BREXIT
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Here
Posts: 307
Unconfirmed reports that the withdrawal agreement to be re-presented to Parliament this week is to be re-drafted to specifically exclude (by law) any extension to the trade negotiation period beyond December 2020. Breathtakingly bold if true, but very much an unconfirmed rumour at this stage.
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 325
Originally Posted by yellowtriumph
Unconfirmed reports that the withdrawal agreement to be re-presented to Parliament this week is to be re-drafted to specifically exclude (by law) any extension to the trade negotiation period beyond December 2020. Breathtakingly bold if true, but very much an unconfirmed rumour at this stage.
I'd say the latter is more probable.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,517
Originally Posted by Ancient Observer
....all purchases of stuff like shares, land and property, ought to be much more heavily taxed. At each individual's marginal tax rate. Both for the buyer and the seller.
That would soon raise enough pennies for the NHS.
And we can do it once we are out of the EU.
That would soon raise enough pennies for the NHS.
And we can do it once we are out of the EU.
If Mr Johnson and his cabinet want to raise taxes to pay for the NHS they are already free to do so - was it in the manifesto?
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Here
Posts: 307
Originally Posted by Fly Aiprt
Has the 2019 WA been re-negotiated with the EU, or is it that the law voted by the Parliament would exclude any extension, not to the trade negotiation period that will take many years, but rather the transition period ?
I'd say the latter is more probable.
I'd say the latter is more probable.
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 325
Originally Posted by yellowtriumph
... ‘May’ negotiated option to extend transition period beyond Dec 2020 to be removed from WA so MP’s cannot vote for an extension in Summer 2020. But as I say, all a rumour and may be completely wrong. Night night.
I was under the impression that on the contrary it had been added to help her pass Parliament, and that it was still and option for BJ (until June 2019) ?
https://ec.europa.eu/ireland/news/ke...reas/brexit_en
"Withdrawal Agreement", 3/4 down the page.
Last edited by Fly Aiprt; 17th Dec 2019 at 13:04.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Italy
Age: 30
Posts: 152
Originally Posted by Ancient Observer
As we all know, Capital is the accumulation of previously expropriated surplus wage labour.
So all purchases of stuff like shares, land and property, ought to be much more heavily taxed. At each individual's marginal tax rate. Both for the buyer and the seller.
That would soon raise enough pennies for the NHS.
And we can do it once we are out of the EU.
So all purchases of stuff like shares, land and property, ought to be much more heavily taxed. At each individual's marginal tax rate. Both for the buyer and the seller.
That would soon raise enough pennies for the NHS.
And we can do it once we are out of the EU.
Why you didn't? Because finance is a big part of your economy, and doing that would be suicidal.
Again, it's not the EU, it's another domestic affair.
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Sunnydale
Posts: 161
Originally Posted by yellowtriumph
Unconfirmed reports that the withdrawal agreement to be re-presented to Parliament this week is to be re-drafted to specifically exclude (by law) any extension to the trade negotiation period beyond December 2020. Breathtakingly bold if true, but very much an unconfirmed rumour at this stage.
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: T16
Posts: 0
I think that far from being a mistake it is actually a masterstroke.
This is going to concentrate minds wonderfully in the EU. We’ve already seen a change in tone from the main players there now that they realise that we actually are leaving and the game has changed. We’re finally in the situation we should have been in three years ago.
This is going to concentrate minds wonderfully in the EU. We’ve already seen a change in tone from the main players there now that they realise that we actually are leaving and the game has changed. We’re finally in the situation we should have been in three years ago.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,646
The EU may have contrary positions in Brexit. On the one hand they need to protect the solidarity of the Union but must ultimately comply with the treaty terms. On the other, in the longer term it is not their interests to beggar and alienate its neighbour and trading partner.
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Neither Here nor There
Posts: 10
Originally Posted by Bergerie1
Yet another mistake. Theresa May boxed herself in with deadines and paid the consequences. But I suppose he can always change the law!
But there is a huge difference, Boris can actually implement.
Massive mandate combined with the outing of Bercow the bully puts him in a completely different position
It also puts us closer to a so called no deal, which in reality wont make much difference, trade negotions will be happen after the deal is or isnt made.
Even the timescale will barely differ, beyond the tabloid hyperbole the 2 options are simply a bureaucratic technicality.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,666
Originally Posted by flocci_non_faccio
I think that far from being a mistake it is actually a masterstroke.
This is going to concentrate minds wonderfully in the EU. We’ve already seen a change in tone from the main players there now that they realise that we actually are leaving and the game has changed. We’re finally in the situation we should have been in three years ago.
This is going to concentrate minds wonderfully in the EU. We’ve already seen a change in tone from the main players there now that they realise that we actually are leaving and the game has changed. We’re finally in the situation we should have been in three years ago.
The EU would also suffer, but their single market is still the same as before, but minus around 10% of it's population (market). The UK puts a whole 40% of it's trade under stress.
It beggars belief that Johnson (well lets be charitable and blame Cummings) would be so reckless since he has 5 years to sort the future trade arrangements out before needing to face the electorate. Sterling has taken a nearly 1% hit overnight, and it leaves the UK economy with another needless deadline that will prolong uncertainty which much of industry and commerce had to some extent been lifted.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,193
It’s gesture politics. Any clause put into the Act can be changed by amending the bill at a later date - which with a majority of 89 could be done at 24-48 hours notice as emergency legislation. This is just sending a message to the voters and the EU.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Posts: 335
Originally Posted by ORAC
It’s gesture politics. Any clause put into the Act can be changed by amending the bill at a later date - which with a majority of 89 could be done at 24-48 hours notice as emergency legislation. This is just sending a message to the voters and the EU.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,666
Originally Posted by ORAC
It’s gesture politics. Any clause put into the Act can be changed by amending the bill at a later date - which with a majority of 89 could be done at 24-48 hours notice as emergency legislation. This is just sending a message to the voters and the EU.
It's extraordinary the propensity of voters to return incompetents, though in fairness to the electorate in most of the UK there wasn't a competent option on the ballot paper!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Posts: 335
Originally Posted by ATNotts
It's extraordinary the propensity of voters to return incompetents, though in fairness to the electorate in most of the UK there wasn't a competent option on the ballot paper!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,193
ATNotts,
But he won’t have too. As I said previously, there is an incentive on both sides to achieve as close a relationship as possible without either side being seen to climb down - that will be done by splitting everything up and having lots of small deals which both sides can claim as common sense. Only after 5-10 years will a comprehensive picture be possible, and I doubt it will be remarkable different to today.
To quote again from today’s Politico....
Theresa May’s former chief of staff Gavin Barwell — a key player in the first round of Brexit negotiations with Michel Barnier’s team — had an interesting take on the Westminster Hour the other night, suggesting there may be a “fudge” available to Johnson that allows him to leave with a free-trade agreement (FTA) by the end of 2020 without agreeing to stay aligned to EU rules and regs. “I think the evidence of the last few months is that he wants to leave with a deal,” Barwell said. “You’ll probably have quite a skinny initial FTA that gets built on over a period of time … I think there is a solution that’s not technically an extension to the transition period, that gets you a skinny FTA but then buys you more time to do other things. I think there’s a way of sort of fudging that.”
But he won’t have too. As I said previously, there is an incentive on both sides to achieve as close a relationship as possible without either side being seen to climb down - that will be done by splitting everything up and having lots of small deals which both sides can claim as common sense. Only after 5-10 years will a comprehensive picture be possible, and I doubt it will be remarkable different to today.
To quote again from today’s Politico....
Theresa May’s former chief of staff Gavin Barwell — a key player in the first round of Brexit negotiations with Michel Barnier’s team — had an interesting take on the Westminster Hour the other night, suggesting there may be a “fudge” available to Johnson that allows him to leave with a free-trade agreement (FTA) by the end of 2020 without agreeing to stay aligned to EU rules and regs. “I think the evidence of the last few months is that he wants to leave with a deal,” Barwell said. “You’ll probably have quite a skinny initial FTA that gets built on over a period of time … I think there is a solution that’s not technically an extension to the transition period, that gets you a skinny FTA but then buys you more time to do other things. I think there’s a way of sort of fudging that.”
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Here
Posts: 307
Originally Posted by Fly Aiprt
Agreed on it being only a rumour, but are you sure about May removing of extension from the WA ?
I was under the impression that on contrary it had been added to help her pass Parliament, at that it was still and option for BJ (until June 2019) ?
https://ec.europa.eu/ireland/news/ke...reas/brexit_en
"Withdrawal Agreement", 3/4 down the page.
I was under the impression that on contrary it had been added to help her pass Parliament, at that it was still and option for BJ (until June 2019) ?
https://ec.europa.eu/ireland/news/ke...reas/brexit_en
"Withdrawal Agreement", 3/4 down the page.
"The agreement, endorsed by the European Council on 25 November 2018, includes a transition period up to the end of 2020, during which the EU will treat the UK as if it were a Member State, with the exception of participation in the EU institutions and governance structures. This transition period can be extended by up to 1 or 2 years to be decided by 30 June 2020."
The WA negotiated with 'May' includes the option cited and I think, without going into deeper research, we can safely assume it is still included in the current 'Johnson' agreement. When Johnson presents the WA bill to Parliament later this week it will include a clause specifically dis-allowing Parliament from voting on such an option by June 2020. So, the WA is not being renegotiated - Johnson is simply legislating that parts of it cannot be enacted by the UK parliament. Bold.
