BREXIT

[Fly Aiprt]

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.

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 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.

[bulldog89]

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.

You can do it now, and you could had it done years ago. The EU wasn't preventing anything like that.
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.

[back to Boeing]

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.

So Johnson doesn’t trust his own MP’s?

[Bergerie1]

Yet another mistake. Theresa May boxed herself in with deadines and paid the consequences. But I suppose he can always change the law!

[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.

[Pontius Navigator]

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.

[Slaine]

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.

[ATNotts]

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.

No, it's a very risky strategy, blunt, possibly even stupid. It comes on that back of a rather strange premise that the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU which is clearly false. The UK, in the event of ending transition without a comprehensive free trade deal, stands to see it's vehicle manufacturing industry decimated, very likely EADS ditching production in the UK and very probably many others. Multinational manufacturers simply won't stomach the increased bureaucracy, cost and reduction in reliability of deliveries that they have enjoyed for decades now. Systems have been developed on the back of of membership of the single market, and probably more importantly, the customs union, would be lost if this totally unnecessary gamble by the new UK government fails.

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.

[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.

[Sallyann1234]

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.

But having to change it would be a huge admission of weakness.

[ATNotts]

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.

I assumed that, but as Sallyann points out, it would (will) make them look pretty stupid if they do have to amend the bill; much like Johnson's rather silly "die in a ditch" over the withdrawal agreement before the election was called. It is totally unnecessary, especially given the secure position in which the Conservatives find themselves, and the total disarray and denial of Labour. What's more important, is, as I alluded to above, the damage that this spanner that has been thrown into the works will do to the economy - coming on top of the damage, perhaps irreparable, that has been done to the economy since May triggered Art.50 without a real plan.

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!

[Sallyann1234]

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!

But the person in charge at Downing Street wasn't on the ballot paper.

[ATNotts]

Originally Posted by Sallyann1234

But the person in charge at Downing Street wasn't on the ballot paper.

And wasn't representing the governing party on any ballot paper, in any constituency!

[ORAC]

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.”

[yellowtriumph]

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.

Well matters do appear to have moved on. With reference to this quote from the article you've pointed to:

"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.

[ORAC]

As noted on Politico, if the UK hides request an extension by the end of June, the EU will request one.

[Krystal n chips]

" Only after 5-10 years will a comprehensive picture be possible, and I doubt it will be remarkable different to today. "

Which begs the question, why, in that case, are we leaving in the first place ?

[ORAC]

The subtle differences will include a joint adjudication panel rather than being under the EUCJ, pulse being able to do trade deals in those areas not covered by U.K.-EU bilateral treaties. A Norway ++.

[MFC_Fly]

Originally Posted by Krystal n chips

" Only after 5-10 years will a comprehensive picture be possible, and I doubt it will be remarkable different to today. "

Which begs the question, why, in that case, are we leaving in the first place ?

Because by then the EU could be "remarkable different" than it is today?

[ATNotts]

Originally Posted by ORAC

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.”

And the piecemeal extension of individual deals over a period of time will do nothing to give industry and commerce any certainty or confidence to invest and expand in the UK, so by the time a comprehensive deal is reach, years down the line there'll be little left to trade, as much of multinational manufacturing industry will have upped sticks and left. If the Tories were honest and accepted that a 2-3 years transition could produce the much desired comprehensive deal that would be a so much more sensible approach from an economic standpoint, and perfectly doable given the next GE won't be until December 2024.

At the end of the day it is "the economy, stupid".