The EU "Deal" - poll!

[Howardh]

Unaccompanied trailers are already a large slice of existing moves. As an aside, any move to unaccompanied or Lo-Lo can only assist railfreight which is no bad thing.

I agree that there should be more frieght on the railways, but I keep hearing that HS2 is to add capacity (so until it's built then is there enough capacity to move more cargo by rail?) and there's only the one channel tunnel, how much more can it take?
These aren't Brexit issues of course, just how can we get more goods off the roads onto rail?

 

[Howardh]

WE also get lots of German diesel cars "of agreed standards" Cough!

How many people eat German diesel cars?
That scandal was wrong, and was against the law and they got hammered for it. Any firm can break a law EU or otherwise. That's why we need stringent EU rules (and after Brexit the likelyhood is the UK government will keep to same).

 

[furnessvale]

How many people eat German diesel cars?
That scandal was wrong, and was against the law and they got hammered for it. Any firm can break a law EU or otherwise. That's why we need stringent EU rules (and after Brexit the likelyhood is the UK government will keep to same).

What a strange comment. How many people drive round on a Spanish tomato? Imports are imports.

 

[nidave]

Can you explain why if the law requires a border how we will have fictionless trade without opening up to everyone and everything - zero tariffs are required to be offered to every country under WTO rules as far as I recall

Edit - edited for clarity I quoted the wrong thing on my mobile and didnt spot it

 

[furnessvale]

I dont understand your comment - can you explain why if the law requires a border how we will have fictionless trade without opening up to everyone and everything - zero tariffs are required to be offered to every country under WTO rules as far as I recall

In turn, I do not understand your comment in context with what I was discussing with Howardh.

 

[nidave]

Rod McKenzie, the RHA's Managing Director of Policy and Public Affairs, appeared on BBC News to discuss the latest developments with in Brexit, and the potential impacts it could have on the haulage industry and the UK economy as a whole.

I would imagine he has some idea what he is talking about.
"we only have 2,000 for 40,000 trucks, that may put some firms out of business.. 1 firm would have 7million customs declarations a week"

 

[furnessvale]

Rod McKenzie, the RHA's Managing Director of Policy and Public Affairs, appeared on BBC News to discuss the latest developments with in Brexit, and the potential impacts it could have on the haulage industry and the UK economy as a whole.

I would imagine he has some idea what he is talking about.
"we only have 2,000 for 40,000 trucks, that may put some firms out of business.. 1 firm would have 7million customs declarations a week"

Anyone would think current trade between EU countries is frictionless. Intrastat says different. New "paperwork" would simply replace existing "paperwork".

 

[EM2]

Anyone would think current trade between EU countries is frictionless. Intrastat says different. New "paperwork" would simply replace existing "paperwork".

You honestly think that that man doesn't know what administration is needed in his own business?

 

[furnessvale]

You honestly think that that man doesn't know what administration is needed in his own business?

I believe him as much as you believe the boss of Wetherspoons.

 

[EM2]

I believe him as much as you believe the boss of Wetherspoons.

I believe that the boss of Wetherspoons understands the administration needed in his company.

 

[Howardh]

Well whoever you believe, people now have to accept that the European Courts say can unilaterally withdraw Article 50 at any time and remain in the EU on exactly the same terms as today. That means if the deal fails May can turn back to the country and ask if WE accept the deal, or whether we want to remain after all. I doubt that no-deal would be an option and the EU won't now alter the terms of the deal - or twaek them at the most - meaning A50 gets extended and a chance to withdraw in the spring.

Looking a bit sunnier this morning.

 

[HH]

No deal is clearly an option; in fact, as the Mogglodytes keep telling us, for some it's the preferred option. Dismissing it out of hand is a bit Ostrich-like.

 

[Howardh]

No deal is clearly an option; in fact, as the Mogglodytes keep telling us, for some it's the preferred option. Dismissing it out of hand is a bit Ostrich-like.

It's an option, but parliament won't vote for it. Even a new PM - Mogg, Boris, Farage.... would still have to get it through parliament. Unless the vote was for the country to become an autocracy/dictatorship.

 

[Howardh]

Sounds like tomorrow's vote has been postopned, a statement in the House later.

 

[nidave]

Probably until after christmas - I mean, she already has her tree up and finding a removal firm over christmas was going to cost a fortune

 

[furnessvale]

I believe that the boss of Wetherspoons understands the administration needed in his company.

Good, so you agree that Brexit can have winners as well as losers.

 

[Howardh]

Good, so you agree that Brexit can have winners as well as losers.

Jacob Rees-Mogg won't be losing out!

 

[EM2]

Good, so you agree that Brexit can have winners as well as losers.

That's always been the case. But none of those winners will be the working or middle class.
Although what that has to do with the amount of administration that will be required without free movement of goods, I have absolutely no idea.

 

[EM2]

And now it's looking very likely that TM is going to postpone the 'meaningful vote' so she can attempt to renegotiate her deal, Arlene Foster has told her that 'the backstop must go', the EU have said there will be no more negotiation, Caroline Lucas and Sir Vince Cable call for a no-confidence vote, and the pound is at its lowest against the dollar since last July.
Live updates from the BBC here - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-parliaments-46506969

 

[furnessvale]

Jacob Rees-Mogg won't be losing out!

Ah, the old Jacob Rees Mogg reply! Even if it were true, which it isn't as simple research into Rees Mogg's dealings in Dublin will demonstrate, do remainers seriously believe there aren't as many, if not more, fat cats desperate to keep ON the EU gravy train.

 

[nidave]

Ah, the old Jacob Rees Mogg reply! Even if it were true, which it isn't as simple research into Rees Mogg's dealings in Dublin will demonstrate, do remainers seriously believe there aren't as many, if not more, fat cats desperate to keep ON the EU gravy train.

Ah the old "fat cats desperate to keep ON the EU gravy train" which it isn't as simple research into the EUs dealing will demonstrate.

The UK has c380k civil servants for 66.02 million (2017)
the EU has c46k civil servants for 512.5 million (2017)

As of the 2014 parliamentary election the number of MEPs is 751 — 750 MEPs and a president — this being the maximum number allowed by the Lisbon Treaty.

2010–15 650 MPs & Currently, there are about 800 members who are eligible to take part in the work of the House of Lords. The majority are life peers. Others include 26 archbishops and bishops and 92 hereditary peers.

 

[furnessvale]

Ah the old "fat cats desperate to keep ON the EU gravy train" which it isn't as simple research into the EUs dealing will demonstrate.

The UK has c380k civil servants for 66.02 million (2017)
the EU has c46k civil servants for 512.5 million (2017)

As of the 2014 parliamentary election the number of MEPs is 751 — 750 MEPs and a president — this being the maximum number allowed by the Lisbon Treaty.

2010–15 650 MPs & Currently, there are about 800 members who are eligible to take part in the work of the House of Lords. The majority are life peers. Others include 26 archbishops and bishops and 92 hereditary peers.

All very interesting but there are MANY fat cat businessmen who see THEIR future in the EU.

 

[EM2]

And it appears that the Speaker is not enamoured of Mrs May's shenanigans:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-parliaments-46506969

Speaker John Bercow says that although the intention to halt the debate has been "widely leaked in advance", he thought it appropriate to hear what was said by the PM before giving his opinion.

Halting the Brexit debate "after no fewer than 164 colleagues" have already spoken would be considered "deeply discourteous", he says, something many have expressed to him "in the most forceful terms".

Having taken procedural advice, he says there are two options:

• The first, which he says would be preferable, would be that a minister move at the beginning of the debate that it be adjourned. This would give MPs the opportunity to vote and give its view. He says he would accept that motion.
• The alternative would be for the government to "decline to move" the day's business, which would "deprive" MPs the opportunity to give a view.

"In any courteous, respectful and mature environment" he says letting MPs have a say "would be the right and obvious court to take".

He points out that ministers have assured the public over and over again that the vote will take place on Tuesday, adding that they may "wish to rise to the occasion".

 

[nidave]

All very interesting but there are MANY fat cat businessmen who see THEIR future in the EU.

All very interesting but there are MANY fat cat businessmen who see THEIR future in the BREXIT

Excatly the same can be said about the rich people of the UK - How many jobs for the boys were given to UK companies by politicans who were responsable for agrreeing the contracts.

 

[EM2]

A thought occurs.
The UK joined the EEC in 1973, and two years later, once we knew what was involved and how it affected the country (for good or ill), we were given a vote on whether to remain on those terms or to leave.
So, now we've decided to leave, and two years later, once we know what is involved and how it will affect the country (for good or ill), why can't we be given a vote on whether to leave on those terms or to remain?

 

[3141]

A thought occurs.
The UK joined the EEC in 1973, and two years later, once we knew what was involved and how it affected the country (for good or ill), we were given a vote on whether to remain on those terms or to leave.
So, now we've decided to leave, and two years later, once we know what is involved and how it will affect the country (for good or ill), why can't we be given a vote on whether to leave on those terms or to remain?

Because the Brexiteers are afraid it might go against them.

But actually I'm not at all sure about that. Which side would have the stronger incentive to turn out and vote? It should be Remain, seeking to avert national suicide. But Brexiteers are also passionate about wanting to return to a fondly-misremembered past, or just to strike a blow against "the establishment" as they perceive it, and they'd be encouraged by people like Liam Fox going on about MPs "stealing" Brexit, or Boris Johnson desperate to rescue his disappearing ambition to become PM. Human beings don't like to admit they were wrong, so I'm not confident that any Leaver who now realises how dangerous leaving would be would actually vote remain in another referendum. They might just abstain. Meanwhile, the Labour Party is more interested in gaining power than in working for the right way out of the mess we are in.

 

[HH]

Because the Brexiteers are afraid it might go against them.

But actually I'm not at all sure about that. Which side would have the stronger incentive to turn out and vote? It should be Remain, seeking to avert national suicide. But Brexiteers are also passionate about wanting to return to a fondly-misremembered past, or just to strike a blow against "the establishment" as they perceive it, and they'd be encouraged by people like Liam Fox going on about MPs "stealing" Brexit, or Boris Johnson desperate to rescue his disappearing ambition to become PM. Human beings don't like to admit they were wrong, so I'm not confident that any Leaver who now realises how dangerous leaving would be would actually vote remain in another referendum. They might just abstain. Meanwhile, the Labour Party is more interested in gaining power than in working for the right way out of the mess we are in.

There are a number, who voted leave that have now realised they were lied to and that they are not going to get what they thought they would out of it. However, there are also some who voted remain that have been shocked by the intransigence of the EU and would now vote leave. There are many who are sick of the very word Brexit and who probably wouldn't bother voting again, which makes the whole result very difficult to predict. And then there's the two years of changing voter demographic. What is clear is that the vote would be very close again and extend the division in the country; not that it's going to go away any time soon anyway.

Of course the very notion of Brexit is based on a false premise - that if we're outside the EU we will control our borders; the stats on non-EU immigration prove that to be nonsensical.

 

[EM2]

JR-M says on BBC Breakfast that the key thing is that we leave the EU. So he surely should be happy with TM's deal, or a Norway solution, or a Switzerland solution, or any other option that means that we are no longer members?

 

[Howardh]

JR-M says on BBC Breakfast that the key thing is that we leave the EU. So he surely should be happy with TM's deal, or a Norway solution, or a Switzerland solution, or any other option that means that we are no longer members?

Well, if he wants to vote the government down he can, so he can leave the EU under Labour's plans. Will he thump.
The guy's history!

 

[Howardh]

May's deal is going nowhere, the EU won't back down in the slightest....