Deal or No Deal ?

[Confused52]

Asp, Are you sure about that? My understanding is that there will be no border checks but there is a tariff on the agricultural products that the Irish export to us. There will also be tariffs on NI products going to the Republic. So there will be more demand for NI products and an increase in the price of some products in the UK by applying tariffs to EU products. For that reason Farmers in the Republic need to complain to the Irish government.

[Observer II]

It was a ploy Dave, inserted at the request of the Irish, in order to keep N/Ireland in the customs union and thereby bring the Union of the island of Ireland closer - but it seems to have backfired.  The reason the EU is unlikely to grant an extension is (a) as they say - the UK is not coming up with anything of substance, and the "deal" was their last offer. and (b) they don't want disruptive eurosceptic Brits in the new EU Parliament led by Farage.; which would be highly likely if the clock goes past May. What we are now seeing in Parliament is positioning for the blame game that will follow a no deal Brexit;  so more pointing of fingers and denials of who voted for what - clearly the worst bunch of MPs since Cromwell turfed a shower of these deadbeats  out 

[asperity]

2 hours ago, Confused52 said:

Asp, Are you sure about that? My understanding is that there will be no border checks but there is a tariff on the agricultural products that the Irish export to us. There will also be tariffs on NI products going to the Republic. So there will be more demand for NI products and an increase in the price of some products in the UK by applying tariffs to EU products. For that reason Farmers in the Republic need to complain to the Irish government.

What I was given to understand was that the government intend to have no tariffs in place for inports into NI from the Republic to avoid having a hard border. Tariffs in line with the EU will obviously in place on the Republic side of the border but, of course, such tariffs are payable by the importer. This is probably why the Irish farmers are complaining but any complaints should be directed at the Taoiseach.

[Davy51]

Yes, tariff free south to north ,tariff to pay north to south. 

[Confused52]

39 minutes ago, asperity said:

What I was given to understand was that the government intend to have no tariffs in place for inports into NI from the Republic to avoid having a hard border. Tariffs in line with the EU will obviously in place on the Republic side of the border but, of course, such tariffs are payable by the importer. This is probably why the Irish farmers are complaining but any complaints should be directed at the Taoiseach.

But the main Irish exports of food are to  GB and not just NI. Imports into GB will attract a tariff. Wetherspoons will need to change back British steaks for example.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/proposed-tariff-regime-would-be-disastrous-for-irish-food-exports-1.3824084

[asperity]

And what is wrong with British beef Confused?

[Confused52]

Nothing at all but there could be a shortage as the Irish products are substituted and the price will go up. Spoons can then go back to the full range which they had before changing to an Irish wholesale supplier. Tim Martin will be overjoyed don't you think?

[asperity]

The cost of Argentine beef will go down because it won't be subject to EU level tariffs.

[Evil Sid]

Does that mean fray bentos pies will be cheaper as well?

[Davy51]

14 hours ago, Confused52 said:

But the main Irish exports of food are to  GB and not just NI. Imports into GB will attract a tariff. Wetherspoons will need to change back British steaks for example.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/proposed-tariff-regime-would-be-disastrous-for-irish-food-exports-1.3824084

Won't mainland Britain  be able to source its Irish tariff free meat & produce via NI ?

[Confused52]

52 minutes ago, Davy51 said:

Won't mainland Britain  be able to source its Irish tariff free meat & produce via NI ?

I suspect that would be evading the payment of import duty, that is to say smuggling. The purpose of this duty is to protect British farmers and the victim that it will hurt most is Ireland, however that is pretty much their own fault for their intransigence and they have already asked the EU for a bale-out just in case. The EU may not be so keen on paying if they are not going to get as much money.

They aren't going as far as they could, such as a £100+ surcharge on every container going from the Continent to Ireland via the UK where the transport firm does not have its head office in the UK, lets see how fast they can build new ports. Of course the mitigation that is cheapest is to give the haulage jobs to British firms and save all the expense and increase the income tax receipts at the same time.

[Observer II]

See Tusk is talking about a lengthy extension to article 50, seems the continued payment of £billions into EU coffers, by the UK;  trumps the inconvenience of a mob of Brexiteers in the EU Parliament, led by Farage.   

[asperity]

https://youtu.be/8dMI0hngsKw

[Confused52]

So what do you think of Labour's refusal to support a motion that proposes a second referendum on today's commons order paper. Why don't I hear shouts of duplicitous this or that?

[Davy51]

What happens if said extended delay clashes with the Lisbon Treaty being fully implemented ? Are we then trapped for good ?

[Davy51]

43 minutes ago, Confused52 said:

So what do you think of Labour's refusal to support a motion that proposes a second referendum on today's commons order paper. Why don't I hear shouts of duplicitous this or that?

I think a second referendum would have so many alternatives that it would probably not give a clear mandate for any way forward.

[Confused52]

9 minutes ago, Davy51 said:

What happens if said extended delay clashes with the Lisbon Treaty being fully implemented ? Are we then trapped for good ?

Do you have something particular in mind? The Treaty of Lisbon came into force on the 1st December 2009 and there has been no further change to the treaties since of which I am aware. There will need to be technical changes if and when we leave to adjust majority voting weights and numbers of parliamentary seats but they will probably by Council Decisions or the like which do not require treaty changes. I don't think it matters how long the delay is other than diluting the will of the public and relieving the burden of change of the EU budget contributions. They will still need to start spending less as soon as they can.

[Confused52]

20 minutes ago, Davy51 said:

I think a second referendum would have so many alternatives that it would probably not give a clear mandate for any way forward.

For the avoidance of doubt I am not in favour of holding another referendum on ANY subject whatever other than council tax levels.

However the rules do permit one or more questions and at least two answers to each question. The situation you describe could be addressed by offering multiple responses to a question of what you would like to happen using ranking of choices with a Single Transferable Vote between propositions. This would require each proposition to be counted as first, second or third choice for each vote and the total number of 1st, 2nd and 3rd choices to be counted (for the explanation I limited it to three but it could be more if they could be clearly fitted onto a ballot paper in an understandable fashion). The winning proposition is them found by setting a margin by which a proposition must beat others and then comparing, in turn, the 1st choices, 1st and 2nd choices taken together, then 1st, 2nd and 3rd choices taken together as needed until one proposition wins by the chosen margin. If no proposition wins by the relevant margin there is no preference and the Government should have made clear what it will do it the act that establishes the margin.

I think it could handle up to four choices easily enough but the various camps may still not be grown up enough to do it properly. However STV does allow you to get a clear answer. In some versions you eliminate the lowest scoring proposition at each vote transfer which mean that by the last transfer there may only be two propositions left and the preference count heavily. The voting system is specified in the Act for the referendum and you can engineer a solid result if you have that default choice.

[Observer II]

This playing with options is precisely why MPs have tied themselves up in knots.  The choice was REMAIN or LEAVE,  clear binary choice.   There was nothing mentioned on the ballot form about a deal, there was no mention of a soft or hard Brexit.  All these soft options have been thrown into the mix in order to create the confusion that has occured, and ultimately kill Brexit off. LEAVE - means leaving the EU:  which requires leaving the single market (with it's obligation to free movement); leaving the customs union (with it's prohibition of unilateral trade agreements) and leaving the ECJ (with it's overiding legal authority).  The only true response imo, to the referendum decision would be a clean break on the 29th March;  which would end all the uncertainty.    The simplest way to involve the public would be a G/Election (which Corbyn is asking for !);  which would provide an opportunity to rid Parliament of the Remoaner MPs who have created this shamefull mess.

[Confused52]

26 minutes ago, Observer II said:

This playing with options is precisely why MPs have tied themselves up in knots.  The choice was REMAIN or LEAVE,  clear binary choice.   There was nothing mentioned on the ballot form about a deal, there was no mention of a soft or hard Brexit.  All these soft options have been thrown into the mix in order to create the confusion that has occured, and ultimately kill Brexit off. LEAVE - means leaving the EU:  which requires leaving the single market (with it's obligation to free movement); leaving the customs union (with it's prohibition of unilateral trade agreements) and leaving the ECJ (with it's overiding legal authority).  The only true response imo, to the referendum decision would be a clean break on the 29th March;  which would end all the uncertainty.    The simplest way to involve the public would be a G/Election (which Corbyn is asking for !);  which would provide an opportunity to rid Parliament of the Remoaner MPs who have created this shamefull mess.

Yes I know your opinion on the matter. But the point Davy raised was about a second referendum, your response did not address that point to which I was responding. Secondly anything that Corbyn wants should set off alarm bells and be avoided by anyone who is a democrat and wants to protect his country from ruinous a Leninist catastrophe. Another General Election where everyone votes for the parties their Grandad supported based on the policies of Keir Hardie, Clement Atlee and Vladimir Lenin is the last thing we need.

[Davy51]

1 hour ago, Confused52 said:

Do you have something particular in mind? The Treaty of Lisbon came into force on the 1st December 2009 and there has been no further change to the treaties since of which I am aware. There will need to be technical changes if and when we leave to adjust majority voting weights and numbers of parliamentary seats but they will probably by Council Decisions or the like which do not require treaty changes. I don't think it matters how long the delay is other than diluting the will of the public and relieving the burden of change of the EU budget contributions. They will still need to start spending less as soon as they can.

I believe the stranglehold of the Lisbon Treaty will not be fully felt until 2021 when every country that signed up is sucked into its grip.

[Observer II]

51 minutes ago, Confused52 said:

Yes I know your opinion on the matter. But the point Davy raised was about a second referendum, your response did not address that point to which I was responding. Secondly anything that Corbyn wants should set off alarm bells and be avoided by anyone who is a democrat and wants to protect his country from ruinous a Leninist catastrophe. Another General Election where everyone votes for the parties their Grandad supported based on the policies of Keir Hardie, Clement Atlee and Vladimir Lenin is the last thing we need.

I don't think the tribal vote applies anymore Con;  the only tribes now are LEAVE or REMAIN;  and if that is applied to a G/Election I believe Labour and Tory (Remainers) will  suffer.  It's now for the Tories to deselect all their Remainers and replace them with Brexiteers or for Farage's new Party to stand against them.  I would hope that the disgust and embarrassment that the electorate now have for this shower of MPs, would show itself in such an election, if not, then the people can take the blame themselves. btw: there's nothing wrong imo with the policies of  Clement Atlee,  but we have to sort out Brexit first, before we move onto anything else.

[Confused52]

Obs, I am also aware of your opinion on Atlee's policies and in particular Nationalisation. I regard that as wrong headed and if you think tribalism is dead you will be disappointed at the WBC elections and the next General Election. Too many voters do not take it seriously enough to do otherwise. I have seen too many versions of new politics turn to dust.

[Observer II]

Sadly, most folk who are disgusted with politicians don't vote at all, thus low turnouts permit the same old, same old to get elected. As I understand it, the referendum turnout was reasonably high.  The antics in parliament have been a lesson on the true nature of politics and politicians, and one hopes the electorate have learned that lesson.

[Confused52]

1 hour ago, Davy51 said:

I believe the stranglehold of the Lisbon Treaty will not be fully felt until 2021 when every country that signed up is sucked into its grip.

That is intriguing. I have searched the consolidated text of the EU treaties after incorporating the Lisbon Treaty ( which can be found Here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228848/7310.pdf) and the string 2021 does not appear anywhere in the 336 pages. I wonder if you can remember where to picked this up from.

Some newspapers have suggested that the issue with 2021 is the budget framework and the reason the EU wants to make us pay our budget contributions up to 2020 is to not cancel regional aid programmes that are committed in the current budget round. The next Multiannual Financial Framework runs from 2021 to 2027 and has to take account of the loss of UK net contributions which will cut 5% of CAP and Cohesion Fund spending as well as reduction in the number of programmes. The new budget is not actually the consequence of Lisbon and I would like to understand the issue.