BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/101 ... -connelly/
Good article from last year - basically negotiators were talking across each other. There's no solution that satisfies all of the red lines.0 -
Some people are proposing the gov't issue a type of catastrophe bond (Cat bond) that believers in Brexit can buy to help fund no deal preps.
If structured correctly, it pays out if catastrophe is avoided/positive gains are made, and leaves them high and dry if catastrophe does occur.
Coopster, you'd presumably re-mortgage your house to buy up as many as possible, right? Assuming you've bought one with a mortgage obviously.
No need to reply, I don't read your messages anyway.0 -
-
“Brexit at any cost.”Rick Chasey wrote:Some people are proposing the gov't issue a type of catastrophe bond (Cat bond) that believers in Brexit can buy to help fund no deal preps.
If structured correctly, it pays out if catastrophe is avoided/positive gains are made, and leaves them high and dry if catastrophe does occur.
Coopster, you'd presumably re-mortgage your house to buy up as many as possible, right? Assuming you've bought one with a mortgage obviously.
No need to reply, I don't read your messages anyway.
“As long as I’m Not picking up the tab.”
Appears to be the mindset.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Free market proponents the Tories have outlined plans to buy up any lamb or beef at the point of slaughter at a pre-determined price in the event of no-deal, as the vast a majority of that meat would normally be exported, but would not be able to.0
-
PBlakeney wrote:
“Brexit at any cost.”Rick Chasey wrote:Some people are proposing the gov't issue a type of catastrophe bond (Cat bond) that believers in Brexit can buy to help fund no deal preps.
If structured correctly, it pays out if catastrophe is avoided/positive gains are made, and leaves them high and dry if catastrophe does occur.
Coopster, you'd presumably re-mortgage your house to buy up as many as possible, right? Assuming you've bought one with a mortgage obviously.
No need to reply, I don't read your messages anyway.
“As long as I’m Not picking up the tab.”
Appears to be the mindset.
Yawn. The losers continue to stamp their feet like a 3yo child
There are many investment options where I can take advantage of an expected emotional response to the UK leaving verses what the reality will be. Remoaners can also put 'their money where there mouth is' if they believe the UK is heading as they are predicting but reality shows they are 'all mouth and no trousers'0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Free market proponents the Tories have outlined plans to buy up any lamb or beef at the point of slaughter at a pre-determined price in the event of no-deal, as the vast a majority of that meat would normally be exported, but would not be able to.
When it is a group of people who campaigned to leave then they should just be left to accept the consequences of their actions. They have to experience bad things so that they can make better decisions in the future.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Free market proponents the Tories have outlined plans to buy up any lamb or beef at the point of slaughter at a pre-determined price in the event of no-deal, as the vast a majority of that meat would normally be exported, but would not be able to.
When it is a group of people who campaigned to leave then they should just be left to accept the consequences of their actions. They have to experience bad things so that they can make better decisions in the future.
They can't really be blamed as they didn't campaign to leave without a deal https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-491658360 -
Coopster the 1st wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
“Brexit at any cost.”Rick Chasey wrote:Some people are proposing the gov't issue a type of catastrophe bond (Cat bond) that believers in Brexit can buy to help fund no deal preps.
If structured correctly, it pays out if catastrophe is avoided/positive gains are made, and leaves them high and dry if catastrophe does occur.
Coopster, you'd presumably re-mortgage your house to buy up as many as possible, right? Assuming you've bought one with a mortgage obviously.
No need to reply, I don't read your messages anyway.
“As long as I’m Not picking up the tab.”
Appears to be the mindset.
Yawn. The losers continue to stamp their feet like a 3yo child
There are many investment options where I can take advantage of an expected emotional response to the UK leaving verses what the reality will be. Remoaners can also put 'their money where there mouth is' if they believe the UK is heading as they are predicting but reality shows they are 'all mouth and no trousers'
Well they all have. Out of the UK, hence the closure of several factories. That is the reality.
As above, the government is having to buy stock of uk producers as they can't export. Again, the reality at present, and likely to be similar for many perishable goods which cannot cross the border in time.
What benefit are you (genuinely) expecting to see?0 -
The UK may have requested the backstop but it has been rejected by parliament as part of the WA - three times.Rick Chasey wrote:But you're not proposing anything. You're just offering examples of British domestic obstinacy about a clause it itself requested.
Why not throw in the threat to blow up the world via MAD without a deal?
It's just useless threats.
Nothing new can be proposed if the EU refuses to budge. Pretty obvious really."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Parliament is highly unlikely to ratify no deal.
There is no leverage on part of the UK
What is the solution the U.K. should propose?
You’re not even saying how the EU should budge.0 -
Parliament has already voted to reject no deal but even if it ratifies that position again, in the absence of striking an agreement of some sort with the EU, then the default is that we leave with no deal on the 31st October with no transition period.Rick Chasey wrote:Parliament is highly unlikely to ratify no deal.
There is no leverage on part of the UK
The only deal on the table is the WA - which has been rejected three times. So how do you think an agreement will be struck that avoids a no deal Brexit?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:DrHaggis wrote:The UK-wide backstop, yes. But the original, NI only, version? Could you share a link?
Was widely reported the case in Europe eg here: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/eco ... -1.3761566
I think this was the original UK proposal, though I have only skimmed it so I might be wrong: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... gement.pdf
Sorry to insist but the Irish Times link, paragraph 3, states " reflected a belated recognition that Northern Ireland remains part of the UK". This implicitly states the backstop being talked there is the UK-wide one, because "no PM would ever agree to split legislation between NI and GB" (Maybot, ages ago).
Similarly, the technical note states (great link, thank you!), on point 4, "the UK is putting forward a proposal for the customs element of the backstop that would apply to customs arrangements between the UK and EU and avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland". This is, again, UK-wide. Then, point 9 begins: "This paper also includes illustrative legal drafting, setting out possible changes to the text of the EU's draft Northern Ireland protocol to give effect to the UK's proposal". So the NI bit is an EU proposal. Then, on Box 1 in page 3, you can see "Northern Ireland" struck through, with "United Kingdom" in place.
I am as far from a lawyer as possible, and it is entirely possible I've misread, misunderstood, and then misinterpreted all of it. But I can't see the NI-only draft being a UK proposal. Happy to be corrected, though.0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
The UK may have requested the backstop but it has been rejected by parliament as part of the WA - three times.Rick Chasey wrote:But you're not proposing anything. You're just offering examples of British domestic obstinacy about a clause it itself requested.
Why not throw in the threat to blow up the world via MAD without a deal?
It's just useless threats.
Nothing new can be proposed if the EU refuses to budge. Pretty obvious really.
Where should we be asking them to move to? I have to say, I think the backstop seems a really bad thing to sign up to. But breaching the terms of the GFA seems bad as well, having a border between Britain and NI seems bad. At some point someone in the UK government has got to decide to accept one of these bad things and own the fact that they have consciously decided to go down a route that means something they don't want has to happen. At the moment it's all positive thinking and hoping it'll all be ok.0 -
The Telegraph
@Telegraph
Sixty backbench Tories will vote down Withdrawal Agreement even if the Irish backstop is removed, warns Mark Francois“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
I wouldn't underestimate the fact that a no deal brexit is the most deliverable outcome.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
TailWindHome wrote:I wouldn't underestimate the fact that a no deal brexit is the most deliverable outcome.
Not strictly true, as repealing article 50 has the advantage of being easily delivered and also not screwing everything up. But within the boundaries of what Boris is likely to do, yes.0 -
Which leaves the question that we don't unequivocally know the answer to.
Can no deal be forced through against parliament wishes or will the will of the house force a GE before that can happen.
It does seem to be a straight up scrap between those two outcomes now and the outcome will probably be determined by some obscure constitutional law.0 -
FFS 2.1Bn to prop up a no deal Brexit.
Where have they found this cash from now?
We are starting to make Third World Governments look slick.0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:TailWindHome wrote:I wouldn't underestimate the fact that a no deal brexit is the most deliverable outcome.
Not strictly true, as repealing article 50 has the advantage of being easily delivered and also not screwing everything up. But within the boundaries of what Boris is likely to do, yes.
Well strictly speaking No Deal can be delivered by doing nothing.
Revocation, at minimum requires writing a letter.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:TailWindHome wrote:I wouldn't underestimate the fact that a no deal brexit is the most deliverable outcome.
Not strictly true, as repealing article 50 has the advantage of being easily delivered and also not screwing everything up. But within the boundaries of what Boris is likely to do, yes.
Well strictly speaking No Deal can be delivered by doing nothing.
Revocation, at minimum requires writing a letter.
I was assuming that task would not be beyond the capability of the government.0 -
morstar wrote:Which leaves the question that we don't unequivocally know the answer to.
Can no deal be forced through against parliament wishes or will the will of the house force a GE before that can happen.
It does seem to be a straight up scrap between those two outcomes now and the outcome will probably be determined by some obscure constitutional law.
No deal doesn't have to be forced through parliament.
Parliament needs to figure out a way to prevent what they've already written into law from happening.
Forcing a GE won't in itself prevent No Deal.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:The Telegraph
@Telegraph
Sixty backbench Tories will vote down Withdrawal Agreement even if the Irish backstop is removed, warns Mark Francois
Interesting that the ultras obviously don't trust Johnson an inch.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
The UK may have requested the backstop but it has been rejected by parliament as part of the WA - three times.Rick Chasey wrote:But you're not proposing anything. You're just offering examples of British domestic obstinacy about a clause it itself requested.
Why not throw in the threat to blow up the world via MAD without a deal?
It's just useless threats.
Nothing new can be proposed if the EU refuses to budge. Pretty obvious really.
Nevertheless, some idea of what would be acceptable to parliament would be a start. Of course we only have a list of things not acceptable to parliament, so I agree things are unlikely to progress at the moment.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
If Boris fails in his tactics of bending the pesky foreigners to his will I can see art 50 come under Parliamentary scrutiny.
Would Boris opt for a GE under those circumstances?“Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring”
Desmond Tutu0 -
rjsterry wrote:TailWindHome wrote:The Telegraph
@Telegraph
Sixty backbench Tories will vote down Withdrawal Agreement even if the Irish backstop is removed, warns Mark Francois
Interesting that the ultras obviously don't trust Johnson an inch.
I mean only 34 tories voted against the third meaningful vote, which had the full backstop. So how does that result in Sixty tories will vote against the WA with no backstop.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
Jez mon wrote:rjsterry wrote:TailWindHome wrote:The Telegraph
@Telegraph
Sixty backbench Tories will vote down Withdrawal Agreement even if the Irish backstop is removed, warns Mark Francois
Interesting that the ultras obviously don't trust Johnson an inch.
I mean only 34 tories voted against the third meaningful vote, which had the full backstop. So how does that result in Sixty tories will vote against the WA with no backstop.
You mean Francois is overstating his position to try to threaten Johnson? Well that can't be right.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
That's the next question.KingstonGraham wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
The UK may have requested the backstop but it has been rejected by parliament as part of the WA - three times.Rick Chasey wrote:But you're not proposing anything. You're just offering examples of British domestic obstinacy about a clause it itself requested.
Why not throw in the threat to blow up the world via MAD without a deal?
It's just useless threats.
Nothing new can be proposed if the EU refuses to budge. Pretty obvious really.
Where should we be asking them to move to? I have to say, I think the backstop seems a really bad thing to sign up to. But breaching the terms of the GFA seems bad as well, having a border between Britain and NI seems bad. At some point someone in the UK government has got to decide to accept one of these bad things and own the fact that they have consciously decided to go down a route that means something they don't want has to happen. At the moment it's all positive thinking and hoping it'll all be ok.
Although do you agree with my logic of what will happen of they don't move?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Agreed.TailWindHome wrote:morstar wrote:Which leaves the question that we don't unequivocally know the answer to.
Can no deal be forced through against parliament wishes or will the will of the house force a GE before that can happen.
It does seem to be a straight up scrap between those two outcomes now and the outcome will probably be determined by some obscure constitutional law.
No deal doesn't have to be forced through parliament.
Parliament needs to figure out a way to prevent what they've already written into law from happening.
Forcing a GE won't in itself prevent No Deal.
If we do nothing, no deal will be the outcome."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Probably borrowed and added to the approx. £2 trillion debt pile that the UK already has. Although if you believe some people on here, it doesn't really matter if we borrow more so what's the issueFenix wrote:FFS 2.1Bn to prop up a no deal Brexit.
Where have they found this cash from now?
We are starting to make Third World Governments look slick.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
