage.

Pointing to "European companies buying European planes in dollars", he adds: "that's something we will have to change".

He also calls for the EU to take a greater number of foreign policy decisions by qualified majority rather than the current unanimity so it can "speak with one voice".

This can be done without revising the current treaties, he adds.

He also calls for qualified majority voting to be extended to "certain tax matters" - where again, unanimous approval is currently required.

Of course; the sort of steps you take when you are trying to create a United States of Europe aka European Superstate...
Of course, this will just be called "just a cooperation of similar interests..."

 

[r-u-s-x]

Unless they see the Chequers deal as that catastrophic they need to move sooner?

Or (more likely), if they see enough of the party see's the Chequers deal as that catastrophic they have the chance to get the numbers they need?

Nope they have all they are going to get on their side, its very unlikely that they could get the numbers they need for a candidate they want. Those who think Chequers is a bad deal because they want a harder Brexit are already in that camp, if anything an alternative candidate who could get the numbers would be more soft.

The Brexitiers (MPs) are louder but not more numerous.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Of course; the sort of steps you take when you are trying to create a United States of Europe aka European Superstate...
Of course, this will just be called "just a cooperation of similar interests..."

Wasnt something that sat well for me. Its still democratic, but obviously makes it easier for them to get things through.

Most concerning to me is the idea they dont even need to change any treaties to make, what is to my mind, a pretty major change in how things are done.

Nope they have all they are going to get on their side, its very unlikely that they could get the numbers they need for a candidate they want. Those who think Chequers is a bad deal because they want a harder Brexit are already in that camp, if anything an alternative candidate who could get the numbers would be more soft.

The Brexitiers (MPs) are louder but not more numerous.

Recent reporting seems to support the idea there are more of them than you think (though not enough). Im not sure if there are enough floaters, or those anti May (rather than pro hard brexit) who could make up the numbers.

Seems to me she is a lame duck, and its still a when not if situation. Its just a case of when that when is, IMO.

If Chequers goes through we are basically worse of than the status quo - would they want to take over in that situation? Or effect it before hand?

Supposedly we will get these alternative plans very shortly, will be interesting to see if there is anything of substance in them, could swing a few their way?

 

[glorygloryeze]

We don’t know yet, probably will by November, but I’d hazard a guess what you outline, without compromise, would be a Hard Brexit.

That means car manufacturers up sticks into the EU, probably a number of banking jobs move too. The UK would face serious customs challenges short term and increased log term costs and a downgrading of the UK economy and currency. Yes we’ll get some cash back from not paying the EU. But it will be massively outweighed by the costs imo - and the opinion of every credible economists who's modelled a hard brexit. The loss of tax revenue and increased costs paying for all the bureaucracy would be significant.

In one fell swoop the UK would effectively be downgraded - economically and politically. People would lose jobs of that I’m sure. But maybe there are silver linings. Housing prices might go down and young people might be able to get on the housing ladder. Those who own homes would find their nest eggs depreciating - ironic as most of the Brexit voters are older house owners whereas the young who tend to struggle to get on the ladder voted remain.

Make no mistake a hard Brexit will hit people in the pocket. Especially working classes and public servants. The vote already has. We should be emerging from the credit crunch like the US and others are, giving public servants a well deserved pay rise, but we’ve gone from top of the league of growing economies to one of the slowest growing developed economies instead.

It doesn’t worry you that people in the UK may pay with jobs for your sovereignty, or that you will be worse off (all imports will be more expensive even if the other costs don't worry you), or that the value of your home maybe less?

To you is this all PF? Or are they concerns that you can weigh up and/or recognise?


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

Ifs, maybes and perhaps...there will likely be an effect in the short-term on the Economy...but it will be for OUR politicians to manage and govern us through this...if the current lot don't do it well, they'll be voted out in anticipation of another Party doing better than them. Like how democracy works.
Unlike in the EU as we have seen; if their Economic and political policies go 'wrong' (from the electorates POV) they will have no way to force the politicians to change tack (please don't tell me that the MEPs can make Juncker change tack on his plans for the European Defence Union or the harmonisation of taxes etc).

I'm sure many in the old British Empire who were seeking self-governance were told "but if you go your own way, you'll be much, much poorer" too..

 

[glorygloryeze]

Wasnt something that sat well for me. Its still democratic, but obviously makes it easier for them to get things through.

Most concerning to me is the idea they dont even need to change any treaties to make, what is to my mind, a pretty major change in how things are done.

Most of what they do starts out as situation creep before being revealed in full-blown form, showing that those 'discussion papers' that are poo-pooed as "no they'd never do that" by most remainers are actually revealing long-held ambitions...

Recent reporting seems to support the idea there are more of them than you think (though not enough). Im not sure if there are enough floaters, or those anti May (rather than pro hard brexit) who could make up the numbers.

Seems to me she is a lame duck, and its still a when not if situation. Its just a case of when that when is, IMO.

If Chequers goes through we are basically worse of than the status quo - would they want to take over in that situation? Or effect it before hand?

Supposedly we will get these alternative plans very shortly, will be interesting to see if there is anything of substance in them, could swing a few their way?

I think the fact that Barnier all of a sudden wants to tie up a deal based on Chequers will force the Brexiters to become a bit louder and force them and their Economic advisers to come up with more detailed proposals...this is likely the last throw of the dice for them politically imo

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

I think the fact that Barnier all of a sudden wants to tie up a deal based on Chequers will force the Brexiters to become a bit louder and force them and their Economic advisers to come up with more detailed proposals...this is likely the last throw of the dice for them politically imo

That is not a fact. It's a misunderstanding.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

I think the fact that Barnier all of a sudden wants to tie up a deal based on Chequers will force the Brexiters to become a bit louder and force them and their Economic advisers to come up with more detailed proposals...this is likely the last throw of the dice for them politically imo

All press is pointing to these proposals coming out imminently, and the profile of the Brexiters is rising accordingly.

I doubt they have much substance myself, but itll be interesting to see if they can turn some heads.

 

[glorygloryeze]

That is not a fact. It's a misunderstanding.

Is it not a fact that he has changed his tune? From "there is much work to be done" to "a deal could be tied up in 8 weeks"?

 

[r-u-s-x]

Wasnt something that sat well for me. Its still democratic, but obviously makes it easier for them to get things through.

Most concerning to me is the idea they dont even need to change any treaties to make, what is to my mind, a pretty major change in how things are done.



Recent reporting seems to support the idea there are more of them than you think (though not enough). Im not sure if there are enough floaters, or those anti May (rather than pro hard brexit) who could make up the numbers.

Seems to me she is a lame duck, and its still a when not if situation. Its just a case of when that when is, IMO.

If Chequers goes through we are basically worse of than the status quo - would they want to take over in that situation? Or effect it before hand?

Supposedly we will get these alternative plans very shortly, will be interesting to see if there is anything of substance in them, could swing a few their way?

Every report i have seem is they have the numbers to force the leadership election but nowhere near to win the head to head, if you look at the 70-80 you quote they need this again to win the head to head. A challenge could win against May but not from the Brexit camp and if their candidate loses to May or a non-HArd Brexit alternative beats her they lose more.

May is a lame duck, its very likley Chequers goes through and we are worse than status quo. Even with this a BREXIT candidate does not have the numbers and any credible alternative will know that taking over before Brexit is a mistake. There is no saving the situation we are in now, there may have been a good BREXIT (I dont think so) at some point but reaching it from where we are now is a no/shrinking possibility.

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

Is it not a fact that he has changed his tune? From "there is much work to be done" to "a deal could be tied up in 8 weeks"?

He said that if there was realism (ie, if the UK moved on from Chequers) a deal could be tied up. That was misread as it being realistic to tie up a deal in eight weeks.

There are many aspects of Chequers that the EU absolutely won't accept. CETA, and a formulation on the backstop that screws the DUP and brings in a sea border, is far more likely to fly. That may be spun as Chequers-minus, but it would be very, very different. We won't get a partial single market and we won't get a separation between goods and services.

The big question now is whether Tory remainers would vote down CETA.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Is it not a fact that he has changed his tune? From "there is much work to be done" to "a deal could be tied up in 8 weeks"?

I have extracted the bits i thought were relevant.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...brexit-summit-salzburg-meeting-michel-barnier
“If we are realistic, I want to reach an agreement on the first stage of the negotiation, which is the Brexit treaty, within six or eight weeks.

“The treaty is clear, we have two years to reach an agreement before they [the UK] leave ... in March 2019. That means that taking into account the time necessary for the ratification process in the House of Commons on one side, the European parliament and the council on the other side, we must reach an agreement before the beginning of November. I think it is possible.”

Discussions on the state of play in the talks will take place over a two-hour lunch at an informal summit in Austria, at which leaders were likely to instruct the EU’s chief negotiator to work with the best of Theresa May’s Chequers proposals.

The EU27 is expected to insist on a resolution over the issue of avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland is achieved by the time of a leaders’ summit in October in order for a deal to be possible.

EU sources noted that the heads of state and government had stuck with the same principles on the need to avoid “cherrypicking” from full EU membership since the start of the talks.

 

[glorygloryeze]

I have extracted the bits i thought were relevant.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...brexit-summit-salzburg-meeting-michel-barnier
“If we are realistic, I want to reach an agreement on the first stage of the negotiation, which is the Brexit treaty, within six or eight weeks.

“The treaty is clear, we have two years to reach an agreement before they [the UK] leave ... in March 2019. That means that taking into account the time necessary for the ratification process in the House of Commons on one side, the European parliament and the council on the other side, we must reach an agreement before the beginning of November. I think it is possible.”

Discussions on the state of play in the talks will take place over a two-hour lunch at an informal summit in Austria, at which leaders were likely to instruct the EU’s chief negotiator to work with the best of Theresa May’s Chequers proposals.

The EU27 is expected to insist on a resolution over the issue of avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland is achieved by the time of a leaders’ summit in October in order for a deal to be possible.

EU sources noted that the heads of state and government had stuck with the same principles on the need to avoid “cherrypicking” from full EU membership since the start of the talks.

The border in the Island of Ireland will be crucial in all this as was always the case. In fact it was said some time ago that Irish farmers if push comes to shove would prefer that Ireland leave the EU if there is too much intransigence as they would want to keep trading across the border freely AND with the UK, it's closest market for exporting its goods.

My thought has always been whether the EU (if the worst-case scenario happens and a border limits Ireland's trade with the UK) would 'compensate' Ireland for the losses as a sort of 'sweetener' to stay 'loyal' as it were...

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

This is interesting:


Hungary's PM Viktor Orban has accused the EU of "insulting" his country, as its parliament began considering disciplinary action against Hungary.

MEPs are debating whether his right-wing government's policies on issues like migrants pose a threat to the EU.

It comes just months after the European Commission took the step of launching similar proceedings against Poland.

However, this is the first time parliament has tried to use the power, known as Article 7.

Dutch MEP Judith Sargentini, who wrote a report into Hungary and Mr Orban's Fidesz party, launched the debate.

She said her report "comprehensively lists" attacks on the media, minorities, and the rule of law, that represent "a clear breach of the values of our union".

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban arrived late to the proceedings before launching a blistering attack on the EU and Ms Sargentini's report.

He denounced it as an "abuse of power", and said it contained 37 "serious factual misrepresentations".

"You think you know better than Hungarians themselves", he said, and vowed that Hungary "will not accede to this blackmail".

Liberal MEP and former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt attacked Mr Orban, saying he was not his country and that Hungary was "far more eternal than you are".

Mr Verhofstadt also said it would be "impossible today" for Hungary to join the EU "under these circumstances".

But the MEP and former leader of the right-wing, Eurosceptic party UKIP Nigel Farage said both Mr Orban and his country had been insulted.

"Come join the Brexit club, you'll love it," he said.

Eurosceptic Mr Orban was re-elected earlier this year after campaigning on an anti-immigration platform, with Fidesz winning two-thirds of parliamentary seats.

But while he has support at home, critics in the European Parliament say his policies are evidence he does not respect the values of the EU.

A committee of MEPs points to the Hungarian government's approach to migration - including a new law which criminalises lawyers and activists who help asylum seekers - as well as media, the courts and universities as proof.

However, in order for any sort of disciplinary proceedings to go ahead, it needs the backing of two-thirds of MEPs - and it is not clear which way the vote, due to take place on Wednesday, will fall.

If MEPs do decide to support the process, which could end up with Hungary being monitored by Brussels, it may be a very slow process.

The European Commission took the unprecedented step against Poland in December 2017, giving it three months to address concerns that its judicial reforms threatened the rule of law.

However, there is still very little sign that a conclusion is coming, BBC Brussels reporter Adam Fleming says.


RE Poland, linked in the article:
What is the EU saying?
After almost two years monitoring the situation in Poland, the European Commission - the EU executive - said this was a matter of "common concern" for the 28-member bloc.

At a meeting in Brussels, the Commission decided to launch disciplinary measures, called Article 7, and asked Warsaw to:

• Not apply lower retirement age to current judges
• Remove the discretionary power of the president to prolong the mandate of Supreme Court judges
• Remove the new retirement regime for judges including the discretionary powers of the Minister of Justice
• Restore the independence and legitimacy of the Constitutional Tribunal

The Commission's deputy head, First Vice-President Frans Timmermans, who had conducted talks with the Polish government led by the Law and Justice party (PiS), said there was "no other option" as the "entire structure was affected".



Now Im not saying Hungary (or Poland) is right or wrong, I dont know enough to form a proper opinion, but I find it really unsettling that the EU is trying to impose its will on their Judiciary in such a way, especially as in Hungarys case the party took two thirds of the seats. Thats a huge margin and clearly shows support from the Hungarian people for that leadership - a democratic process.

So these guys are elected, and then the EU doesnt like them so wants to control what they do?

Of course, I understand the EU has its values and ideals and everyone is supposed to subscribe, so its not obviously clear cut - but it still doesnt sit easy with me.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Ifs, maybes and perhaps...there will likely be an effect in the short-term on the Economy...but it will be for OUR politicians to manage and govern us through this...if the current lot don't do it well, they'll be voted out in anticipation of another Party doing better than them. Like how democracy works.
Unlike in the EU as we have seen; if their Economic and political policies go 'wrong' (from the electorates POV) they will have no way to force the politicians to change tack (please don't tell me that the MEPs can make Juncker change tack on his plans for the European Defence Union or the harmonisation of taxes etc).

I'm sure many in the old British Empire who were seeking self-governance were told "but if you go your own way, you'll be much, much poorer" too..

Have you considered that Brexit is turing out to be shambles, not because our politicians "don't do it well" but becuase it is an impossibility to deliver value to the UK from Brexit?

Camron knew it was a waste of time, May is competent, Brexit is the issue. Easy to blame politicins when the underlying truth is we get a lot from the EU. Now we want to leave and cherry pick the best bits. As predicted that is not so simple.

Who would you put in charge or vote for to deliver Brexit?

Now these deluded 70 or so ERG MPs want to oust May, but they don't even have a vision for what Brexit would look like. How can you have a 'research group' on Brexit but not publish a proposal for post Brexit Britian? I'm sorry but Brexit is the biggest farce of our time. Lets hope its not too damging for our nation.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Brexit: Tory MPs say technology key to avoiding hard Irish border
A hard border on the island of Ireland can be avoided by using "established" technology and "modifying" existing arrangements, Brexiteer Tory MPs say.

The European Research Group said the issue had been allowed to "frame" the talks but need not block a trade deal.

They call for "effective co-operation" between Belfast and Dublin to address smuggling concerns and extra customs forms to be included in VAT returns.

The EU has insisted on a "backstop" to ensure the single market is protected.

Both the UK and the EU want to avoid a return to physical checks at the Northern Ireland border, but have yet to agree how this can be achieved.

Speaking at the launch of the ERG's report in London, former Northern Ireland Secretary Owen Patterson said he and other MPs were trying to "help the European Union and the UK government" by "giving an answer" to a problem which has risked derailing the Brexit process.

He insisted there was "absolutely nothing new" in what the group was proposing because the solutions already exist to deliver "an ordered border".

He said there was already a tax, VAT, excise and currency border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland which was maintained by "administrative and technical tools".

This should continue after Brexit, he said, supplemented by a range of mechanisms to ensure customs checks are conducted away from the border, such as trusted trader schemes.

"We absolutely believe there is no need for new physical infrastructure at the border and it can be handled by current means," he said.

Among the proposals put forward in the document are:

• Extra customs declarations should be incorporated into existing system of VAT returns
• Trusted trader-type schemes for large companies
• Equivalence of UK and EU regulations for agricultural produce
• Declaring the island of Ireland a Common Biosecurity Zone

The report concluded: "The proposals can be realised within the existing legal and operational frameworks of the UK and EU, based on the mutual trust on which regular trade depends.

"They do nothing to alter the constitutional position of Northern Ireland and do not violate the principle of consent of the enshrined in the Belfast Agreement."

Speaking at Wednesday's launch, former Brexit Secretary David Davis said the proposals were "fabulously practical and sensible" and could "unlock" the current dispute over the PM's Chequers proposals.

Mr Patterson dismissed "very serious suggestions" that the issue was a threat to the peace on the island of Ireland, insisting a border could not be imposed on the people of Northern Ireland without their consent.

Former Ulster Unionist leader Lord Trimble echoed these thoughts, saying the Good Friday agreement would not be imperilled by the Brexit and the fear of a "reversion to violence was wrong".

"There is no serious threat from violence because we have sorted that issue," he said.