Brexit process

[stumuz1]

Agreed.

Ms Gina Miller paradoxically has caused a no deal Brexit.

Remember the days when a newly appointed prime minister May sort to negotiate Brexit using the Crown's power of prerogative? Basically, it was the prime ministers decision on how and on what terms we leave.

The judicial review of the prerogative brought some would say, biased remainer judges out of the woodwork, and gave the decision to a vote in Parliamnent.

And Parliament is as spilt as the country.

So, No deal it is.

At the mo'

Never underestimate the power of the establishment to get what they want.

[clv101]

David Davies, on Peston just now, said no deal on 29th was possible but not likely.

Never underestimate the power of the establishment to get what they want.

Indeed, which is one of the reasons I think no deal is so unlikely.

[kenneal - lagger]

Latest from Southbank Investment Daily, an email from someone who claims to know how the ports work now and will work after Brexit. Really scary? No!

If you want to know more about what Britain’s border will look like under no-deal, cast your eyes over this…

From: Kevan Chippindall-Higgin
Sent: 05 February 2019 21:12
To: Nick Hubble
Subject: Today's Article

Hi Nick,

A great read as usual. Professor Patrick Minford has long pointed out that trade deals are an illusion and we will trade with or without them.

The EU is a protectionist bloc, specifically where food is concerned. Back in the day, 90% of CAP went to French farmers. These days, it is down to around 50%, but that is still absurdly uneven.

Now that the adults are paying attention, all the talk of trade catastrophes are being shown as absurd. There will not be queues of trucks at the ports, even if we revert to the CMR documentation system. We could resurrect the T2 simplified documentation but for the fact that the EU is hell bent on punishing the UK for having the temerity to leave. There are two reasons for this.

First of all, freight pretty much always clears inland, generally at a distribution hub. Who in their right mind would put a distribution hub in Dover or indeed any other port? Half the country could not access it on a daily trucking run. Existing EU trade still has to clear customs where duties are involved. This includes tobacco, perfume, booze and non-domestic fuels.

Secondly, the actual time-tabling of lorry schedules when going for a ferry means they have to be at the docks some 90 minutes prior to sailing. There is plenty of time to take paperwork to a customs point to raise the cross border paperwork. The reality is that this is frequently done in advance and it is a simple matter of collecting paperwork from an agent. There will be one additional piece of paper. Any shipment will include a copy invoice and load manifest which has to be signed when the goods are handed over. Therefore, there is plenty of time to complete these jobs even with the existing timings.

At worst, trucks might have to arrive 30 minutes earlier than they do now. Providing the ships are sailing more or less on time, there is plenty of room at the ports. Things only get gummed up when the ships stop and the lorries keep rolling. That is caused either by very bad weather, which is extremely rare or industrial action.

I know of a ferry from Portsmouth sailing when the wind measurements on St Catherine’s Point on the Isle of Wight were varying between Forces 11 and 12. Force 12 is a hurricane. It take a lot to stop a modern, stabilised ferry and the Solent is an extremely complex waterway in terms of tides and currents.

With best wishes,

Kevan Chippindall-Higgin DipM DipDE ADI


Thanks again, Kevan.

Until next time,

Nick Hubble
Editor, Southbank Investment Daily

[Lord Beria3]

Well it looks like things are heading as I predicted... Corbyn moving to soften the deal and help with a nod and wink let it through parliament.

Both parties will face internal divisions as a consequence... the ultra Brexiteers within the Tory party and the 2nd referendum crowd within Labour.

[UndercoverElephant]

Well it looks like things are heading as I predicted... Corbyn moving to soften the deal and help with a nod and wink let it through parliament.

Both parties will face internal divisions as a consequence... the ultra Brexiteers within the Tory party and the 2nd referendum crowd within Labour.

I don't think May is going to go for it (Labour's proposal). If she does, it will destroy the tory party. As for Labour's own split, I rather get the impression that the 2nd referendum crowd already know they've lost that battle. There never was anything close to a majority in favour of a 2nd referendum, either in parliament or in the country.

[kenneal - lagger]

[....... There never was anything close to a majority in favour of a 2nd referendum, either in parliament or in the country.

Wouldn't have guessed that from the noise that a few people were making!

[Little John]

Or a mainstream media that amplified that noise far beyond its legitimate level.

[Lord Beria3]

Or a mainstream media that amplified that noise far beyond it's legitimate level.

Agreed. I think the Peoples Vote crowd are now waking up to that reality - hence the shrieks from them and their media friends.

Some of us, including myself, have been saying for months that a 2nd referendum was always an unlikely possibility for political and technical reasons.

[kenneal - lagger]

Another piece from Nick Hubble, Editor, Southbank Investment Daily

Too much debt. A recession. Banks failing. Populists rising. An election coming. And Brexit to add insult to injury.

It’s all going wrong at the same time for the EU. Which is why I decided to visit the European Parliament last Thursday.

No, not to gloat.

It’s one thing to analyse how Europe’s flawed political and economic project is falling apart from outside the halls of power. But what exactly is going on inside those halls?

Do the EU’s leaders even realise what’s going on around them? Are they all going to resign, dismantle the EU and retire? Click here to find out.

I remember the days when I thought Europe’s integration was a good idea. No borders to be held up at. One currency meant no more messing about with exchange rates. One set of rules for goods and services meant commercial harmony. One government in Brussels to keep the crazies in southern Europe in check.

How selfish. And racist.

The EU was never about internal harmony. It was about excluding those outside of Europe. Free trade and movement inside the overwhelmingly caucasian EU is a good idea. But letting Japanese or African goods and people in? No way!

The benefits of the euro are impressive, but only if you’re wealthy and mobile. Then you can take advantage of all the EU’s promises. If you’re a youth in Sicily or Thessaloniki, you have no idea what hit you. Except for the limits on welfare spending and ATM withdrawals.

Wandering around the European Parliament on Thursday, I realised just how well I belonged there. As a German and English speaker who learned some Spanish, I could understand most of what was going on around me. I recognised politicians, bankers and media personalities. I felt swept along by ambition, internationalism and expense accounts the size of constituents’ incomes.

But don’t worry, the delusion didn’t last long. The European Parliament’s strange contradictions are glaring. Even MEPs will tell you just how much of a mess the place is.

On the train to Brussels on Thursday morning, our publisher Nick O’Connor made a rather good point. I think it explains the nature of the EU better than anything I’ve heard before.

Imagine if the NAFTA delegates started running the United States of America, Canada and Mexico. Or if Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiators were appointed commissioners for fiscal affairs, trade and foreign policy of Singapore, New Zealand, Brunei and Chile.

Can you imagine if Asia’s economies tried to integrate under a single currency, risking a rerun of the Asian financial crisis? Actually, you don’t have to imagine that one. That spectacular nincompoopery is already underway. It’s called the Asian Currency Unit and uses the European Currency Unit as its model…

But my point is, having a trade bloc’s bureaucracy turn into a government is ridiculous. But it’s pretty much what happened in Europe. No wonder it’s bonkers.

As I discovered inside the European Parliament, the EU’s machinery isn’t like other governments around the world. It isn’t about representing the people and their will. It still bears all the hallmarks of a bunch of trade bureaucrats doing protectionist dealings between governments.

This gap in how the EU markets itself and how it operates, which few European voters realised until recently, is at the heart of Europe’s problems. We thought Brussels was like Westminster, Berlin and Rome. But it’s not. It’s like the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and Davos. An institution designed to further its own project. The European elections are a sideshow to hide this. It’s not like the European Parliament has any power…

The question is, how long can that last? If the EU openly dominates Europe’s nation states, and their democratically elected governments, how do the people respond? In a battle between a national government with popular support and the EU, who wins?

For now, Europe’s voters still think they can influence the EU via elections. I discovered whether they’re right during my visit to the European Parliament. From an MEP.

But what I want to tell you about in Southbank Investment Daily today is just how close Europe is to its defining crisis. You don’t have much time left to position yourself for trouble.

Let’s turn to a real expert. George Soros made his money betting on the impossibility of a currency union. Twice.

He bet against the currency peg of the UK in 1992, and against various Asian nations’ currency pegs in 1997. Soros famously bagging a billion dollars in one such trade, breaking the Bank of England. Now, Soros is back: “In a long and eventful life, I have witnessed many periods of what I call radical disequilibrium. We are living in such a period today.�

But these days, Soros isn’t exposing the flaws of Europe’s currency union – effectively a currency peg too. Instead, he’s one of the currency union’s biggest advocates!

The hypocrisy is deeply shocking to me. If the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) was flawed, then so is the euro. The only change is how dangerous the situation is.

But even Soros knows the EU is on its last legs:

Europe is sleepwalking into oblivion, and the people of Europe need to wake up before it is too late. If they don’t, the European Union will go the way of the Soviet Union in 1991.


Does this mean it’s time to short the euro? Beat Soros at his own game and profit from Europe’s Black Wednesday? Break the bank of Europe!

Eoin Treacy at Exponential Investor Premium just pointed out to his subscribers that the euro has fallen for six consecutive days. I can’t reveal more here, but that’s just one way to trade Europe’s coming crisis.

Soros calls it something different – a nightmare: “the dream of a united Europe could become the nightmare of the twenty-first century.�

Yikes.

To find out what is about to happen, why it will happen, and how it will happen, click here.

And no, it isn’t a green screen.

Until next time,

Nick Hubble
Editor, Southbank Investment Daily

[Potemkin Villager]

Thanks to RoryH in the awful Grauniad I think I have finally got to grips with the post Brexit political landscape!

" The Jeremy Corbyn Party

Socialist and internationalist, but anti-European because it thinks the EU is a neo-liberal capitalists’ club. Long on dogma, short on plans. The only party that gets sincerely, emotionally cross about the downside of capitalism, and the only party for which peace in the Middle East is a top-five priority. Stodgy.

The Momentum Party

Socialist and pro-European. Short on ideology and long on jazzy bright ideas. High-tech. Weirdly democratic, with no single leader and no respect for “traditional values�. Very inclusive. The only party for which a witty, snarky, LOL Facebook video is a top-five priority. Cool.

The Green Party

The only party for which saving the planet is a top-five priority. Opposed to air travel and car usage by the masses. Opposed to cheap food imports from abroad. Opposed to economic growth. Also opposed to poverty. Earnest.

The Dominic Grieve Party

The only party for which constitutional checks and balances are a top-five priority. Pro-European. Inheritors of the mythical “One Nation� Tory tradition. Squishy on capitalism. Paternalistic.

The Tony Blair Party

Very pro-European. Even more pro-American. Very soft on capitalism. Technocratic, verging on plutocratic. The only party for which articulating a coherent leadership vision and crafting an attractive brand is a top-five priority. Swish.

The Theresa May Party (aka The Daily Mail Party)

Anti-European. Anti-immigrant. Anti-foreigner. Anti-metropolitan. Anti-welfare. “Sceptical� of multiculturalism. Favours resentment over policy. Has no understanding of the two sides of capitalism – creative and destructive - but strongly supports it anyway. The only party for which harassing elderly brown people is a top-five priority. No fun.

The Jacob Rees-Mogg Party

Appeals to jingoistic Little Englanders, blazer-wearing golf club members, and upper-class slackers. Has an Ayn Rand agenda which is carefully hidden from its working- and middle-class supporters. Fervently anti-European, but open to cash from anywhere else in the world, no questions asked. The only party for which fox hunting is a top-five priority. Posh.

The “Tommy Robinson� Party

Nativist. Racist. Violently anti-Muslim. Omniphobic. The only party in which having a criminal record is an advantage, and the only party for which keeping on good terms with Trump and Putin is a top-five priority. Poundland Nazis"

[emordnilap]

"Poundland Nazis"

Brilliant.

[kenneal - lagger]

....

The Green Party

The only party for which saving the planet is a top-five priority. Opposed to air travel and car usage by the masses. Opposed to cheap food imports from abroad. Opposed to economic growth. Also opposed to poverty. Earnest.
.............

Should read "Opposed to economic growth but supporting the immigration used to fuel that growth" and "Also opposed to poverty but supporting the immigration used to facilitate the low wages that fuel that poverty". Earnest but Conflicted.

PV, can you put up an URL for that article, please?

[stumuz1]

One of the reasons I voted leave was to make it easier to ban glyphosate

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -of-cancer

A better chance when we only have 330 MP'S to persuade.

[Little John]

All of whom, in principle:

(a) have the capacity to directly cast parliamentary votes on primary legislation

(b) can be voted in or voted out of office on the basis of their stated parliamentary voting intentions

[Mark]

One of the reasons I voted leave was to make it easier to ban glyphosate

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -of-cancer

A better chance when we only have 330 MP'S to persuade.

HSE to replace EU chemicals agency in a no-deal Brexit:
https://www.endsreport.com/article/6110 ... eal-brexit


NGO CHEM Trust is “very concerned� about the focus on the HSE, given that “they don’t have adequate environmental expertise & commitment. They are also not involved in public health,� said executive director Michael Warhurst. The guidance for pesticides states: “In a no-deal scenario the UK would not be legally committed to medium or long-term regulatory alignment with the EU. Divergence from developing EU legislation would be possible in due course.� Given time, this could see the EU ban pesticides that will remain in place in the UK, or the HSE approving new pesticides and formulations that will not be permitted in the EU. At the same time, it adds: “The technical requirements of the regime would remain the same as they are in current EU legislation, maintaining existing standards of environmental and health protections.� Among such pesticides could be glyphosate. Although Brussels has given the world’s most commonly used weedkiller the thumps up after it was linked to cancer, some member states favoured a ban when its authorisation was discussed last year. In contrast, the agricultural and horticultural lobby opposed the move, with environment minister Thérèse Coffey describing glyphosate as “amazing� in August.

The EU is split glyphosate....., UK politicians are also split on glyphosate.....
I don't see the outcome/debate being very different whether we're 'in' or 'out'.....