Brexit process

[Little John]

Grreer begins to lose credibility with me when he comes out with this astrological bollocks.Which is a shame because a lot of his writing is very insightful and often just a pleasure to read.

[kenneal - lagger]

Our lodger is not working on a farm, he's cooking for a local condiment manufacturer, cooking for a pizza "restaurant" and working security for someone.

[Little John]

Oh yeah, I understand that there are now whole swathes of the economy that have been sucked into being reliant on cheap imported labour.

[Lord Beria3]

Getting a deal now requires Merkel, Macron and the rest of the EU to offer the UK something that Theresa May can sell to both wings of her own party, and get through parliament. I am struggling to imagine what such a deal would look like, given the intractability of the Irish Border Problem, the fragility of Theresa May's grip on power and the incompatible red lines of the various interested parties.

I don't see it happening. An extension of A50 is possible, TM being toppled by her own party is possible, a GE is possible and a second referendum is possible, but a major deal is looking less likely than any of them. A minimal deal to keep the lights on in NI, medical supplies flowing and planes in the air, is likely.

My best guess is that the europhile wing of the tory party will pull the plug on this government as it becomes clear that we are indeed heading towards a no deal brexit, or at least they will issue an ultimatum threatening to do this and demand an extension to A50 and a second referendum as the price of not doing it. At which point either TM will cave in a hold that referendum, or the government will collapse and we'll have the strangest general election in living memory.

EU are highly unlikely to agree to a extension of A50, unless a deal is doable and for some reason hasn't been approved by the end of March.

A ge is possible but unlikely to make much difference. Corbyn also rejects a soft Brexit (e.g. EEA option)

A second referendum is highly unlikely. It will take months to even agree the process, go through parliament and EU would have to agree to extending A50 to let it happen. Worst of all, a referendum wouldn't clear anything up anyway. Its a fantasy.

[Lord Beria3]

Grreer begins to credibility with me when he comes out with this astrological bollocks.Which is a shame because a lot of his writing is very insightful and often just a pleasure to read.

I'm open minded about astrology.

Personally, I don't care about his methods if his analysis makes sense and has a good record of getting things right.

His analysis of a breakdown of a Brexit talks seems to chime with the signals coming out of Europe right now.

I think its still on the knife edge right now and a fudge is still possible but the EU don't appear to want to make any meaningful concessions to the Brits to let May get it through parliament.

The risk of a no-deal Brexit is rising if Europe miscalculates in the coming months.

Ambrose thinks a deal will still happen, just, on Barnier's terms...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... t-country/

Even in a no-deal scenario there would be mini-deals to keep the show on the road. The plausible dangers are of a different kind and lie lower down the Richter scale. What is true is that some in Brussels do not fully understand how vulnerable the EU is even to minor shocks, given its composite character and low political boiling point.

This may cause them to push the UK a step too far as they chip away at Chequers. That is where the risk now lies.

On the British side it is hard to see why bookies are pricing in a 50pc chance of a no-deal. Events are moving in the opposite direction. It is becoming clear that Parliament has just two realistic options: either the Chequers package once Mr Barnier has finished with it, or no deal at all.

If Theresa May lacks enough Tory votes to pass Chequers, Labour will have to acquiesce, or abstain. Should the Labour Party vote down the deal, it will be held responsible and will ‘own’ the economic consequences

.

For you UE:

It is worth reading a paper for the European Policy Centre by Andrew Duff, president of the ultra-federalist Spinelli Group and one of the MEPs who drafted the European Constitution. It captures the prevailing mood among EU insiders.

His greatest contempt is reserved for hard Remainers, living in the parallel universe of Westminster and seemingly unaware that the EU does not want to extend Article 50, or allow Britain to remain in the EU on status quo terms, or indulge in their procrastination games. The Barnier package is coming soon and will be the EU’s final offer.

“If Parliament refuses the EU’s 2019 offer of an association agreement, there will be no going back to the drawing board: Europe has run out of tolerance. If the deal is rejected by the British Parliament, the EU’s contingency plans will be put into operation,� he writes.

Mr Duff says none of the opposition parties have come up with a viable alternative to Chequers, and those Remainers now demanding a second referendum - after having vowed to respect the results of the first one, he notes - are playing with fire. It would become a battle over the betrayal of democracy.

“A panicky referendum in present circumstances promises to be catastrophic. The nation would end up even more divided in terms of social class, generation and province, potentially pitching into a revolutionary situation,� he said.

Mr Duff said the EU has no desire to prolong this messy divorce. The more urgent need for them is to “salvage the international reputation of the EU� and build a new relationship that could become a model for orbital satellites in Europe’s near abroad.

All this UK Remainer talk of a 2nd referendum assumes the EU will go along with it - extending the farce for potentially a year or more. It's not going to happen.

Greer's take:

Forecastingintelligence, my take is that the EU leadership is far more interested in punishing Britain for voting for Brexit than it is in its own immediate economic interests. The thing Brussels has to fear more than anything else is that if Britain comes through Brexit in good shape, and especially if it’s seen to benefit as a result, other countries could head for the exit, and still others could start treating the threat of a referendum as a useful bargaining chip in their disputes with the EU. Thus I’ll predict that the EU leaders will either reject the Chequers plan outright, or accept it but with demands for alteration that will be politically unacceptable in Britain.

This is why I think it's a tight call. Ambrose thinks, on balance, that Britain will swallow a Barnier deal (Chequers minus).

Greer thinks that, on balance, Britain will end up rejecting the Barnier deal.

I'm not sure - but I'm starting to think that Greer's take is more likely to happen then not, in which its a hard brexit.

Bring it on!

[Potemkin Villager]

So who exactly would benefit from a "hard" brexit and who would not?

[Little John]

So who exactly would benefit from a "hard" brexit

democrats

and who would not?

anti-democrats

[stumuz1]

So who exactly would benefit from a "hard" brexit and who would not?

Main beneficiaries:

Those whom have received little training or opportunities because it is always cheaper to get a ready trained migrant.

SME's who will get access to a directly elected legislature instead of being given postulates by unelected bureaucrats.

Reduced exotic food costs if we go to world food prices.

Increased income for UK food producers


Better chance of getting biodiversity onto the political agenda

I could go on for hours, but suffice to say, markets are artificially created by the state ( see Thomas Hobbs chapter 3 Leviathan) The UK market will no longer have rules intended to please 27 other states, but can concentrate on rules that benefit the UK only.

I think/hope that future governments will do this following the second bloodless revolution we have had in 430 years

Main non-beneficiaries:EU superstate aspirations.

[Lord Beria3]

I would add that a Hard Brexit would provide precisely the kind of economic shock to drive Britain away from JIT globalisation into a new era of more localilised industries better suited to the looming era of resource scarcity, post-growth and disruptions to global supply chains as geopolitical and climate shocks happen more often.

Just as Iceland going bankrupt was the best thing that happened after 2008, and exiting the ERM 1992 led to a economic boom, a hard Brexit would be our 21st century equivalent.

I could also add the 30s example of leaving the Gold Standard, which was at the time a dogma for the bulk of our political, financial and academic elites.

[stumuz1]

Agreed

[UndercoverElephant]

I could also add the 30s example of leaving the Gold Standard

You are defending fiat money backed with nothing but promises based on an assumption of future economic growth?

[bigjim]

So who exactly would benefit from a "hard" brexit

democrats

and who would not?

anti-democrats

I will say that the referendum asked only the question on Britain's EU membership. There was nothing whatsoever about joining the EEA, EFTA or any other sort of deals with the EU. So anyone who claims that this is an affront to democracy is wrong.

If you want to argue the merits of hard brexit, sure, go ahead, I don't have a problem with that. Indeed, I did like Lord Beria's latest comment on hard brexit. But don't go round claiming democracy for yourself- it's everyone's, after all.

[Potemkin Villager]

I grow increasingly weary of Long Johns mealy mouthed sophism and hollow sound bites. I asked the question because I was really interested in people's opinion and am not really interested in always having to win arguments, be right about everything and proving the rest of the world irredeemably wrong as LJ seems to.

There are a lot of reasons for wanting to make a break with Europe but I do not think the ones arising from the preoccupations of this forum figure highly in the motives of those pushing for a hard brexit.

[Lord Beria3]

You still don't get it.

It doesn't really matter what the intentions of those within our ruling class who are promoting Hard Brexit.

The consequences of Hard Brexit, WTO tariffs, end of freedom of movement etc, will be positive for the working classes of Britain. And that is all that matters.

Those pushing for a soft Brexit are promoting the status quo of continued mass importation of foreign labour into Britain's economy and adhering to EU rules and regulations, including the banning of state aid. Its precisely this set of status quo neo-liberal policies that the majority of the population have rejected.

A Hard Brexit clears the way for a ditching of neo-liberalism via the return of strict migration controls, tariffs and a full-on industrial policy that promotes British industry.

Assuming for the moment that the UK crashes out of the EU in March 2019 we will almost certainly get 1 and 2, which in itself will make a major difference to working folk.

A Corbyn government will provide the third option, including nationalizing within a few years, 2022, should the British public vote Labour into power.

[careful_eugene]

You still don't get it.

It doesn't really matter what the intentions of those within our ruling class who are promoting Hard Brexit.

The consequences of Hard Brexit, WTO tariffs, end of freedom of movement etc, will be positive for the working classes of Britain. And that is all that matters.

Those pushing for a soft Brexit are promoting the status quo of continued mass importation of foreign labour into Britain's economy and adhering to EU rules and regulations, including the banning of state aid. Its precisely this set of status quo neo-liberal policies that the majority of the population have rejected.

A Hard Brexit clears the way for a ditching of neo-liberalism via the return of strict migration controls, tariffs and a full-on industrial policy that promotes British industry.

Assuming for the moment that the UK crashes out of the EU in March 2019 we will almost certainly get 1 and 2, which in itself will make a major difference to working folk.

A Corbyn government will provide the third option, including nationalizing within a few years, 2022, should the British public vote Labour into power.

Do you really think that large scale immigration will end? If people aren't bought in from Eastern Europe they'll come from the Middle East or Indian sub-continent. This government has no interest in reducing immigration and improving the lives of working class people who are currently unemployed or under employed.