In or out?

[Alan H]

Latest post of the previous page:

May doesn't have an answer, a plan or a clue: Theresa May refuses to say if her 'baffling' customs plan requires EU border staff to collect duties for UK

Theresa May has refused to say whether her customs plan requires EU border staff to collect duties for the UK after Brexit, prompting an accusation that she is “not being straight”.

Under fierce questioning, the prime minister declined – four times – to explain how her “facilitated customs arrangement” will work, even as she seeks agreement in Brussels.

Asked repeatedly if payments would have to be collected at borders – something the EU is expected to reject – she would go no further than the need to agree a “tariff revenue formula”.

Several times, Ms May said that “what matters is what money comes to the United Kingdom”, eventually suggesting it was a matter for the negotiations.

At one point, a flustered prime minister referred mistakenly to a “future customs arrangement” and a “facilitated customs agreement”.

Yvette Cooper, the Labour chairwoman of the Commons home affairs committee, went on the attack, saying: “I’m really baffled as to what’s going to happen.”

She said: “Don’t you have a problem that you are not being straight about the language and about what it is you are actually proposing?

“So, everybody is confused and, as a result, no one trusts what the government is doing.”

[Alan H]

Who knew?

screenshot-tweetdeck.twitter.com-2018-07-18-23-55-14-338.png (272.78 KiB) Viewed 2632 times

[animist]

I watched last week's "Question Time", which is increasingly and predictably dominated by the Brexit mess. I would just like to focus on one argument over the "no-deal" scenario. This is that Britain must appear - and become - prepared for this outcome, because to fail to do so would undermine our negotiating status, and this was the argument of panellists Charles Moore, Piers Morgan and, I think, of the Tory minister present. I've written this little piece below as I think that Remainers may be failing to deal with the Leave argument as they should do.

The Leave argument is that any negotiation process requires that the home side can show that, although it desires a deal with the opposite side, it does not need it. My contention is that normal negotiation rules do not apply to Britain over Brexit for the following reasons:

1 In fact we in Britain are not preparing for no-deal, just talking about it (I don't know that the EU is preparing much either, but then it has barely been involved by the British negotiators, so how can it know what to do? Is it supposed to waste money on making preparations which some new turn in British domestic politics makes unnecessary?) So any reasonable onlooker would conclude that the no-deal preparation tactic is mere bluff. The very fact that, in broad daylight, this argument is being made severely weakens it: what I mean is that one cannot hope to convince the other side in an antagonistic negotiation that one is strong if one makes it blindingly obvious that this is a deliberate negotiating ploy. The EU knows how divided we are and, I imagine, will take full advantage of this knowledge - although I have sufficient faith in the good sense of the EU negotiators to believe them when they say that they would find it easier to negotiate with a stable and united partner than one which exhibits the chaos of the Tory party at present.

2 But more centrally still, Brexit differs from normal business negotiations IMO because in the latter - and let's take the recently completed trade deal between the EU and Japan as an example - both sides really do have an option to walk away from the negotiation. Neither the EU nor Japan is radically attempting to change their position in the international arena by entering into a possible deal with the other, and so neither side actually needs a deal - both sides will be much the same if the dealmaking were to fail. But Britain has no idea where it is going and therefore really does need a deal with the EU. It has no idea of what dependence on WTO rules would mean for its international trade (on which its industries depend) and it must know that no-deal means a largescale decrease in the trade with the EU which has been central to its trading relations for many decades. It has made no real progress in securing new partners for potential international trade deals, and the most obvious candidate for a new trade deal, the USA, is led by an egotistical and unstable President who is actually stifling international trade by erecting new tariffs. How then can "no-deal" be an option for a sane government? But then, do we have a sane government?

[animist]

"The cheating of Jo Swinson has exposed the UK parliament’s rotten core"

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... otten-core

[Alan H]

How then can "no-deal" be an option for a sane government? But then, do we have a sane government?

Indeed. The no-deal scenario is simply posturing for the sake of the hard Brexiteers who believe this is a viable option: they have to believe that because they once said it and cannot ever be seen to backtrack. In fact, not only viable, but a superior and fundamentally necessary state.

Your last question... QTWTAIN.

[Alan H]

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Brexit: Watchdog warns of need to issue driving permits

Plans are being drawn up to issue millions of permits so Britons can drive on EU roads after Brexit.

Up to seven million International Driving Permits could be needed inside a year if the UK and the EU do not agree to mutually recognise licences, the National Audit Office (NAO) says.

The public spending watchdog warned that "detailed delivery plans" had not yet been completed.

But the government told it the project was "deliverable".

The NAO report looks at how the Department for Transport is preparing for the UK's departure from the EU in March 2019.

It said the department had made a "determined effort" to address the "significant and complex challenge" of Brexit - but "still has much to do" with an increasing risk that projects will not be delivered on time.

Currently, UK driving licences are valid in all EU countries, plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.

But unless a specific agreement is reached, UK drivers will need "additional documentation" in Europe after Brexit, the report says.

The government's preparations for this scenario include ratifying a 1968 road traffic convention so International Driving Permits are recognised.

About 100,000 of these documents - which cost £5.50 and take about five minutes to apply for - are currently issued each year, and they are recommended or required in more than 140 countries worldwide.

This could increase to seven million permits being issued by 4,500 Post Offices in the first year of Brexit unless a deal is agreed, the NAO report says.

[Alan H]

Jo Swinson pairing row: Conservatives admit chief whip asked MPs to break arrangements

As a friend said on Facebook:

So to recap:
Vote.Leave = cheating twats.
Leave.EU = cheating twats.
The Conservative party = cheating twats.

[Alan H]

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? UK economy will suffer more than EU in 'no deal' Brexit scenario, warns IMF

The UK economy would suffer more than the EU in the event of a “no deal” Brexit, new research from the International Monetary Fund shows.

A new modelling exercise from the IMF, which factors in disruption to corporate supply chains, suggests that the EU economy could take a hit of up to 1.5 per cent of GDP over the long term if the UK leaves the EU without any kind of trade deal and only trades on bare World Trade Organisation terms.

That compares to a roughly 4 per cent of GDP hit for the UK.

The Washington-based organisation noted that other estimates of the long term economic damage to the UK from a no deal Brexit were also high.

The OECD estimated before the referendum that a WTO Brexit could cost the UK up to 5.1 per cent of GDP over 15 years. A study by the London School of Economics estimated a 9.5 per cent hit.

And the government’s own leaked internal analysis of a WTO Brexit estimated a GDP loss of up to 10.3 per cent.

[Alan H]

Ian Dunt's Friday email:

None of it made sense, on any level. It was a week where the logical contours of Brexit simply disintegrated. Outside Westminster, people would ask in ever-more baffled terms what was happening. But by explaining it you felt like perhaps you were losing touch with reality yourself.

The government had backed an amendment against its negotiating posture so that it could make its own Brexit plan illegal. It then whipped MPs to oppose an amendment supporting its white paper and had to rely on the votes of Labour MPs to defeat itself. It was like Alice Through the Looking Glass. Everything was back to front.

How had it come to this? The main reason was cowardice. No.10 couldn't stand up the Brexit hardliners in the European Research Group (ERG), even though they had the numbers. It was simply too embarrassing for them to see huge chunks of their own party vote against the government’s line. So they buckled on four amendments - all of them constructed to derail the white paper on a customs partnership and single market in goods which the government had published the week before.

On Thursday last week, MPs had been ordered to speak gushingly about a plan which would see Britain collect tariffs for the EU but not the other way round. Now they were being whipped to support an amendment which would outlaw non-reciprocal tariff collection.

What was wisdom days earlier was now heresy. Except that it would later convert into wisdom again because the government insisted the plan was still formal policy. Policies were going from wisdom to heresy and back again in the course of an afternoon. And then, as events escalated, they finally merged to become wisdom and heresy simultaneously. Each was operating at a different vibrational frequency in the same space. A plan could be both wise when proposed by Downing Street and heresy when Jacob Rees-Mogg said so and yet retain the same fundamental components throughout.

Some legal figures believe the government might technically be able to get away with this by relying on the use of a formula to calculate tariffs in their customs plan. It is worth mentioning at this stage that the customs plan this entire debate is based on would never be accepted by the EU and will never exist. You might as well work out the legality of customs arrangements in Lords of the Rings or the immigration policy in Teletubbies. But regardless, it is on this next-level fantasy setting that British governance now rests.

There were no technical evasions available to the Ireland amendment, however. This made it unlawful to pursue a policy which would create a separate customs territory between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, even though this is precisely what the withdrawal agreement with the EU will do. Now this will presumably have to be repealed before any agreement can be signed. Rarely before have governments passed laws they intend to repeal before they have even reached the statute book.

The next day whips used every dirty trick in the book to vote down an amendment which was ostensibly designed to support their own position. The madness continued, it simply flipped round to face the other way. The crucial vote was on a demand that the government pursue its customs partnership plan, albeit with a membership backstop if they hadn't succeeded by January.

Not only did the government oppose its own strategy - it went haywire. It seems likely now that the whips went against any notion of basic parliamentary honour and broke the pairing system. This basically sees MPs on one side abstain to balance out the MPs on the other side who cannot attend due to sickness or because they are looking after babies. Lib Dem Jo Swinson, who was at home with a newborn, was left aghast when her pair, Brandon Lewis, went in to vote. He claimed it was an error. But it seemed astounding that his error only took place on the two closest votes.

It was telling that the Tory rebels held their nerve this time, despite all the threats which came their way. But the government was, in the end, saved by Labour Leavers: Kate Hoey, Frank Field, John Mann, Graham Stringer and Kelvin Hopkins. They had stepped in at the last minute to protect Theresa May and prevent even the most modest of compromises.

It is quite astonishing, from this vantage point, to consider how extreme their position has become. It is not as if the amendment mentioned the single market or something substantial. This was on a customs partnership, which is in itself a compromise to avoid customs union membership. The fact they would protect a Tory prime minister in order to secure such a trivial aim shows how fanatical the entire debate has become.

The Brexit project is now at a standstill. May's Chequers compromise needed further concessions in order to pass. It is now clear she has no hope of winning a Commons majority for them. But if she does not - most importantly on Ireland - she cannot secure a deal. And the idea of leaving the EU without one has no Commons majority either.

There are no exits to the building May is in. The walls are on fire. It is hardly surprising that the most ambitious plan Downing Street came up with this week was to cut short the parliamentary term and send MPs home early. As one history buff observed on Twitter, there was a newfound historical irony to the prime minister. She had stuffed these bills full of Henry VIII powers but was behaving like Charles I. That didn't end well for him either.

Meanwhile, in Europe, Brussels was issuing a 16-page warning about no-deal. Visas could be required even for tourist travel. There would be chaos in financial services, aviation and pharmaceuticals. The trading links would detonate.

It should sharpen minds in Westminster. But it will not. The people who do not know the consequences of the UK's current course of action have chosen not to know. This became a religious debate about identity long ago. If objective reality had anything to do with it, we wouldn't have seen the events of this week in the first place.

[Alan H]

The EU's chief Brexit negotiator effectively cut down Theresa May's proposals for customs arrangements today, suggesting they were not workab

Mrs May's proposal for a "facilitated customs arrangement" opened up the risk of major fraud, additional bureaucracy and damage to EU businesses, he said.

Yes, but BLUE PASSPORTS!!!

[Alan H]

Brexit: What happens to Britain if the UK leaves the EU without a deal?

With the EU and UK issuing guidance on preparations for a no-deal Brexit, here are some pointers on what leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement on March 29th, 2019 might mean.

• The status of the 300-mile Northern Irish border with the Republic would be unresolved. Both London and Dublin have said they will not put physical infrastructure on the border. But the Republic would come under intense pressure from Brussels to exert customs and immigration controls on what would become a new external frontier for the EU.
• There would be no 21-month transition period to December 2020, so businesses and public bodies would have to respond immediately to changes in the rules governing their operations.
• Protections for expatriates agreed as part of withdrawal negotiations could be torn up, creating uncertainty over the legal rights to live and work of 1.3 Britons in EU states and 3.7 million Europeans in the UK.
• Relevant EU laws would be transferred onto the UK statute book under the terms of the EU Withdrawal Act, so there would be no black holes in Britain’s lawbook.
• The most immediately visible impact would probably be at borders and ports, with fears of long queues if either side decides to impose heightened passport or customs checks. The UK would be free to set its own controls on immigration by EU nationals.
• Delays to cross-Channel freight due to new customs, sanitary and phytosanitary checks could hit supplies of food and other goods. Britain could opt to waive checks to help keep traffic moving, but this may not be matched by the EU.
• Without a trade deal for goods, the UK would have to fall back on World Trade Organisation rules, which require tariffs on products ranging from 4 per cent on liquefied natural gas to 9.8 per cent on cars and 32 per cent on wine. Britain would trade with the EU under the WTO’s “most favoured nation” status, preventing either side from imposing punitive tariffs, but the move away from frictionless zero-tariff trade is certain to drive up prices in the shops.
• Britain would be free to sign new free trade deals with countries around the world, and negotiations would get under way in earnest with states like the US and Australia. But these talks could last years, and in the meantime, the UK would lose access to free trade deals the EU has struck with dozens of countries, including Japan, Canada and South Korea.
• Opponents of a no-deal Brexit warn that major manufacturers in sectors like automotive, aerospace and pharmaceuticals would shift operations from the UK into the remaining 27 EU states in order to avoid delays and disruption to products and components crossing the border.
• Financial institutions in the City of London and other centres around the UK would lose their “passporting” rights to operate in EU countries, and could activate contingency plans to move some or all of their operations overseas.
• The UK’s annual contributions of around £13 billion to EU budgets would cease, providing an instant windfall to the Government. But there would be pressure on ministers to make up the loss of Common Agricultural Policy subsidies totalling £3 billion to farmers, as well as EU support for science and disadvantaged regions.
• New arrangements would have to be made to certify UK aviation for safety in order to ensure that planes are not grounded.
• Britain’s agreement to pay a “divorce bill” of up to £39 billion would be void, and a House of Lords report has suggested that the money would no longer be payable. But some legal experts believe the EU could take the UK to the International Court of Justice to recoup the cash, which represents payments to which Britain committed itself while a member.
• Britain would no longer be bound by the rulings of the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. But it would continue to be subject to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which is not an EU body.
• Professionals may find that qualifications obtained in the UK are no longer recognised in EU states, and may have to obtain new authorisations in order to continue to practise.
• Individuals and businesses could lose the right to apply for EU grants or tender for work with EU institutions. - PA

[Alan H]

'Forces of darkness have taken over': Soubry accuses May of capitulating to hardline Brexiters

The MP said she had been told by the Tory chief whip, Julian Smith, on Monday afternoon that “80 Conservatives, including a large number of members of the government” had told him they would not support the customs bill unless May accepted the ERG amendments.

That would have been enough to topple a flagship piece of Brexit legislation, and forced No 10 to agree to the amendments, one of which was designed to frustrate her proposals for a customs arrangement in which HM Revenue & Customs could collect some duties on behalf of the European Union.

The MP said she believed the ERG were “ruthless bastards” who would stop at nothing because they believed their cause was “bigger than anything else”. She added: “Now that the forces of darkness have got the prize in sight, they are going for it. I’m afraid that Theresa has embraced these people, they are now running Theresa.”

[Alan H]

Brexit’s Bitter Pill – How Significant Was the Government’s Defeat on the Trade Bill Amendment?

[Alan H]

Theresa May’s lack of preparedness for Brexit has been cruelly exposed

The Home Office is unable to say how many customs officers are currently deployed – let alone how many it will need when we leave the EU

[Alan H]

The Tory Brexit farce continues: ‘Saving’ the repeal of EU law really means ignoring Brexit day

[Alan H]

What Trading On WTO Rules Actually Means: An Expert's Alarming Explanation

[Alan H]

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Michel Barnier tears up Theresa May's Brexit customs proposals

But echoing the language of Theresa May on her goals for Brexit, Barnier responded: “Maintaining control of our money, law and borders also applies to the EU customs policy. The EU cannot and will not delegate the application of its customs policy and rules, VAT and duty collection to a non-member who would not be subject to the EU governance structures.

That, I think, gets to the heart of May's nonsense proposals.

We have something like 110 House of Commons sitting days left before we crash out of the EU without a deal.

[Alan H]

BREAKING: Plans for Brexit 'well advanced' says Dominic Raab as latest 'no-deal' Port of Dover contingency map leaked:

Port of Dover plan.jpeg (107.03 KiB) Viewed 2410 times

[Alan H]

Wow. Vote Leave's targeted Brexit ads released by Facebook

[animist]

BREAKING: Plans for Brexit 'well advanced' says Dominic Raab as latest 'no-deal' Port of Dover contingency map leaked:

Port of Dover plan.jpeg

[animist]

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Michel Barnier tears up Theresa May's Brexit customs proposals

But echoing the language of Theresa May on her goals for Brexit, Barnier responded: “Maintaining control of our money, law and borders also applies to the EU customs policy. The EU cannot and will not delegate the application of its customs policy and rules, VAT and duty collection to a non-member who would not be subject to the EU governance structures.

That, I think, gets to the heart of May's nonsense proposals.

We have something like 110 House of Commons sitting days left before we crash out of the EU without a deal.

so Raab thinks that Britain is already a third country - no. Anyway, with language as strong as Barnier's and only eight months to go, surely the EU will not betray rationality and itself by weakening its position - I trust