Author Topic: Various bits re Brexit and Economics  (Read 7254 times)

seafoid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22969
    • View Profile


   https://www.ft.com/content/09bfe7ca-3bae-11e9-b72b-2c7f526ca5d0

   US takes tough line with UK on post-Brexit trade talks
      
               Donald Trump’s trade representative to demand greater access for agricultural goods
         The office of the US trade representative, led by Robert Lighthizer, released its 'negotiating objectives' on Thursday © Bloomberg
               James Politi in Washington

         The Trump administration has taken an aggressive posture towards the UK on post-Brexit trade talks, demanding greater access to the UK market for its agricultural products and guarantees that London would not manipulate its currency. The office of the US trade representative, led by Robert Lighthizer, on Thursday released its “negotiating objectives” for a possible trade agreement with the UK, suggesting Britain is unlikely to get softer treatment than other US allies. In the 18-page document, Mr Lighthizer’s office said it was seeking “comprehensive market access for US agricultural goods in the UK” through the reduction or elimination of tariffs, a request that has already soured Washington’s trade relations with the EU. Furthermore, the US is looking for the UK to remove “unwarranted barriers” related to “sanitary and physiosanitary” standards in the farm industry.

For years US agricultural groups have complained that European countries have unnecessarily limited American exports of meat and grains based on fears they are unsafe for consumers. Access to the British agricultural market could end up being the most politically sensitive request made by the Trump administration. The EU has said it was not willing to include agriculture in its own trade negotiations with the US, given that it could trigger a big public backlash in a wide range of member states. Other demands could also be highly problematic for London. On currency, the US wants to “ensure that the UK avoids manipulating exchange rates in order to prevent effective balance of payments adjustment or to gain an unfair competitive advantage”. Currency matters have traditionally been excluded from trade negotiations, but the Trump administration has injected them into talks, including with China and Japan. Another provision that could raise eyebrows would constrain the UK’s ability to secure a trade deal with a “non-market economy” — such as China — by creating a “mechanism to ensure transparency and take appropriate action”. This could allow the US to ditch its trade deal with the UK if it does not like the terms of any agreement London strikes with Beijing. The tough US demands are only an opening gambit, but they highlight the difficulties the UK could face in negotiating a trade deal with Washington, in contrast to claims made by leading Brexit proponents that it would be a smooth exercise.On Thursday a UK government spokesperson said negotiating an “ambitious free trade agreement” with the US was a priority and Washington’s move to publish its objectives “demonstrates their commitment to beginning talks as soon as possible”.She added: “As part of our open and transparent approach to negotiations, we will publish our own negotiating objectives in due course.”The US negotiating objectives for the UK deal are similar to the wish lists published in recent months by Mr Lighthizer’s office for talks with the EU and Japan.

On industrial goods, the US said it was aiming for “comprehensive duty-free access” and stronger “disciplines to address non-tariff barriers” from the UK. In digital trade, which is rapidly expanding, the US wants “secure commitments not to impose customs duties on digital products”, such as software, music, video and ebooks, and “non-discriminatory treatment” of content. In commercial partnerships, the US is asking the UK to “discourage politically motivated actions to boycott, divest from, and sanction Israel”.
Lookit

Rossfan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14605
  • Ballaghaderreen CO ROSCOMMON
    • View Profile
    • Roscommon County Board official website
Does fkn Israel run the US ?
2018- 2 Cupeens won, 2 to go.

trailer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1481
    • View Profile
Does fkn Israel run the US ?

If you want to get elected you need the Jewish vote. Jews like Israel.

johnnycool

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 950
    • View Profile
Does fkn Israel run the US ?

If you want to get elected you need the Jewish vote. Jews like Israel.

I'd say the Jewish vote isn't a big number but you need their financial backing and media buy in the get anywhere, hence why Corbyn gets it rough from the UK press.

seafoid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22969
    • View Profile
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/11/no-deal-brexit-simple-principle-fiendishly-tricky-manage-smoothly/

A no deal Brexit is simple in principle, but fiendishly tricky to manage smoothly
•   
Adam Cygan PROFESSOR OF EU LAW
11 March 2019 • 12:30pm

 MEP and former UKIP leader Nigel Farage speaks at a political rally entitled 'Lets Go WTO' hosted by pro-Brexit lobby group Leave Means Leave in London CREDIT: TOLGA AKMEN /AFP
As the law stands, the UK leaves the EU on 29 March, deal or no deal.  If Parliament wants to prevent a no deal Brexit MPs must vote for this. Should the Prime Minister lose another meaningful vote, as is looking increasingly likely, MPs will be given the opportunity to take ‘no deal’ off the table this coming Wednesday.
But why do so many MPs oppose no deal when there are many things to commend about it, not least that it avoids a delay to Brexit and delivers on the result of the referendum?  A no deal Brexit would also be a ‘clean Brexit’, no need to fulfil those obligations the EU will impose on the UK which are within the Withdrawal Agreement.
A no deal Brexit means no Irish backstop. Both sides have said they don’t want a hard border anyway, so that’s taken care of without the need for an Agreement. No deal means no Transition period during which the UK becomes a ‘rule taker’ and abides by EU rules but has no representation in the EU institutions.
Without a deal, new trade agreements that symbolise ‘Global Britain’ become a reality sooner. Missing tariff-free access to our market, German car manufacturers will put pressure on the Commission to quickly agree a UK-EU free trade deal to help fend off the impending economic downturn facing the Eurozone.
Looked at this way, no deal sounds appealing and delivers exactly what has been promised, a Brexit on time that gives the UK everything and without the continuing regulatory shackles of a Withdrawal Agreement.
However, before those who support no deal get carried away, they should pause and reflect on what a no deal Brexit entails.  Above all, it means the UK entering a legal and regulatory vacuum, with no Transition period and existing rules immediately cease to apply without Parliament having replaced them with UK laws. To address this scenario the government has introduced Bills covering trade, agriculture, fisheries, immigration and financial services, but these Bills face major parliamentary hurdles and will not be on the statute book by 29 March, making a Transition all the more important.
Even in the event of a no deal and without this legislation it would be wrong to assume that MPs would suddenly be won over to cooperating with the government and deliver a ‘managed no deal’. The UK would cease to function as a state. Without a parliamentary majority and no agreement amongst MPs on the way forward there will be paralysis in Parliament. Legislation which controls our borders or access to fishing rights, which would be required immediately, is unlikely to be passed by MPs, undermining the argument that a no deal Brexit is the easiest way to take back control.
Perhaps the most important piece of legislation, in the event of a no deal Brexit, is the Trade Bill which would provide the legal basis for the UK’s future trade agreements.  For UK trade, a no deal Brexit means a cliff edge Brexit. There is no Transition and the UK immediately abandons 45 years of rules-based cooperation which governs our trading relationship with the EU and encompasses 36 free trade deals, spanning more than 60 countries.  As things stand, the UK has rolled over less than £20bn out of £117bn total value of these trade deals.
The frequent response of those who advocate a no deal Brexit is that the absence of UK trade laws or failing to roll over existing trade deals will not present a problem as the UK can simply fall back on WTO rules.  But even this logic fails to grasp the point that the WTO, like the EU, is a rules-based trading organisation. As The Telegraph reported on the 6 March, the cabinet is split on how to respond to a no deal Brexit after which the UK would be trading on WTO rules. 
Liam Fox has been accused of keeping “secret” a government plan which would cut up to 90% of tariffs from all WTO countries in the event of a no-deal Brexit. A sensible policy, in the short term, no deal supporters may say, and they may be right.  This would keep goods moving and consumer prices would remain stable. It also demonstrates the UK’s free trade credentials. However, a cautionary note should be sounded because such unilateral liberalisation of tariffs would be likely to have significant impact upon sectors of the UK economy, such as farming, which would struggle to compete against cheaper imports. 
NETWORK ERROR
Cannot Contact Server
RELOAD YOUR SCREEN OR TRY SELECTING A DIFFERENT VIDEO
However, when it comes to negotiating future trade deals, unilateral liberalisation, as a knee-jerk response to a no-deal Brexit, will become a real obstacle. Those short-term benefits of tariff liberalisation would come at the longer-term cost of undermining the UK’s negotiating position in any future trade talks. Having already removed tariffs on a large range of goods, there will be little left for the UK to use as a bargaining chip.
Replacing EU laws with UK legislation within the Article 50 period was always going to prove challenging. Once the PM lost her parliamentary majority the task became monumental and with less than three weeks to Brexit day, the UK is missing key legislation, not just in trade, but in immigration, fisheries and agriculture. UK legislation in these policy areas, for the first time since 1973, has come to symbolise the mantra of Parliament ‘taking back control’, but taking back control was never meant to be this problematic, was it?
In the coming days, MPs are faced with difficult choices. If MPs believe no deal remains a viable option then they must explain how, without a Withdrawal Agreement and the necessary UK laws in place, the UK will meet its international obligations over the Irish border or how the UK will conduct trade relations on WTO terms.
But, MPs who want to take no deal off the table should also pause. Yes, extend Article 50, but be clear to the voters for what purpose?  The Withdrawal Agreement has many faults, but as the EU repeatedly states, it is the only show in town. Above all, it avoids a regulatory cliff edge and provides for a Transition essential to an orderly Brexit and getting through Parliament the legislation still required.
The advice to MPs should be ‘vote for the Agreement and leave the EU in an orderly manner’. Then, MPs across the Brexit divide can regroup for the next stage of negotiations on the future UK-EU relationship, because this is when things will really get tough.
Lookit

seafoid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22969
    • View Profile
Re: Various bits re Brexit and Economics
« Reply #20 on: March 11, 2019, 02:24:54 PM »
https://www.ft.com/content/046006ec-41bd-11e9-9bee-efab61506f44

   Norway shows the UK a better way to Brexit
      
               If May’s deal is defeated again, this option at least offers a smooth transition
      
         Wolfgang Münchau
Right after the Brexit referendum, I endorsed the idea of the UK joining Norway in the European Economic Area and European Free Trade Agreement. This option respects both the vote to leave and its narrow victory. At the very least, the Norway model would have made a good transition for some five to 10 years. Subsequently, Theresa May managed to get a better deal than I thought possible, under which the UK would be able to restrict immigration, strike third-country trade deals and yet remain closely aligned with the EU. The Norway option is a softer version of Brexit than Mrs May’s deal, easier to reconcile with the Irish backstop, and preferred by some for those reasons. But it breaches the prime minister’s red lines: a member of the EEA must accept freedom of movement. Inside EFTA, members cannot strike meaningful third-country trade agreements.Contrary to rumours, Norway is not a vassal state of the EU. It is not in the customs union, not in the common agricultural and fisheries policy, and not subject to the Lisbon treaty. The border is not, therefore, frictionless. But Norway accepts EU regulation. So its service industries, including in the financial sector, have the right to operate freely throughout the EU.The Norway option offers the UK more than just a smooth transition. It could also act as a gateway to other post-Brexit relationships — all the way from a clean break to a fast-track re-entry into the EU. The Norway option is different from the Labour party’s preferred outcome — a customs union — in several important respects. What they have in common is that you cannot conduct third-party trade agreements under either. Unlike Norway, the customs union would allow the UK to restrict immigration, which parts of the Labour party believe is now politically necessary.

But its biggest advantage is that it would be less disruptive to industrial supply chains. It would favour industry over services. But there is no majority for Labour’s plan in the House of Commons. Nor do enough MPs back a second referendum. For Norway, there just might be. If Mrs May’s deal is defeated again this week, I would expect the UK parliament to hold indicative votes on alternatives. Among those, Norway is the frontrunner, but it may still fall short if the current supporters of a second referendum or the customs union cling to their first choices. What will happen if there is no majority for any positive alternative to Mrs May’s deal? I would then expect Mrs May to represent a cosmetically amended version of her deal for a third strike. She could hold the final vote in the last few days of the month, perhaps even on Brexit day, March 29.

At that point, but not before, I would advise Norway supporters to endorse her deal. Think long-term. By the time of the next general election, scheduled in 2022, bilateral trade talks with the EU will not have been concluded. Opposition parties could campaign for Norway, (or the customs union for that matter) as an alternative. The very worst outcome for Norway supporters would be a no-deal Brexit. The chances of that happening are higher than many assume because I believe the EU is limited in its ability to extend Article 50. EU leaders want to ensure a clear time period between the day Britain leaves and the EU-wide elections, which will take place between from May 23 to 26. If the EU was to agree a three-month extension until the end of June, there is a risk that the UK government might be forced to participate in elections to the European Parliament. A legal committee of the Bundestag, the lower chamber of the German parliament, concluded that a failure to hold elections would violate the rights of UK residents. The falling out between the European People’s party, the centre-right grouping of EU political parties and Viktor Orban, Hungary’s prime minister, might also complicate the political dynamic, favouring a super-short extension of four or five weeks at most. In the light of this constraint on any Brexit delay, I see the UK’s choices narrowing to three — Mrs May’s deal, a Norway compromise, or no deal. Norway deserves consideration. It may be the only way to avoid no deal.
Lookit

seafoid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22969
    • View Profile
Re: Various bits re Brexit and Economics
« Reply #21 on: March 11, 2019, 02:26:36 PM »
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/11/pms-deal-would-betray-leavers-divide-conservative-party-shatter/

The PM's deal would betray Leavers, divide the Conservative Party and shatter parliamentary democracy
•   
Owen Paterson
11 March 2019 • 12:00pm

 The PM must hold her nerve, continue her efforts to improve the deal, but be prepared to leave on the 29th March without one
Given that the political situation in Westminster remains so fluid, it is worth taking stock of why we are where we are.
In 2015, the Conservatives promised that, if elected, we would hold a decisive in/out referendum on the UK's EU membership. The party was returned to Government with more votes and MPs. The EU Referendum Act was subsequently passed by a ratio of six to one in the Commons, with Parliament deliberately and voluntarily giving responsibility for the final decision on our membership of the EU to the British people.
A Government leaflet (costing the taxpayer over £9 million) confirmed that this "once in a generation decision" was "...your decision. The Government will implement what you decide." 17.4 million people then voted to leave the EU – more than have ever voted for any issue or party in British history.
In 2017, the Conservatives stood on a Manifesto pledge that "we will no longer be members of the single market or customs union." At the top of page 36 – and since repeated by the Prime

Minister over 100 times – it said, "no deal is better than a bad deal". The Conservatives won more votes than any party for 25 years. Labour gave the same message, so that 85 per cent of the votes cast in the election were for parties which defined Brexit as leaving the Single Market, the Customs Union and the remit of the ECJ.
In its commitment to deliver on that promise, the Conservative Party is not divided. My own Association voted unanimously last month that Brexit, as defined in the Manifesto, must be delivered on time and in full. The National Conservative Convention–- the senior body in the voluntary party – passed a similar motion by an emphatic ratio of five to one, which also stated that: "Another referendum, a delay beyond the European elections, taking 'no deal' off the table or not leaving at all would betray the 2016 People's Vote and damage democracy and our party for a generation."
Many party donors have made their continued support conditional on the Manifesto being honoured or have stopped giving already, infuriated by the Government's dither and delay. That is why it is so bizarre that the Prime Minister has now opened the door to extending Article 50, caving in to troublemaking Remain Ministers publishing articles attacking the Manifesto and Government policy, who are far outliers on the Conservative spectrum. The Liberal Democrats, Greens, SNP, Plaid Cymru, TIGgers and now even Labour are standing on a platform of overruling the largest democratic verdict in British history, so the Remain market for votes is becoming very crowded.
In contrast, the market for the 17.4 million Leave votes and all the votes of Conservative members loyal to the Party's manifesto commitments are up for grabs. They are not simply going to go away and forget about it. The genie cannot be put back in the bottle. The Conservatives can be their natural home, but only if we are genuinely committed to honouring the result of the 2016 referendum.

But how ludicrous will Conservative MPs – in fact, all MPs – look if we usher in a deal that ties us, perhaps perpetually, to EU rules with no say as to how those laws are made or how we end this arrangement?
I can picture the spectacle. The EU goes ahead with a ban on glyphosate, which some Member States have advocated but the UK has resisted. I rise in the House of Commons to argue that without glyphosate, fighting weeds will be more expensive and more complicated, forcing farmers to resort to extensive ploughing. I say that it is the most effective herbicide available and that, by using it, farmers in my constituency have been able to develop environmentally-friendly no-till practices to promote heathier soil and improve biodiversity, leading to a big increase in barn owl numbers.

I ask the Minister what can be done. He replies: "Nothing. But the Rt Hon Gentleman has no right to complain. After all, he voted for the deal." Another MP wants to see the Government make gas and electricity bills VAT-free, giving a boost to those on the lowest incomes. But these fall foul of the "level-playing field" agreements. What can be done, Minister? "Nothing, but the Rt Hon Lady has no right to complain. After all, she voted for the deal."
On and on this would go. It would be utterly intolerable. It would be a complete affront to parliamentary democracy. Yet it is exactly what could await if the Prime Minister brings back the same deal she had before and "takes no deal off the table." The only way forward is for the Prime Minister to hold her nerve, continue her efforts to improve the deal, but be absolutely determined to leave on March 29 without one, as the law currently demands. That way, she will do so with her party, and the country, behind her. 
Lookit

seafoid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22969
    • View Profile
Re: Various bits re Brexit and Economics
« Reply #22 on: March 11, 2019, 02:43:27 PM »
   https://www.ft.com/content/dceee028-43ca-11e9-a965-23d669740bfb

   Downing Street admits Brexit talks deadlocked
      
               Theresa May faces heavy defeat in Tuesday’s parliamentary vote
George Parker in London, Alex Barker and Mehreen Khan in Brussels and Arthur Beesley in Dublin
      

         Downing Street admitted on Monday that Brexit talks in Brussels were deadlocked, leaving Theresa May facing a heavy defeat if she presents her largely unchanged deal to MPs for parliamentary approval on Tuesday.The UK prime minister spoke to Jean-Claude Juncker, European Commission president, on Sunday night but made no headway in her efforts to amend the deal to ensure that Britain could not be “trapped” indefinitely in a customs union.On Monday ambassadors from the remaining 27 EU states were briefed on the deadlock by Michel Barnier, the bloc’s chief negotiator, and Martin Selmayr, the EU’s top civil servant. The commission told diplomats the mood with the UK was “turning confrontational” and warned that any House of Commons “meaningful vote” on Mrs May’s deal was destined to fail, according to a diplomatic note of the meeting seen by the FT. The EU27 ambassadors were told that Brexit could be delayed until May 24 — the day after European elections are due to start. Any extension beyond this date would require EU leaders to clarify the legal consequences of Britain not participating in the poll, as the UK would still be a member state. Downing Street insisted that the apparently doomed meaningful vote would take place on Tuesday and that Mrs May had not given up hope of last-minute progress in talks in Brussels.“Talks are ongoing and we continue to focus on making progress so we can win parliament’s support for the deal,” Mrs May’s spokesman said. However, the idea of an eleventh-hour breakthrough was flatly discounted in Brussels.Margaritis Schinas, European Commission spokesman, said it was now up to Westminster whether or not to endorse the Brexit deal. He added that no further meetings between Mr Juncker and Mrs May were scheduled, although both sides would “remain in close contact this week”. Stephen Barclay, the UK’s Brexit secretary, was expected to make a statement to MPs on Monday afternoon to set out how the government intended to proceed in the face of the stalemate in Brussels and Westminster.Mrs May is considering whether to give MPs a “conditional” vote on Monday on the deal that she would like to agree in Brussels — rather than the one on the table — although such a move would be fraught with danger.There would be a risk that MPs would reject what one minister described as the “fantasy deal”, while one EU diplomat said: “If they vote for something which we cannot accept, then it is a vote for a no-deal exit.”Leo Varadkar, Ireland’s prime minister, was scathing of the idea. “It’s far too late for the UK to tell us what they want,” he said. “The withdrawal agreement requires a compromise and this withdrawal agreement is already a compromise.”He added: “I think if there is going to be an extension [to delay the date of Brexit past March 29], it has to be an extension with a purpose. Nobody across the EU wants to see a rolling cliff-edge where tough decisions just get put off until the end of April and then to the end of May and then maybe until the end of July.”Mrs May had been ready to travel to Brussels on Monday to meet Mr Juncker to finalise changes to the deal; instead she spent the morning in Downing Street holding crisis talks with advisers and cabinet colleagues.The uncertainty pushed the pound down to a three-week low, falling as much as 0.5 per cent to $1.2947.
UK officials say that draft legal changes on the table after a weekend of negotiations in Brussels were nowhere near strong enough to take back to the House of Commons on Tuesday.Geoffrey Cox, UK attorney-general, made it clear that recent proposals would not allow him to change his legal advice that the Irish backstop contained in the exit treaty — which would force the UK into a temporary customs union as a last resort to prevent a hard border with Ireland — could “endure indefinitely”.Mrs May lost the last “meaningful vote” on her deal by 230 votes in January and the substance has changed little since then, apart from a promise to MPs that Britain would uphold existing EU labour laws.Mrs May has faced mounting pressure to quit as Conservative Eurosceptic rebels claimed she might have to sacrifice her premiership to win them over ahead of the Brexit vote this week. Several cabinet ministers have said Mrs May should announce her plans to resign to win the support of Tory Brexiters, who believe that a change in Number 10 would signal a more robust approach to talks on a future UK-EU trade deal. Nicky Morgan, former education secretary, said that if Mrs May lost the latest vote on her Brexit deal on Tuesday her time would be up. “I think it would be very difficult for the prime minister to stay in office very much longer,” she told the BBC.
Lookit

seafoid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22969
    • View Profile
Re: Various bits re Brexit and Economics
« Reply #23 on: March 11, 2019, 05:01:42 PM »
This is very good

https://www.ft.com/content/0645066a-43de-11e9-a965-23d669740bfb

   Brexit backstop could save Britain from the Conservatives
      
               The party has been captured by demagogues, economic illiterates and wild-eyed free marketeers
      
         
Robert Shrimsley


Theresa May might not see it this way but there is reason to thank Michel Barnier for the hated Irish backstop that now threatens to destroy the prime minister’s Brexit deal. The EU chief negotiator’s backstop not only saves the island of Ireland from a hard internal border. It may also protect Britain from the Conservative party.Under the terms of the backstop, if a frictionless border between the Republic and Northern Ireland is not secured in the next round of negotiations, then the UK is bound into an inescapable customs union (and Northern Ireland into aspects of the single market) with the EU until such time as all sides agree it is no longer necessary. It is, in many respects, an outrage that may well lead a future government to break an international treaty. But the happy side-effect is that it limits the ability of a future Tory government to do even more damage to the British economy. However bad the next stage gets, the backstop puts a floor on the disruption.This matters because the saga of Brexit has, from the start, been a crisis of the Conservative party. The route to Brexit has marked, at every stage, the party’s path from being economic rationalists and upholders of the existing order back to the narrow economic and political nationalism that helped destroy it in the 1840s and again in the early 1900s. The Tories have been most successful when keeping a balance between these two poles.

Now the narrow nationalists are taking over.Initially, the crisis was containable — at first because the Conservative leadership protected the country from its hardliners and then because Tony Blair’s Labour government kept them from power. But the Brexit referendum and Mrs May’s leadership have brought the party close to the final surrender. Having ceded ground to secure the premiership, it is only lately that she has tried to restrain the zealots. The politics of Brexit has been a story of the Conservative party. Nearly three years after the referendum, the tussles with Brussels remain almost a sideshow. For all that time, the prime minister’s real negotiations have been with her own party. With just 18 days to go (18 days! I have planned drinks with friends that had more certainty this far in advance), Mrs May is still negotiating with her party on how to resolve the biggest constitutional and economic change to hit the UK in modern history. The country watches on helplessly like a guest at the outbreak of a marital row. Mrs May’s own premiership is effectively over even if she lingers in office a little longer. For months, she has been less a leader than a convener. Now she is not even that. The country needs a prime minister who can negotiate across parliament and find a common position. Mrs May cannot negotiate across her own cabinet. The only thing that keeps her in place is the conviction that it is possible for things to get worse.Nonetheless, we are probably into her final weeks and all the likely successors — even the “compromise candidates” like Jeremy Hunt, the foreign secretary — herald a tighter grip for the hardliners. The government is falling into the hands of those who claim to “speak for the people”. These so-called supporters of parliamentary democracy, the Catiline conservatives, use their voice to whip up a mob, against which they then proclaim themselves the only bulwark.

 Brexit is only what they say it is. They alone are the voice of the 17.4m.The Conservative party has been captured by demagogues, economic illiterates, provincial nationalists and wild-eyed free marketeers. Power is passing to those who think diplomacy means shouting at foreigners. Their revolution is every bit as fervid as Jeremy Corbyn’s on the left. Personally cushioned from the economic impact, they admit they would see GDP fall as the price of “freedom”. The UK’s economy will always be second to their ideological fixations. Only a lengthy spell out of office will restore the Tory equilibrium.It is understandable that those seeking a second referendum or a softer Brexit balk at backing Mrs May’s plan. They should still see the value of the backstop. Other Brexit options, including the Norway route of single market membership, or a customs union cannot at this stage be reached without it. More importantly, a future government is limited in the further economic damage it can do in the name of nationalism. And so, outrageous infringement to sovereignty that it is, we should be grateful for the backstop. If this deal ever passes, we may one day build statues to Mr Barnier. He will not only have saved Ireland from a hard border and Britain from the Tory zealots. He may ultimately have saved the Conservatives from themselves.
Lookit

Rossfan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14605
  • Ballaghaderreen CO ROSCOMMON
    • View Profile
    • Roscommon County Board official website
Re: Various bits re Brexit and Economics
« Reply #24 on: March 11, 2019, 07:27:18 PM »
May on way to Strasbourg
Leo calls a sudden Cabinet Meeting and delays his junk....err...  very important trip to Washington.
2018- 2 Cupeens won, 2 to go.

armaghniac

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12579
    • View Profile
Re: Various bits re Brexit and Economics
« Reply #25 on: March 11, 2019, 09:04:45 PM »
May on way to Strasbourg
Leo calls a sudden Cabinet Meeting and delays his junk....err...  very important trip to Washington.

NI to remain in the Single Market, except Sammy's house.
if at first you don't succeed, then goto Plan B

GJL

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1738
    • View Profile
Re: Various bits re Brexit and Economics
« Reply #26 on: March 11, 2019, 09:28:13 PM »
May on way to Strasbourg
Leo calls a sudden Cabinet Meeting and delays his junk....err...  very important trip to Washington.

NI to remain in the Single Market, except Sammy's house.

Fingers crossed. 🤞🤞

Rossfan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14605
  • Ballaghaderreen CO ROSCOMMON
    • View Profile
    • Roscommon County Board official website
Re: Various bits re Brexit and Economics
« Reply #27 on: March 11, 2019, 09:31:18 PM »
Sammy to be appointed Ambassador to Papua New Guinea.
2018- 2 Cupeens won, 2 to go.

HiMucker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1886
    • View Profile
Re: Various bits re Brexit and Economics
« Reply #28 on: March 11, 2019, 09:51:29 PM »
Sammy to be appointed Ambassador to Papua New Guinea.
Ian og to be appointed ambassador to Sri Lanka

armaghniac

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12579
    • View Profile
Re: Various bits re Brexit and Economics
« Reply #29 on: March 11, 2019, 11:43:22 PM »
Sammy to be appointed Ambassador to Papua New Guinea.
Ian og to be appointed ambassador to Sri Lanka

Make him resident governor of Tristan da Cunha.
if at first you don't succeed, then goto Plan B