Brexit process

[cubes]

The rules for goods in the EU and UK are going to be the same the day after brexit... and not likely to diverge significantly imo - most of them are sensible (you know, the ones the daily mail doesn't scream about) and not worth changing.

[emordnilap]

Financialisation of our everyday lives is apparent to the older generation

One of my gripes. Good, it's not just me then.

Three years ago, the UK Think Tank New Economics Foundation (NEF) showed that the true impact of inflation on the poorest 50% in Britain had been woefully understated by official measures. It highlighted an eye-popping 15% real drop in spending power by the bottom half from over one year beginning late in 2012. The NEF report stated:

“A key difference is that poorer households spend proportionately more on essential goods and services – housing, food and utilities – than the richest. Because CPI is based on average for everyone, it ignores this effect. And with the prices of essentials rising so much in recent years, with food up 46% and gas and electricity 73% since 2005, this income effect matters.�

Yeah, inflation indexes are fundamentally inaccurate and have simply propaganda value these days, no real meaning.

A related article here.

Although he's talking about the American CPI in the article, do the British/European CPIs also include Hedonic Quality Adjustment? Maybe that explains the obvious inflation I see versus the official figures.

Whatever, it's going to make for an interesting conversation interjection when someone buys a €5 t-shirt: "Ah, yes, anhedonic quality adjustment in action."

[vtsnowedin]

I love it when some government wonk states that inflation is low when you exclude food and energy? I've got news for him, food and energy are the main part of the cost of living. Pay that plus rent and taxes and your whole paycheck is gone.

[emordnilap]

I love it when some government wonk states that inflation is low when you exclude food and energy? I've got news for him, food and energy are the main part of the cost of living. Pay that plus rent and taxes and your whole paycheck is gone.

Yes, but they have to keep the masses misinformed. No food included? Include smartphones instead, which fit perfectly with HQA measures.

My CPI would show inflation almost daily if I could be bothered.

[UndercoverElephant]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... rexit-deal

This is becoming mind-boggling complicated to understand.

We know that the EU are not going to offer the UK a "good deal". They've made it abundantly clear where their red lines are, and they involve a very large "divorce bill", unacceptable powers retained by the ECJ and possibly unimplementable demands regarding the Irish border.

We know Theresa May is committed to delivering Brexit.

But we also know that a large proportion of her own MPs actually want a hard, no-deal Brexit, or at the very least would certainly demand that if the alternative was the bad deal the EU will offer.

But this report appears to suggest there is a cross-party majority in Parliament determined to prevent a hard, no-deal brexit. Which is quite believable, but where does it leave us?

That cross-party majority cannot "veto" a no deal brexit, because "no deal" is the default. It happens automatically if no legislation is past to stop it.

Can the cross-party majority amend some crucial bit of Brexit legislation to give them the veto they want? Presumably they can, but how? This could only work if it is true (as reported) that it is possible for Westminster to unilaterally revoke article 50, because that is the only unilateral way the UK can prevent either no deal or a bad deal.

But what would happen next if they actually succeeded in passing such an amendment? The brexit-supporting rump of the tory party would then be in a position where they either have to accept that anti-Brexit MPs have a veto over Brexit which they'd almost certainly end up invoking, or they'd have to take some sort of action to avoid this happening. But how? They would not have the numbers at westminster to do it through Parliament, but there's two other things they can do. One is to oust May as Tory leader, but even this doesn't guarantee them the Brexit they want, because no matter how anti-EU her replacement is, they still won't have the numbers to force a no-deal Brexit through Parliament. The only option they'll have left is to bring down the government itself, with a vote of no confidence, forcing a general election, and hope that the new parliament has a majority that will reject any unilateral revocation of article 50.

The bottom line is this, I think: there's enough of both hardline pro-brexit and hardline anti-brexit tory MPs who, given the choice between being on the losing side regarding Brexit or bringing down the government, will choose to bring down the government, that when we reach the critical moment, they will indeed bring down the government.

Please somebody correct me if something here is wrong!

[UndercoverElephant]

Breaking: this is the smell of shit hitting the fan behind the door of number 10.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... posed.html

Quote:"A well-placed source said it suggested Mr Gove and Mr Johnson were running what was tantamount to a ‘hard Brexit cell’ inside the Cabinet.

The cloak-and-dagger nature of the ultimatum is illustrated by the James Bond-style instruction that the letter is ‘for your and Gavin’s eyes only’ – a reference to Mrs May’s No 10 chief of staff, the former Conservative MP Gavin Barwell.

It is understood the letter was delivered to him by hand by Mr Johnson. But the pair could face a backlash for appearing to order her not to show it to other Cabinet Ministers or Whitehall mandarins."

So Theresa May is stuck in a pincer movement - on one side Gove and Johnson calling the shots behind the scenes, safe in the knowledge that they represent euroskeptic majority of the tory party - and on the other side a clear anti-hard-Brexit majority at Westminster. Neither will back down when the critical moment comes, and it looks like it is about to come.

So...January General Election!

[Little John]

If Brexit is not delivered by the UK parliament, then in a very short number of years, UKIP (in its current form) will look like a centrist party.

In other words, a British version of France's Front-National will be on the cards.

[UndercoverElephant]

If Brexit is not delivered by the UK parliament, then in a very short number of years, UKIP (in its current form) will look like a centrist party.

In other words, a British version of France's Front-National will be on the cards.

Yes quite probably, but I am currently trying to get my head around what is likely to actually happen in the next two months! You are talking about what is likely to happen if the people trying to stop Brexit actually manage to succeed. I am still trying to figure out whether it is possible for them to succeed, and if so at what price.

The question seems to be whether the Euroskeptic rump of the tory party, faced with a cross-party anti-brexit coup at Westminster, is willing to force a general election by bringing down their own government in an attempt to frustrate that coup. They'd only do it if they believed there was a realistic possibility that that GE would return enough extra pro-Brexit MPs to prevent article 50 being revoked. Which it might.

Labour are now committed to preventing a Hard Brexit, which would mean further gains in anti-Brexit parts of the UK, but probably further losses to the tories in their old working class heartlands. It is impossible to guess what the net outcome would be regarding MPs support of brexit in the new parliament, but I am guessing that parliament would be more deeply hung than the current one. It is a recipe for total chaos. But isn't the truth that a sufficient people on both sides of the argument would opt for total chaos rather than accept losing the Brexit argument?

My best guess about what is actually going to happen is that the EU will offer to extend the Article 50 process in order to try to show that they are willing to help and be reasonable, while at the same time continuing to be totally unreasonable in the actual negotiations. The crisis can only end when either Article 50 is revoked (which leads to a resurgent UKIP and another crisis further down the line), or the parliamentary arithmetic is such that it is clear Article 50 will not be revoked because there aren't enough MPs willing to revoke it, and the UK actually leaves the EU with no deal.

(as an aside...if such a general election was to happen then I'd be forced to vote Labour, even though I disagree with Corbyn on Brexit. There'd be no point in me voting Tory, because my MP thinks a no deal Brexit is unthinkable. And there's no point in voting UKIP, because that just helps Rudd to get re-elected. Might as well vote Labour, so at least I might get some other things I want even if I don't get brexit.)

[johnhemming2]

I don't think anyone can predict with any great certainty what is going to happen.

[cubes]

As a hardcore remainer the only result I can see that will happen is a hard brexit. I don't believe the various factions have a common ground on which to build a consensus for the uk position. There may be a general election, this one will be even more inconclusive than the last (labour + libdems not being enough to get a majority) and everything will fall apart leaving us with what, in my eyes at least, is the worst possible result.

As to what LJ said, I'm sure in those circumstances an extreme party (or 2/3) would form, however, I think you overestimate the likelihood of it gaining widespread support (e.g. UKIP levels or better). The conservatives split into 2 separate parties with perhaps labour following suit would also be a possibility in this scenario imo.

[UndercoverElephant]

As a hardcore remainer the only result I can see that will happen is a hard brexit. I don't believe the various factions have a common ground on which to build a consensus for the uk position. There may be a general election, this one will be even more inconclusive than the last (labour + libdems not being enough to get a majority) and everything will fall apart leaving us with what, in my eyes at least, is the worst possible result.

Surely the worst possible result is a "bad deal" where we get the worst aspects of being a member of the EU, but none of the benefits. There are certainly bad deals that are worse than no deal. That is true almost by definition (eg the UK pays £100bn for access to the single market annually).

[cubes]

Most "bad deal" scenarios aren't going to happen because everyone involved knows they aren't feasible. After all, if we have, say, to pay in, follow all the rules but still don't have access to the SM or CU then even I'd say that's shit.

If we have to pay something to get preferential access over WTO rules then it depends on the amount - £100bn being obviously unacceptable, yet perhaps £5bn or a little more might be worth it depending on the exact deal.

However, I don't think the government knows what it really wants and is so split that it won't be able to decide. I'm sure we can all agree that's the pretty shitty place to be negotiating from.[/b]

[UndercoverElephant]

Most "bad deal" scenarios aren't going to happen because everyone involved knows they aren't feasible. After all, if we have, say, to pay in, follow all the rules but still don't have access to the SM or CU then even I'd say that's shit.

But given the political chaos, it is notan impossible outcome. My point is that there are bad deals worse than no deal.

So the question I have to ask you, as a hardcore remainer, is whether you accept that there are bad deals worse than no deal. Because that really might be the choice at some point in the forseeable future.

However, I don't think the government knows what it really wants and is so split that it won't be able to decide. I'm sure we can all agree that's the pretty shitty place to be negotiating from.

The tories have been hopelessly split on Europe since the 1970s, and are currently trying to run a minority government. Those are just facts.

[cubes]

I don't think there are bad deals THAT ARE POSSIBLE that are worse than no deal. Unless our politicians are more stupid than I give them credit for...

Of course we all can think of deals that would be worse than no deal, however, as I said above I don't think they are deals anyone with sense would agree with (and hence no possible).

[UndercoverElephant]

I don't think there are bad deals THAT ARE POSSIBLE that are worse than no deal. Unless our politicians are more stupid than I give them credit for...

It is not that they are stupid. The problem is that this situation is very complex, and different groups are pulling in different directions, and have different red lines. No group will control the final outcome, so that outcome might be utterly "stupid" from everybody's point of view, just because it was the lowest common denominator.