Getting brexit done!

[Jon the Hat]

9 hours ago, jammie82uk said:

Well this is going to be interesting 
 

https://news.sky.com/story/nicky-morgan-handed-peerage-to-keep-cabinet-job-in-pms-post-election-mini-reshuffle-11888486
 

Boris Johnson will legislate to block the Brexit transition period being extended beyond the end of 2020, according to government sources.

The bill turning the prime minister's EU divorce deal into law has been tweaked to "legally prohibit" the government agreeing to any new extension.

 

It will return to the Commons on Friday, in a move Downing Street hopes will ensure Brexit happens on 31 January and the transition period runs until the end of 2020 while both sides try to strike a trade deal.

Just signalling imo.  Nothing to stop Boris revoking this in December next year if they really want or need to extend.  Putting the EU on notice though.

[Jon the Hat]

12 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

I think Scotland should be allowed to remain in the EU while England and Wales leave.

They would fail every economic test the EU has in it's admission criteria, so it would be rather ridiclous on their part.  And you know Scotland does most of it's trade with England...

Edited 17 December 2019 by Jon the Hat

[jammie82uk]

19 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Markets spooked by Cumming’s new strategy 

 

not sure about this ...... the tories ran on the back of their ‘oven ready deal’

 

changing that deal surely can’t be considered correct .......

 

assume (hope) this is just a negotiating position which will force the EU into sorting things out quickly ....... I suppose in the long run a speedy resolution is in everyone’s interest .....but it may lead to a few months of market turbulence when many assumed the worst was over !

Are the markets spooked? There has been very little movement, the markets are in a lot better situation now then they was 12 months ago with the best growth coming while Boris has been PM 

this of course is a negotiating position to do exactly what you have said 

 

[Voll Blau]

15 hours ago, davieG said:

General election 2019: Hart gets Welsh post in government reshuffle
14 minutes ago

Simon Hart has been appointed Welsh secretary

 

 

Some great replies too.

[Mike Oxlong]

9 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

 

 

Some great replies too.

Did he used to manage Forest and Derby ? 

 

edit - just read some of the replies which make the same point  

Edited 17 December 2019 by Mike Oxlong

[Innovindil]

Good call imo. As soon as the exit polls were out we were hearing shite about an extension. This puts that to bed. People on both sides are tired of this dragging on now. Now we get to see just how fast they can work it all out. 

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, jammie82uk said:

Are the markets spooked? There has been very little movement, the markets are in a lot better situation now then they was 12 months ago with the best growth coming while Boris has been PM 

this of course is a negotiating position to do exactly what you have said 

 

Sterling down 2 cents this morning on the back of it  .....

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

Just signalling imo.  Nothing to stop Boris revoking this in December next year if they really want or need to extend.  Putting the EU on notice though.

Agree.

 

Parliament is sovereign though and can do what it wants, I mean that's what we've been told for three years anyway. 

[jammie82uk]

9 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Sterling down 2 cents this morning on the back of it  .....

But still up albeit very slightly on the last week

2.4% up in the last month and 5.6% up over the last 3 months 

[David Guiza]

Not the first and won't be the last, but disappointed to see Boris appoint Zac Goldsmith as a minister despite losing his seat.

I really do wonder what these people who are fed up of the metropolitan elite and the stain on democracy make of Etonian Boris hiring his old Etonian mate back as a minister despite losing his seat.

 

Does this mean I lose my points from your thread @Alf Bentley ?

[st albans fox]

2 minutes ago, jammie82uk said:

But still up albeit very slightly on the last week

2.4% up in the last month and 5.6% up over the last 3 months 

Just making the point that the short term uncertainty that bringing a possible no deal back into focus has a detrimental effect on the currency .... the reality is that what he’s doing should accelerate a FTA being concluded ....... I wonder how all the ‘remainer’ mp’s who refused to back Theresa’s deal now feel about things .....

 

of course without this new legislation, we had a cut off of June whereby an extension needed to be sought - now we have a cut off towards Nov/Dec with all the drama of a real game of poker - so far, parliament wouldn’t allow a no deal to happen .... different now and presumably the EU approach will have to change as a consequence....

[ealingfox]

1 minute ago, st albans fox said:

Just making the point that the short term uncertainty that bringing a possible no deal back into focus has a detrimental effect on the currency .... the reality is that what he’s doing should accelerate a FTA being concluded ....... I wonder how all the ‘remainer’ mp’s who refused to back Theresa’s deal now feel about things .....

 

of course without this new legislation, we had a cut off of June whereby an extension needed to be sought - now we have a cut off towards Nov/Dec with all the drama of a real game of poker - so far, parliament wouldn’t allow a no deal to happen .... different now and presumably the EU approach will have to change as a consequence....

 

Why would they? I dont see why the EU has anything to be afraid of in negotiating with Johnson's government. He doesn't even have the balls to do interviews, why would they believe he would have the balls to force a no-deal Brexit?

 

Again these are self-enforced Tory red lines which they've consistently been unable to stick to. It gives the EU as much leverage as it does our government imo.

[st albans fox]

1 minute ago, ealingfox said:

 

Why would they? I dont see why the EU has anything to be afraid of in negotiating with Johnson's government. He doesn't even have the balls to do interviews, why would they believe he would have the balls to force a no-deal Brexit?

 

Again these are self-enforced Tory red lines which they've consistently been unable to stick to. It gives the EU as much leverage as it does our government imo.

It’s all about perception..... up until now , there was no chance of no deal being allowed from the U.K. side due to the parliamentary makeup .... that’s changed -  it comes down to whether the EU believe boris would allow a no deal to occur. Clearly you don’t - bringing in the legislation just sharpens the minds as it takes another vote to reverse it.

 

it also removes the June cut off re being ‘almost there’ on the FTA to avoid requesting an extension .... 

[Alf Bentley]

32 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

Not the first and won't be the last, but disappointed to see Boris appoint Zac Goldsmith as a minister despite losing his seat.

I really do wonder what these people who are fed up of the metropolitan elite and the stain on democracy make of Etonian Boris hiring his old Etonian mate back as a minister despite losing his seat.

 

Does this mean I lose my points from your thread @Alf Bentley ?

 

No points lost. He lost his seat......though I think most people predicted it, anyway.

 

On another Brexit point, here's the excellent Stephen Bush pointing out why No Deal or a very Hard Brexit is a distinct possibility. I really think those people saying that the big Tory majority means we end up with a softer deal are deluding themselves: 

 

"Boris Johnson will redraw the Withdrawal Agreement Bill to make a further extension of the transition period past the end of 2020 illegal, leaving him with just a year to negotiate a free-trade agreement with the European Union.  It means another round of EU-UK negotiations against the backdrop of a ticking clock - ending in economic damage for both sides, but with the damage falling asymmetrically on the UK. There is one significant difference: thanks to Boris Johnson's Northern Ireland protocol, which puts a regulatory border in the Irish Sea, the European Union can go for a no-deal Brexit without causing chaos on Ireland's border with Northern Ireland.  The average length of a trade deal is three years (if you're being kind about when you calculate the start and end dates of a trade negotiation). The EU's trade deal with Canada took five years to strike. The EU's trade deal with South Korea took four. The US-Canada-Mexico trade deal took six years to negotiate, the preceding accord between the US and Canada took eight years.  The EU-UK trade deal is unprecedented because it is the first trade deal in history to involve the creation of new barriers to trade rather than the removal of them.  Of course, the main reason why trade talks take so long isn't that trade negotiators type slowly - it's that the political interests of the negotiating partners take a long time to reconcile. If the UK wants to strike an agreement in which it has low market access, remains part of the EU's level-playing field and its labour market is still relatively open to EU member states, that deal could be signed, sealed and delivered in weeks.  But can the British government sign that kind of deal? Yes, Labour went down to landslide defeat last Thursday. But landslide defeat doesn't always mean a landslide majority for the winner: it didn't for Tony Blair in 2005 and it doesn't now. Just 40 Conservative MPs can defeat the government - and, of course, the number of Conservative MPs in the ERG is still greater than 40. Yes, Boris Johnson is flush with success, but so was Tony Blair in 1997: but 47 Labour MPs voted against his plans to cut lone parent benefits and 100 more abstained. Margaret Thatcher was at the peak of her powers in 1986: but 72 Conservative MPs voted against her plans to scrap Sunday trading. What both of those rebellions have in common is that they were parliamentary rebellions against leaders as powerful as Boris Johnson is now, and rebellions of sufficient size to capsize his majority with room to spare. Equally importantly they were rebellions that went with, rather than against, the grain of party opinion in the country as a whole. Now, bluntly, Brexiteers have proven themselves to be defeated by detail - they cheered Theresa May's joint report on the Irish border and took the best part of a year to realise the implications of it. It may be that Johnson can similarly present retreat as victory for long enough to keep his majority intact: he's done it before with the Irish border, after all. But if his free trade agreement is seen to be a surrender to the EU's aims and objectives, don't bet anything that a majority of 80 will be enough to ratify his deal".

[ealingfox]

22 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

It’s all about perception..... up until now , there was no chance of no deal being allowed from the U.K. side due to the parliamentary makeup .... that’s changed -  it comes down to whether the EU believe boris would allow a no deal to occur. Clearly you don’t - bringing in the legislation just sharpens the minds as it takes another vote to reverse it.

 

it also removes the June cut off re being ‘almost there’ on the FTA to avoid requesting an extension .... 

 

If his supporters are already saying the below then it doesn't strike me as a serious threat. Not to say the EU doesn't want it done quickly too, but why would they need to compromise in any serious way?

 

2 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Just signalling imo.  Nothing to stop Boris revoking this in December next year if they really want or need to extend.  Putting the EU on notice though.

 

Edited 17 December 2019 by ealingfox

[Innovindil]

27 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

No points lost. He lost his seat......though I think most people predicted it, anyway.

 

On another Brexit point, here's the excellent Stephen Bush pointing out why No Deal or a very Hard Brexit is a distinct possibility. I really think those people saying that the big Tory majority means we end up with a softer deal are deluding themselves: 

 

"Boris Johnson will redraw the Withdrawal Agreement Bill to make a further extension of the transition period past the end of 2020 illegal, leaving him with just a year to negotiate a free-trade agreement with the European Union.  It means another round of EU-UK negotiations against the backdrop of a ticking clock - ending in economic damage for both sides, but with the damage falling asymmetrically on the UK. There is one significant difference: thanks to Boris Johnson's Northern Ireland protocol, which puts a regulatory border in the Irish Sea, the European Union can go for a no-deal Brexit without causing chaos on Ireland's border with Northern Ireland.  The average length of a trade deal is three years (if you're being kind about when you calculate the start and end dates of a trade negotiation). The EU's trade deal with Canada took five years to strike. The EU's trade deal with South Korea took four. The US-Canada-Mexico trade deal took six years to negotiate, the preceding accord between the US and Canada took eight years.  The EU-UK trade deal is unprecedented because it is the first trade deal in history to involve the creation of new barriers to trade rather than the removal of them.  Of course, the main reason why trade talks take so long isn't that trade negotiators type slowly - it's that the political interests of the negotiating partners take a long time to reconcile. If the UK wants to strike an agreement in which it has low market access, remains part of the EU's level-playing field and its labour market is still relatively open to EU member states, that deal could be signed, sealed and delivered in weeks.  But can the British government sign that kind of deal? Yes, Labour went down to landslide defeat last Thursday. But landslide defeat doesn't always mean a landslide majority for the winner: it didn't for Tony Blair in 2005 and it doesn't now. Just 40 Conservative MPs can defeat the government - and, of course, the number of Conservative MPs in the ERG is still greater than 40. Yes, Boris Johnson is flush with success, but so was Tony Blair in 1997: but 47 Labour MPs voted against his plans to cut lone parent benefits and 100 more abstained. Margaret Thatcher was at the peak of her powers in 1986: but 72 Conservative MPs voted against her plans to scrap Sunday trading. What both of those rebellions have in common is that they were parliamentary rebellions against leaders as powerful as Boris Johnson is now, and rebellions of sufficient size to capsize his majority with room to spare. Equally importantly they were rebellions that went with, rather than against, the grain of party opinion in the country as a whole. Now, bluntly, Brexiteers have proven themselves to be defeated by detail - they cheered Theresa May's joint report on the Irish border and took the best part of a year to realise the implications of it. It may be that Johnson can similarly present retreat as victory for long enough to keep his majority intact: he's done it before with the Irish border, after all. But if his free trade agreement is seen to be a surrender to the EU's aims and objectives, don't bet anything that a majority of 80 will be enough to ratify his deal".

It seems odd not to take into account that there will likely be opposition MP's who would gladly vote through a softer brexit than risk a no deal, surely? 

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

It seems odd not to take into account that there will likely be opposition MP's who would gladly vote through a softer brexit than risk a no deal, surely? 

 

Decent point - and in theory he could try to rely on the votes of opposition MPs to get a softer Brexit through.

 

But that would be a very high-risk strategy, relying on MPs from other parties. It would also create a massive split in the Tory party - and not just in parliament, as I presume most Tory members would support a harder Brexit, and No Deal, if necessary?

If he was going to do that, he could have done it a couple of months back.

 

Could be hard to sell it to the wider electorate as anything other than a massive climbdown, too.....would he be "getting Brexit done" as they wanted if he signed up, say, to a level playing field & closeish alignment with EU regulations, in exchange for a low-friction trading regime? Would that be Britain "taking back control"?

[Jon the Hat]

44 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 The EU-UK trade deal is unprecedented because it is the first trade deal in history to involve the creation of new barriers to trade rather than the removal of them. 

This I think is a key point - we are looking to balance addition controls on free movement with additional controls on goods.  We know the tensions already, and it is much harder to face face turning off access than it is to delay turning it on.  I think with a positive approach we should get there by the deadline.

[st albans fox]

5 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Decent point - and in theory he could try to rely on the votes of opposition MPs to get a softer Brexit through.

 

But that would be a very high-risk strategy, relying on MPs from other parties. It would also create a massive split in the Tory party - and not just in parliament, as I presume most Tory members would support a harder Brexit, and No Deal, if necessary?

If he was going to do that, he could have done it a couple of months back.

 

Could be hard to sell it to the wider electorate as anything other than a massive climbdown, too.....would he be "getting Brexit done" as they wanted if he signed up, say, to a level playing field & closeish alignment with EU regulations, in exchange for a low-friction trading regime? Would that be Britain "taking back control"?

I think they’re expecting the EU to soften their stance ..... they are more likely to be disappointed than not but from the very beginning of this, the attitude of Brussels has always been the most crucial part - we can jump up and down all we like but the U.K. has more to lose than the EU from a no deal and Brussels knows it (hard leavers will argue this point but they are wrong in the short term and it’s the short term that matters as we have to live through it !) - they may decide being nice is the pragmatic way to resolution .... but I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting .....

[Innovindil]

18 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Decent point - and in theory he could try to rely on the votes of opposition MPs to get a softer Brexit through.

 

But that would be a very high-risk strategy, relying on MPs from other parties. It would also create a massive split in the Tory party - and not just in parliament, as I presume most Tory members would support a harder Brexit, and No Deal, if necessary?

If he was going to do that, he could have done it a couple of months back.

 

Could be hard to sell it to the wider electorate as anything other than a massive climbdown, too.....would he be "getting Brexit done" as they wanted if he signed up, say, to a level playing field & closeish alignment with EU regulations, in exchange for a low-friction trading regime? Would that be Britain "taking back control"?

It all comes down to how close the alignment would be I guess. Have to wait for the opening trade talk leaks to be able to see what the plan is. Like others have mentioned, with global trading eating away at some of the bigger eu economies, it will definitely be interesting to see if their red lines shift a little. 

[Guest MattP]

Germans could be into an official recession by the time the trade talks start. As others have stated though, nothing to stop parliament repealing this sort of legislation if they really wanted to do so.

 

Great though that we can actually realistically threaten no deal now without Grieve, Clarke and Cable jumping on a train to Brussels to tell them parliament will block it.

[Carl the Llama]

"It sounds like a bad idea but don't worry it may well not happen". If only you tory fans took the same approach to the main issue.

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

"It sounds like a bad idea but don't worry it may well not happen". If only you tory fans took the same approach to the main issue.

TBF it's the tried and tested approach with respect to climate change from nationalist governments around the world so it's not like there isn't form there.

[Jon the Hat]

19 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

"It sounds like a bad idea but don't worry it may well not happen". If only you tory fans took the same approach to the main issue.

It is a negotiating tactic.  Why would it be a bad idea?

[LiberalFox]

5 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

They would fail every economic test the EU has in it's admission criteria, so it would be rather ridiclous on their part.  And you know Scotland does most of it's trade with England...

It's up for the EU to decide about that, I'm not talking about Scotland going fully politically and financially independent and joining the EU as a separate nation but Scotland remaining in the EU and remaining in the UK. We've seen that over Northern Ireland the EU (and begrudgingly the UK and DUP) have been willing to treat that part of the UK differently to Great Britain. I see no reason why Scotland shouldn't be allowed to remain within the EU.