Brexit process

[stumuz1]

No deal on 29th March? No chance.

All very house of cards.

However, not a word on the current legal position.

On what proposition can a group/party in the commons get an agreement on before the 29th?

If there is no agreement in the commons we leave without a deal.

As usual everyone one knows what everyone else doesn't like or would resign over.

But what are 330MP's going to agree on.....

[RevdTess]

But what are 330MP's going to agree on.....

This is going to be the classic case study for Game Theory in years to come I reckon.

At the moment I think the most likely outcome is that Brexiteers decide that the risk of parliament blocking a no-deal Brexit is too high, and so they eventually vote for May's deal with the proviso that May immediately resigns after the vote gets through, so that a Brexiteer PM can do the negotiation of the actual future relationship over the next two years.

The question then is would the ERG have the numbers to get May's deal over the line? There are likely to be some Tories who won't vote for May's deal under any circumstances, even if no-Brexit is the alternative. I've no idea what could persuade the DUP. Similarly, there will be some Labour MPs who will vote for May's deal. So it could be a knife-edge with hours to go. May's bill could fail even with ERG support.

I can imagine there being an amendment to the final vote which says "If this bill doesn't pass, the PM must temporarily revoke article 50". Plenty of remainer Tories would support that. Some might even resign over it and/or join the independent group.

I'm not 100% convinced that parliament would be able to block no-deal but I do think they have the numbers if they can bring it to a binding vote. A lot depends on parliamentary procedure.

Ultimately I think when push comes to shove the ERG will accept that they've got as much as they can from the EU and the risk of no-Brexit is too high to resist further. After all, May's deal is only really the vague preamble to the negotiations to come, and the tiny risk of getting stuck in the backstop is hardly worth losing Brexit over... is it?

There is one other crazy possibility which is that another half dozen Tories join the independent group and then join the opposition in a vote of no confidence to bring down the govt. If they do that, it risks no-deal by default, and their own career would be totally done, even before they could form a new party to fight the election. One way or another I expect the political drama will get even more extreme before March is through: how many Tories will defect, and would it be in response to no-deal, or in a last-ditch attempt to prevent it?

I often attend a cafe social group for older people on Thursday mornings. Usually, someone has something to say about Brexit. This time was no exception. To be fair it's usually been 'why are we giving all our money to the EU and/or immigrants?' but now the accusation has become 'why are we giving up all our business to the EU countries through Brexit?' Some people are apparently realising that damaging our economy through Brexit is worse than paying for the EU and freedom of movement. Of course if for you Brexit is mostly or entirely about sovereignty then it hardly matters.

I do wonder in 10 or 20 years what people will think about Brexit. Will it be like leaving the ERM where it seemed financially disastrous at the time but turned out to be by far the best decision? Or will people blame Brexit and/or its implementation for decades to come?

[stumuz1]

This is going to be the classic case study for Game Theory in years to come I reckon.

Yep!

At the moment I think the most likely outcome is that Brexiteers decide that the risk of parliament blocking a no-deal Brexit is too high, and so they eventually vote for May's deal with the proviso that May immediately resigns after the vote gets through, so that a Brexiteer PM can do the negotiation of the actual future relationship over the next two years.

But how can it block a no-deal? To block a no-deal it has to put a new deal/offer suggestion/agreement/compromise that the 330 can accept.
It's a bit like contract law.
Years ago there were cases of contract disputes concerning a term in the contract which stated " with a disagreement on price the parties will be obliged to engage in further negotiations.

The courts held the term meaningless. You cannot make two sides negotiate.

The question then is would the ERG have the numbers to get May's deal over the line?

No , I don't think they do. I also think they don't want to get the deal over the line.

I can imagine there being an amendment to the final vote which says "If this bill doesn't pass, the PM must temporarily revoke article 50". Plenty of remainer Tories would support that. Some might even resign over it and/or join the independent group.

The PM cannot "temporarily revoke article 50" It needs the nod of the other 27. they will need a meeting to plan a meeting to discuss allowing the UK to request to revoke art 50. Clock is ticking

I'm not 100% convinced that parliament would be able to block no-deal but I do think they have the numbers if they can bring it to a binding vote. A lot depends on parliamentary procedure.

Again it's not a matter of blocking. The issue is replacing the existing law with something else before the 29th.

Ultimately I think when push comes to shove the ERG will accept that they've got as much as they can from the EU and the risk of no-Brexit is too high to resist further.

I don't know, I think the ERG are mono theists. They smell blood.

After all, May's deal is only really the vague preamble to the negotiations to come, and the tiny risk of getting stuck in the backstop is hardly worth losing Brexit over... is it?

The ERG thinks it's worth it. They know if Brexit is cancelled the more moderate politicians will get the blame. Remember why this phenomenon occurred in the first place? Cameron could see Farage slowly but surely gaining ground. Nicking votes from the centre and left and right. Growing all the time with the populist ' its them message' He called a referendum, the rest is history, who gets the blame for subverting/usurping democracy is all to play for.

There is one other crazy possibility which is that another half dozen Tories join the independent group and then join the opposition in a vote of no confidence to bring down the govt. If they do that, it risks no-deal by default, and their own career would be totally done, even before they could form a new party to fight the election. One way or another I expect the political drama will get even more extreme before March is through: how many Tories will defect, and would it be in response to no-deal, or in a last-ditch attempt to prevent it?

Agree.

I often attend a cafe social group for older people on Thursday mornings. Usually, someone has something to say about Brexit. This time was no exception. To be fair it's usually been 'why are we giving all our money to the EU and/or immigrants?' but now the accusation has become 'why are we giving up all our business to the EU countries through Brexit?'

I'm 52, my parents had me when they were quite young. Even though there is not two decades between us, my parents treat brexit as a spectator sport. I blame the daily mail.

Some people are apparently realising that damaging our economy through Brexit is worse than paying for the EU and freedom of movement. Of course if for you Brexit is mostly or entirely about sovereignty then it hardly matters.

A fair and balanced statement. A rarity these days.

I do wonder in 10 or 20 years what people will think about Brexit. Will it be like leaving the ERM where it seemed financially disastrous at the time but turned out to be by far the best decision? Or will people blame Brexit and/or its implementation for decades to come?

One thing for certain, politicians will be very wary of calling another referendum in the future.

[RevdTess]

But how can it block a no-deal? To block a no-deal it has to put a new deal/offer suggestion/agreement/compromise that the 330 can accept.

Parliament could block no-deal by
a) mandating the PM to revoke A50 if there's no deal by x date. When I say that this can be done temporarily, I mean it can be revoked unilaterally and then reissued once an agreement is reached. I realise that the EU27 have to give permission for an extension.
b) agreeing to vote for May's deal on the proviso that it must be put to a referendum on which remain is also an option. This would need an A50 delay which the EU27 would agree to if remain is a possibility.

There are several options like this. They don't have to agree a solution, just agree to revoke Brexit until a solution is found. Politically I do expect May's bill to get through eventually, it just remains to be seen what the price is. It could be May's head, or it could be a 2nd ref, depending on which side has the votes.

The ERG thinks it's worth it. They know if Brexit is cancelled the more moderate politicians will get the blame.

Very hard to predict how that will play out. I'm not convinced this will be the outcome. Moderates can equally blame the ERG for demanding a too-hard Brexit. I don't think Brexit will be cancelled, but if it is all bets are off politically.

who gets the blame for subverting/usurping democracy is all to play for.

Exactly.

I'm 52, my parents had me when they were quite young. Even though there is not two decades between us, my parents treat brexit as a spectator sport. I blame the daily mail.

I'm 48. My parents are older than yours. My mum is (surprisingly to me) anti-Brexit whereas my dad is quietly satisfied with Brexit I think. My brother, a businessman, is strongly pro-Brexit and thinks the new trade freedoms will be fantastic for his business selling to the US. None of us are uninvolved though.

A fair and balanced statement. A rarity these days.

I do try. I appreciate this comment.

One thing for certain, politicians will be very wary of calling another referendum in the future.

Thanks be to God. I expect the SNP will still want indyref2 though, especially if they can promise that Scotland will seek to re-enter the EU. What fun we'd have with hard borders on our island then!

[stumuz1]

Parliament could block no-deal by
a) mandating the PM to revoke A50 if there's no deal by x date.

Aka as cancelling the referendum. Not a politically appealing proposition. Remember, politics is show business for ugly people! They want to be loved/adored/looked up to. They hate the finger of scorn.

When I say that this can be done temporarily, I mean it can be revoked unilaterally and then reissued once an agreement is reached.

That would need a level of cooperation not seen these last two years. If there was that level of cooperation in the commons the referendum would not have happened.

I realise that the EU27 have to give permission for an extension.
b) agreeing to vote for May's deal on the proviso that it must be put to a referendum on which remain is also an option. This would need an A50 delay which the EU27 would agree to if remain is a possibility.

Yes, but that is an unfair referendum. The WA is a compromise, remain is not a compromise.

I shall re-read a bit of Kafka !

[Lord Beria3]

Eurointelligence latest...

https://www.eurointelligence.com/public.html

Sound and fury, but Brexit reality unchanged

Not a lot happened in the UK yesterday - not really. We think it is best to ignore the new centrist party because it will not affect Brexit one way or the other, nor do we see any evidence of a groundswell of public support. When one of the new Conservative members of the now 11-strong independent group used the occasion to emphasise her support for fiscal austerity, politics as usual returned. The honeymoon period - or rather the mourning period - ended on the second day of this new group.

After the three defections, the effective Conservative majority is now 323 to 318 votes. Dominic Grieve, the former attorney general, said last night that he too would resign from the Tories, but only if the government proposes to leave the EU with no deal.

If that were the case, he would not be the only one. So one of the firmer conclusions we draw immediately is that, if the Tories wanted to pursue a no-deal Brexit, they would need to have elections first. The reverse order makes no sense - elections in the middle of no-deal chaos.

So, where are we now? Theresa May's visit to Brussels yesterday yielded no concrete results - unsurprisingly. The technical talks will continue, but no agreement is expected by next week. The Sun reports that ministers want May to commit to an extension in case of no deal, or else she will see ministers supporting the Cooper amendment. We think this is a promise she can easily give. The Cooper amendment might still pass, as there is more support for it now than three weeks ago. But the amendment has lost much of its political significance. Back then, it was regarded as a proxy for a second referendum. This is no longer so.

Here are our three main Brexit scenarios:

May brings a new deal mid-March. Deal passes. Government fast-tracks ratification. UK leaves on March 29.
no agreement until final marathon at or around EU summit on March 21-22. Meaningful vote delayed until end March. Deal passes. Short technical extension;
Meaningful vote fails in either of the two scenarios. At this point elections are very likely.
What about the Cooper bill? If the meaningful vote is lost, it would force the government to make an official request to extend the Art. 50 deadline (preceded by a symbolic vote on whether the parliament actively supports a no-deal Brexit). It is possible that EU and UK agree a different period than the one specified in the bill. The EU is also free to attach conditions.

Does the government have the ability to frustrate the Cooper bill? The bill is well-drafted and has no obvious loopholes. But it is not a fail-safe mechanism either. The government could:

ask for a short extension before bill takes effect, which would supersede Cooper;

Cooper takes effect, meaningful vote is lost. Parliament forces elections. May would request short extension, Cooper bill mechanisms would be superseded in that case too;

House of Lords filibuster to delay introduction of the bill until after meaningful vote;

government could try to take legal action against the bill, or simply refuse to act on it, and deliberately cause a constitutional crisis;

or it could co-opt the EU to frustrate the bill, either by trying to organise a veto of a single member state in the European Council, or to frustrate it in the negotiations with the European Council;

we are, for now, disregarding more extreme measures such a prorogation or other means that would involve the Queen in her role as head of state.

It will probably not come to any of this, but this list may still constitute a useful warning to anybody who believes that Cooper is a fail-safe mechanism towards a Brexit reversal or a second referendum.

[Mark]

Have the ONS published a modal salary range?

The ONS have published the data - click on the link
You're the type that could have an argument in an empty room....

My 'off the cuff' original comment was that average salary is approx. £27K
In fact, the 'Mean' is actually nearly £6K higher, which surprised me.....
However the Median figure (£27,300) is probably the fairest measure of the 'man in the middle'.....

So... do I take it from your reply they have not published the modal salary?

Have they published the raw data so that someone else can calculate the modal salary?

To repeat....., click on the link
You originally took exception to the figure quoted as 'average' salary....
Statistically speaking, a 'mean' figure would normally be used, but I agree that due to the 'skewing' factor of the mega wealthy, the Median figure is probably more reflective....
Modal salary is still interesting, but not to this question...., agree it shows the large numbers on minimum/low wages.....

My 'gut feel' from the cross-section of people I know, £27,300 seems about right...
I'm in the NW, with Manchester/Cheshire currently booming, but some areas in Lancashire struggling....
The SE on average will be doing better, the NE on average worse....

I guess that doesn't chime with your world view / narrative....?
Do you think the ONS is more 'fake news' from the deep state ??
If you really want to know their sources/data, why don't you submit a FOI request ?

[raspberry-blower]

Powerful stuff from Alastair Crooke on the current state of the EU, and the net result of technocrats idolising a God that failed them - namely the idiotic diety of infinite growth on a finite planet.

So a failure of the EU is [that] everybody has their own currency and everybody has a border again. Now, the key to this is going to be the euro. Because it is the monetary union that is creating the problems now. It worked great when interest rates were going in the right direction. It worked great for everybody. Now they’ve started to go in the other direction and the debts have started to matter and the pressure is on these countries … People don’t understand what the euro represents. [Yet] they know that they can’t make ends meet.

“And they know that an answer to this from a political standpoint is to go back to – I’ll use Italy as an example – is to go back to the lira, pay off all of your debts in lira – a massively devalued lira – and not be forced to maintain a budget deficit that is dictated by Brussels – and to be able to spend and help your country come out of a recession. That’s what’s going to happen. It was always going to happen.

“But the way the bureaucrats in Brussels treat everybody – because they have to toe a hard line, they have to use the stick and not the carrot to keep this thing together – is we’re going to be all Brexit�.

Alastair Crooke: The Establishment's last roll of the dice: Wither EU?

[Little John]

To repeat....., click on the link

You originally took exception to the figure quoted as 'average' salary....
Statistically speaking, a 'mean' figure would normally be used, but I agree that due to the 'skewing' factor of the mega wealthy, the Median figure is probably more reflective....
Modal salary is still interesting, but not to this question...., agree it shows the large numbers on minimum/low wages.....

My 'gut feel' from the cross-section of people I know, £27,300 seems about right...
I'm in the NW, with Manchester/Cheshire currently booming, but some areas in Lancashire struggling....
The SE on average will be doing better, the NE on average worse....

I guess that doesn't chime with your world view / narrative....?
Do you think the ONS is more 'fake news' from the deep state ??
If you really want to know their sources/data, why don't you submit a FOI request ?

So, finally, you concede, after what has amounted to a metaphor for pulling teeth, that they have neither published the modal average wage, nor have they published the raw data upon which someone else could calculate the modal average wage.

Additionally, I have already demonstrated how, with a sufficiently skewed distribution, even the median is worthless and, in terms of the UK salary distribution, it almost certainly is sufficiently skewed for it to be worthless. But, of course, I and anyone else is having to make an educated guess on that - because the raw data has not been made available. Though, a few people have attempted to deduce it from surveys and other data sources and this is where the figure of the range of 15-20k comes from.

In light of all of the above, the pertinent question is this:

Either you really are arithmetically illiterate and do not understand why knowing the official, modal average salary, or, alternatively, the cumulative frequency of salaries is so important given the distribution of salaries is more skewed today than at any point since the end of the second world war.

Or, you are well aware of the arithmetical importance of knowing something like the modal average salary and are being deliberately obfuscatory and dishonest.

So, which is it?

[Little John]

The scale of economic inequality in the UK



https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/scale- ... quality-uk

Very nearly 50% of this country earns 20k or less. Nearly 30% or so are on 15k or less. Meanwhile, the median average wage is 27k or so. So... that's alright then...

Yeah... right.

And you jokers wonder why Brexit and why Trump

[vtsnowedin]

Going to your link John:
https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/scale- ... quality-uk
Looking at the bottom chart it indicates that income is distributed more fairly in Mexico then in the USA or the UK? That is a bit hard to swallow.

[Little John]

Going to your link John:
https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/scale- ... quality-uk
Looking at the bottom chart it indicates that income is distributed more fairly in Mexico then in the USA or the UK? That is a bit hard to swallow.

No it doesn't indicate that. Mexico is the most unequally distributed. Followed in 2nd place, of course, by the USA. The UK is the 7th most unequally distributed. However, that's still pretty appalling unequally distributed. Sweden is the most equally distributed.

[vtsnowedin]

OK just read it wrong. Unlabeled units will do that to you late at night.

[Little John]

Whilst I can't speak for the USA, though suspect it will be equally as bad if not worse, wealth in Great Britain is even more unequally divided than income. The richest 10% of households hold 45% of all wealth. The poorest 50%, by contrast, own just 8.7%.

[vtsnowedin]

Again wealth is not a zero sum game. The fact that the richest have an enormous amount of wealth does not diminish the wealth that is available for you to acquire.