Brexit News For Brexiteers, please see the link

[Alan H]

Latest post of the previous page:

You'll like this, coffee:

2019-01-27_18h22_32.jpg (130.25 KiB) Viewed 5369 times

[Alan H]

Fantastic, eh, coffee? UK cannot simply trade on WTO terms after no-deal Brexit, say experts

The UK will be unable to have frictionless, tariff-free trade under World Trade Organization rules for up to seven years in the event of a no-deal Brexit, according to two leading European Union law specialists.

The ensuing chaos could double food prices and plunge Britain into a recession that could last up to 30 years, claim the lawyers who acted for Gina Miller in the historic case that forced the government to seek parliament’s approval to leave the EU.

It has been claimed that the UK could simply move to WTO terms if there is no deal with the EU. But Anneli Howard, a specialist in EU and competition law at Monckton Chambers and a member of the bar’s Brexit working group, believes this isn’t true.

“No deal means leaving with nothing,” she said. “The anticipated recession will be worse than the 1930s, let alone 2008. It is impossible to say how long it would go on for. Some economists say 10 years, others say the effects could be felt for 20 or even 30 years: even ardent Brexiters agree it could be decades.”

When's the Brexit Bonus Bonanza due?

[Alan H]

Seen on Twitter:

How many Brexiters does it take to change a light bulb?

One to smash the working bulb.

[Alan H]

We've gone from sunlit uplands, green pastures, £350 million a week for the NHS, rainbows, unicorns, easy free-trade deals, no downsides to Brexit, taking back control, countries beating a path to our door to do business, glory, Empire 2.0 to "we may not have enough food and medicines to survive and we might have to impose martial law to stamp out food rioters on the streets..."

The government is ‘planning for martial law’ after a no-deal Brexit and everyone is worried

How the fuck did we get here, coffee? Anything to do with lies and misinformation and a Leave campaign led by lying self-serving, ignorant donkeys do you think?

And call out the Reservists. But interesting to see that the Government thinks civil unrest and the effects of a no-deal Brexit will be all over by 9 February 2020.

[Alan H]

What proportion, I wonder, of those who voted to leave the EU, voted for empty shelves? No-deal Brexit 'to leave shelves empty' warn retailers

[Alan H]

We've not left, yet Brexiteers have already severely damaged the UK: Key EU medicines regulator closes London office with loss of 900 jobs

It will take a generation to undo the damage.

Who voted for this, coffee?

[Alan H]

Why the UK cannot see that Brexit is utterly, utterly stupid

If you talk to almost anyone overseas, except those at the right wing extreme (like Trump) or part of a tiny minority of the left, their reaction to Brexit is similar to the former Prime Minister of Finland. What the UK is doing is utterly, utterly stupid. An act of self harm with no point, no upside. Now sometimes outside opinion is based on incomplete or biased information and should be discounted, but on Brexit it is spot on. So why are so many people in the UK unable to see what outsiders can see quite clearly.

The days when Leavers were talking about the sunlit uplands are over. Liam Fox has not even managed to replicate the scores of trade deals the UK will lose when we leave the EU. As to independence, Leavers just cannot name any laws that the EU imposed on the UK they do not like. Since the referendum even public attitudes to immigration have become much more favourable.

Instead there has emerged one justification for reducing real wages, for allowing our economy to lose over 2% of its GDP, to allow firms to make plans and enact plans to leave the UK: the 2016 referendum. People voted for it so it has to be done. It is described as the will of the people. Yet few bother to note that almost half the people voted the other way, with those that would be most affected not even having a vote, and that this victory was won by illegal means. All that is brushed aside.

But what is really remarkable is the way what this vote was for has gradually mutated over time. Just before the vote, the Leave campaign talked of many ways of leaving, with Norway (which is in the EEA) as one option. They did this for a simple reason: every time Leavers came up with a feasible way of leaving other Leavers did not like it. Yet within little more than a year Leavers were declaring that the vote was obviously to leave both the Customs Union and Single Market. During the referendum campaign the Leave side talked about the great deal they would get from the EU, but within two years many of the same people were seriously pretending that voters really wanted No Deal. A vote for the ‘easiest’ deal in history has become a vote for no deal at all, apparently.

In much the same way, as Alex Andreou notes, what was once described as Project Fear transforms in time into ‘the people knew they were voting for that’. Claims there will be no short term hit to living standards made before the referendum has now become people knew there would be a short term cost. (Remember Rees-Mogg told us that short term means 50 years.)

Meanwhile warnings from important UK businesses become an excuse to talk about WWII, yet again. What people from outside the UK can see that too many inside cannot is how the case for Leaving has become little more than xenophobia and nationalism. What people overseas can also see but we seem unable to is that there is a world of difference between a vote to Leave the EU in an unspecified way and a real, practical plan. Which means that the first referendum, particularly as it was narrowly won, needs to be followed by a second referendum over an actual, realistic way of leaving. In other words a People’s Vote. When Jonathan Freedland says “the notion that a 52% vote for a hypothetical, pain-free Brexit translates into an unbreakable mandate for an actually existing Brexit is shaky at best” he is wrong: the notion is simply wrong.

Some of the arguments against this are so dumb, yet are allowed to pass as serious. ‘Why not the best of three’: there is no reason for a third referendum. ‘The first referendum was an unconditional vote to leave’: of course it could never be. [1] Suppose we found out that everyone would lose half their income under any specific way of leaving - would you still argue that in 2016 voters voted for that? Or that a second referendum means that ‘politicians have failed the people’. Most politicians voted to Remain because they knew that any realistic way of leaving would be bad for people. They have been proved right and a majority of the electorate might well agree.

But by far the worst excuse not to hold a People’s Vote is that a second referendum would be undemocratic. Orwell must be turning in his grave when he hears politicians say in all seriousness that a second referendum would undermine faith in democracy. This is the language of dictators and fascists, but few seem to mind. Given the difference between the final deal and the promises of the Leave campaign the case for a second referendum is overwhelming, but you would not know that from the UK public debate. There is only one way to make sense of the ‘People’s Vote = undemocratic’ equation, or the ‘will of the people’, and that is that the first referendum effectively disenfranchised Remain voters. [2]

That is exactly what happened after the 2016 vote. Those wanting to Remain to all intents and purposes ceased to exist. If we are just talking about Leave voters, then of course most will be disappointed by a second vote. Is this why Labour MPs just worry about Leave voters in their constituencies, because Remain voters no longer matter? It is why we get endless Vox pops from Leave constituencies, and no mention from EU citizens who have lived here for years who are worried sick because the computer might say you have to leave.

How did Remain voters get effectively disenfranchised? Why is the lunacy of what this country is doing only apparent to foreigners? Answering this question is not hard for anyone who has read my book ‘The Lies We Were Told’. What we have that foreigners do not is a public discourse shaped by a handful of newspaper proprietors who just happen [3] to be intensely hostile to the EU. Partly through intimidation by that same press and their political allies, the BBC follows this discourse. This is where the ‘will of the people’ came from. It was this press that puts rebel Conservative MPs on their front pages, and that uses language like saboteurs and traitors. It is intimidating MPs in order to influence the democratic process, but of course few in the media call it that.

As I discuss in my book, I have seen this before in a milder form at least twice in recent times. In the first the UK convinced itself that austerity was the only way forward, despite most academic economists saying otherwise. It was the media that promoted claims that governments were just like households, even though first years economics students are taught why this is not true. And then it was the media that pushed (or left unchallenged) the idea that austerity was the result of Labour profligacy: it was a straight lie but it played a critical part in the 2015 election.

If people have doubts about my argument that the media played a central role is misdirecting the public then (and many do), well Brexit should be a test case. And so far Brexit has gone exactly as these newspaper proprietors would have wished. Three coincidences is a row? The reason why those overseas can see that Brexit is utterly, utterly stupid while the UK stockpiles food and medicine, and the Prime Minister tries to blackmail MPs into supporting her deal, is because those overseas are not influenced by the UK media.

[1] As this one seems very popular, it is worth spelling out why it is rubbish. The 2016 referendum was not some kind of contract, where all those voting to leave committed to support any vote to leave for all time. It is highly likely that some people voted for a particular kind of Brexit and would prefer Remain to other types of Brexit, which is crucial given the narrow victory. (Which is also why claims that Remain cannot be on any second referendum ballot are also nonsense.) Some may have voted Leave to give more money to the NHS and to stop Turkish immigrants, in which case they may have changed their minds. It does not say "we should leave whatever the form of leave at whatever cost" on the ballot or the small print, because there is no small print.

[2] There is a serious and quite compelling argument that referendums in a representative democracy are a bad idea, but this equation is about a referendum that has been necessitated by an ambiguous first referendum.

[3] Well maybe not ‘just happen’: see here

[Alan H]

It's going to be OK if you're ill or need medicines to keep you alive, coffee. Matt Hancock: Government Would Prioritise Medicines Over Food In No-Deal Brexit

The government would prioritise medicines over food in the case of a no-deal Brexit, Matt Hancock has told MPs.

The health secretary’s comments come after a number of the country’s leading supermarkets – including Sainsbury’s, Lidl, Waitrose, Co-op and Morrisons – warned that shoppers could be left facing empty shelves if the UK crashes out of the EU without a deal.

With around of a third of UK food imported from the UK, no-deal would cause “significant disruption” to millions of UK consumers, the supermarket giants said.

“Medicines will be prioritised in the event of no-deal,” Hancock told parliament’s health and social care committee when quizzed on Monday about potential food shortages.

With 60 days to go until Brexit, “very significant” work has been done to ensure there will be no break in the supply of drugs in case of no-deal, he said.

“We have been through detailed, line-by-line analysis of the 12,000 medicines that are licensed in the UK.

“The pharmaceutical industry have, I would say, risen to this challenge and done their duty thus far.”

According to the Tory frontbencher, around half of the number of medicines in the UK currently have a “touch point” with the European Union.

While there is still a “lot more work” ahead, “we do have the time necessary to do what we need to do,” Hancock added.

His statement was echoed by NHS England chief executive Simon Stevens, who told the committee: “Provided everybody does what they are supposed to do, particularly the transport infrastructure…then we would expect the availability of these supplies to continue.”

But when asked why the government would prioritise medicines over food, Hancock told Labour’s Ben Bradshaw: “The explanation I would give in terms of food is that the proportion of food that is imported is much smaller than for medicines.”

The cabinet minister also used his appearance to further clarify his comments on Sunday that the government had considered plans to declare martial law to calm any disorder following a no-deal Brexit.

Arguing that there was “no such thing” as martial law in the UK, Hancock told MPs: “There is a civil contingencies act. It is an option all the time for all sorts of consideration.

“As I said yesterday, that is on the statute book, but that is not what we are planning to use,” he added.

[Alan H]

The Brexit Bonus Bonanza, eh, coffee? Is this what you voted for?

[coffee]

Theresa May backs push for Graham Brady’s ‘alternative’ to the Brexit backstop in vote tonight: Brexit News for Tuesday 29 January

https://brexitcentral.com/today/brexit- ... 9-january/

=================================================================

Promoting a Better Brexit for the people of Britain website.

https://betterbrexit.org/

=================================================================

SIGN OUR PETITION here TO ENSURE WE LEAVE THE EU ON 29 MARCH 2019
THE MPS BELOW SUPPORT THE UK LEAVING THE EU ON 29 MARCH 2019

https://nowbrexit.com/

==================================================================

[Alan H]

What's Brady's 'alternative' plan, coffee? Do you actually understand he doesn't have one?

[Alan H]

Here's Nigel Farage neither knowing nor caring what the truth is, like the little despicable excuse for a human being he is.

[Alan H]

So where to now? The EU have finished negotiations and have agreed a deal with the UK government and have said that's the best deal available. Parliament rejects that deal. No one other than a few right-wing extremists want a no-deal Brexit. Labour wants a 'jobs-first' Brexit that's made of the same rainbows and unicorns of UKIP's lies before the referendum. May want to go back to negotiate something better but there is no deal to be had. The deal doesn't solve the Irish border problems and some don't like the backstop. May wants to now replace the backstop with an 'alternative' but can't actually say what that alternative is - nor can anyone else, so it's not something anyone could accept. The pound has fallen, companies and organisations have move out of the UK. The Government is drawing up contingency plans for food and medicines. There is unlikely to be the necessary staff and systems in place to cope with any increase in border paperwork, never mind there being no deal. Long queues are expected at ports... No party has any solutions because there are no solutions that don't cripple the UK. MPs cancelling their Easter hols won't make a bit of difference: all they've done so far is increase the volume of hot air produced in the Commons. Both Tories and Labour are split right down the middle on this, as is the country and there is no amount of negotiation, concessions, compromise that will change that. Brexit has fucked us up already and will fuck us up for several generations whether we leave with no deal or May's deal.

There are 58 days till we leave the EU.

[animist]

So where to now? The EU have finished negotiations and have agreed a deal with the UK government and have said that's the best deal available. Parliament rejects that deal. No one other than a few right-wing extremists want a no-deal Brexit. Labour wants a 'jobs-first' Brexit that's made of the same rainbows and unicorns of UKIP's lies before the referendum. May want to go back to negotiate something better but there is no deal to be had. The deal doesn't solve the Irish border problems and some don't like the backstop. May wants to now replace the backstop with an 'alternative' but can't actually say what that alternative is - nor can anyone else, so it's not something anyone could accept. The pound has fallen, companies and organisations have move out of the UK. The Government is drawing up contingency plans for food and medicines. There is unlikely to be the necessary staff and systems in place to cope with any increase in border paperwork, never mind there being no deal. Long queues are expected at ports... No party has any solutions because there are no solutions that don't cripple the UK. MPs cancelling their Easter hols won't make a bit of difference: all they've done so far is increase the volume of hot air produced in the Commons. Both Tories and Labour are split right down the middle on this, as is the country and there is no amount of negotiation, concessions, compromise that will change that. Brexit has fucked us up already and will fuck us up for several generations whether we leave with no deal or May's deal.

There are 58 days till we leave the EU.

I think that Parliament will eventually accept the May deal, whatever its faults, since what is the alternative?

[Alan H]

I think that Parliament will eventually accept the May deal, whatever its faults, since what is the alternative?

I think they need to realise that would be a dereliction of their duty to their constituents. However, it was resoundingly defeated and many MPs knows it will be a disaster, so it's difficult to see it getting through - there's always the possibility at the last minute of withdrawing the A50 notification... That could be done on 29 March.

[coffee]

Sajid Javid suggests Brexit may be delayed as clock ticks for Ma: Brexit News for Friday 01 February

https://brexitcentral.com/today/brexit- ... -february/

[Alan H]

Tariffs explained:

1/ Explainer on tariffs for a snowy Friday, you lucky people.
2/ Right. Tariffs are extra charges a country chooses to add on to goods that are imported from elsewhere. They are used as a means to control the flow of those goods. Lower your tariffs, and imports become cheaper. Raise them, and you make it more expensive to import.
3/ So tariffs are a lever a country can use to control trade. If you want to protect domestic producers in your country, you can raise tariffs. If you want to open up your market to competitors, you lower them.
4/ The first thing to bear in mind is that tariffs as a concept aren't good or bad in themselves, they just are. Whether a particular tariff is good or bad in your view will depend on who you are and what you're trying to do.
5/ Not all people in the UK will have the same needs. If your company makes and sells lamb mince products, then a low tariff on lamb imports will help you, because you can get your ingredients more cheaply.
6/ But if you are a sheep farmer in the UK, low import tariffs could put you out of business if you can't compete with those lower prices.
7/ The second thing to bear in mind is that the cost of tariffs are ultimately passed on to the customer buying the product being imported, in the form of higher prices.
8/ When Donald Trump crows about making China pay with the higher tariffs he slaps on Chinese commodities, remember the people actually paying in the end are US consumers.
9/ In a traditional view, whether you think what tariffs try to achieve is generally a good or bad thing comes down to whether your views are free-market or protectionist.
10/ If you're a free-marketer, you don't mind where a product is made. If you can buy widgets cheaply from China or Croatia, why shouldn't you? You want import tariffs to be low. If UK widget makers can compete, fine, but otherwise you don't mind where widgets come from.
11/ If you're a protectionist, you think your own country's companies should have first dibs, and should be protected from being put out of business by overseas competition.
12/ Most people are probably a bit of both, not necessarily dispassionately. We feel a little queasy when we hear the contract for UK passports has gone to a non-UK firm, but at the same time we'll still buy Dyson vacuum cleaners made in Malaysia.
13/ Of course there's a problem here with Brexit. Brexit has been advertised as being both free-market and protectionist. Depending on speaker and audience, people have been promised that Brexit will a) remove all the tariffs and open up our markets or b) protect British industry
14/ Of course, it will be tricky to make it do both simultaneously, and that's one reason why Brexit is mired in arguments over what it is we want to achieve. But that's an aside, so back to the tariffs. And the problems with tariffs.
15/ Tariffs are fiendishly complex. There are thousands of them listed by the WTO, for all sorts of different products. There are loads just for different types of biscuits, depending on how they are made, what they contain, whether there is chocolate in or on them, and so on.
16/ In trade deals, countries thrash out variable quotas for these tariffs. You might import the first 1000 tonnes of jaffa cakes at one tariff, and then it goes onto a different rate. This is one reason why separating the UK's tariff quotas from the EU's has resulted in disputes
17/ It gets worse. When you look at how products are now made, crossing and re-crossing borders several times throughout the manufacturing process, remember that at every stage those ingredients may be subject to a different tariff.
18/ Wheat may cross a border, and be milled into flour, then recross the border and be mixed with milk and other ingredients, which themselves have crossed the border, and be made into cakes. Which then go back across the border to be sold.
19/ That's just cakes. What about cars? Or planes? These have thousands of parts, or whole assemblies of parts, all doing this dance.
20/ I could digress into rules-of-origin here, but that's a whole thread of its own.
21/ So there are good reasons to want to get rid of tariffs and simplify trade, if we could do what they set out to achieve a different way.
22/ But first, why can't EU members set their own tariffs individually? Why do tariffs have to be applied EU-wide?

Because if a country could set its own tariffs it could steal everyone else's trade.
23/ Say the EU's tariff on widgets is 40%. If the UK could choose to set its tariff at 0%, it could import widgets, bung 10% profit on them, and still sell them across the EU cheaper than anyone else. It would put every other widget maker and seller out of business.
24/ For the moment, though they're not the biggest barrier to trade, tariffs remain a big bargaining chip in trade deals. Traditionally, a lot of what trade deals did was work at reducing or removing them.
25/ The EU has gone further than any other trading bloc in history in removing tariffs between members.
26/ It's often forgotten that the EU also reduces or removes tariffs for a lot of imports into the EU too, in useful ways. The Everything But Arms initiative, for example, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everythin… removes all duties and quotas for the least-developed nations.
27/ The claim we can reduce shop prices for consumers in the UK by leaving the EU and then removing tariffs is pretty tenuous, because in a lot of cases those tariffs are already at or close to zero.
28/ Anyway. Back to tariffs in general. Outside a trade deal, there's significant restrictions in the WTO rules on what you're allowed to do with your tariffs.
29/ The "Most Favoured Nation" (MFN) rule means if you reduce a tariff on a product for one country, you have to reduce it for everyone else too. So if you think we could replace the Single Market with a system of targetted zero tariffs, this is one reason why it would be tricky.
30/ And you can't get around the MFN restriction by inking a quick "trade deal" to give one favoured country a zero tariff on just the goods you want to open up, as some Brexiters have suggested we should do just with products the UK doesn't produce itself.
31/ Those rules mean any trade deal has to be "bilateral" - giving and taking in both directions - and cover "substantially all the trade" not just sectoral deals like the UK was trying for at the outset of negotiations with the EU.
32/ You can't raise tariffs beyond the WTO-set amount, you can only reduce them, and as we have seen when you do it off your own bat you have to do it for everybody.
33/ One thing countries can do is slap on punitive tariffs as a form of "trade defence." If you think another country is treating you unfairly - an example recently would be China flooding the market with cheap steel to put everone else out of business - you can slap a tariff on.
34/ This can escalate, with additional tariffs on other products not connected to the original dispute, and then you have a trade war. There's one been going on recently, mainly between the US and China, but the UK has been dragged in.
35/ It's worth observing here that the EU has been vigorously fighting the UK's corner in this dispute, despite our imminent departure, and the US takes a lot more notice of the potential damage to their access in a market of 550m relatively affluent consumers than the UK alone.
36/ The biggest problem with tariffs, to my mind, is that they're a pretty blunt instrument, and so not very good at achieving the goals they are intended for. They are a trade lever, but not a very good one. I'll explain.
37/ I think the main aim of all tariffs should be to enforce fair competition. Unless you're quite far out on either end of the freemarket/protectionist spectrum, you want to be able to buy a range of imported goods, but you also want UK business to be able to compete fairly.
38/ You want a level playing field. If a company in China or Croatia can employ workers more cheaply, the environmental rules are more lax, or their workers' rights are non-existent, they can make their widgets more cheaply than a UK company that has to follow stricter rules.
39/ A tariff can weight the scales to make a UK company competitive again against that sort of undercutting, but wouldn't it be better if we could just make sure that overseas companies can't undercut us by exploiting weaker rules or cheaper workers?
40/ That would be better pretty much all round - for workers, who have better conditions and pay, for business, which doesn't have to worry about unfair competition. For the consumer, who has better protections, for the environment.
41/ An international solution that creates a level playing field for fair competition.

Somebody should create that...
42/ Now, while tariffs aren't perfect, they remain important, and as discussed they are still a key bargaining chip in trade deals.
43/ So if somebody suggests we just axe all our import tariffs to make goods cheaper, remember that - where it works at all - this pretty much kills the prospect of any decent trade deals with other countries. We've already given them tariff-free access for free.
44/ Which leads to the observation that - for me - tariffs are interesting (did I actually just say that?) not because of what they are, but because of what they reveal about the person discussing them. Partly because tariffs are far from the most significant barrier to trade.
45/ So if somebody boasts about all the wonderful new trade deals the UK will make, and only frames it in terms of tariffs, you know they don't really understand trade deals.
46/ And if somebody pops up to say we can simply replace the Single Market and Customs Union with a tariff-free trade deal, that person is a charlatan.
47/ And if somebody pops up to suggest getting rid of all tariffs to make the UK prosperous, that person is an idiot.
48/ And if somebody decries the EU's protectionism and their exploitation of poor African coffee producers through high tariffs, that person is bullshitting you.
49/ The truth is both simpler and far more complex. Like the EU.

One more point:
50/ The EU is able to dispense with tariffs because it has replaced them with something far more effective: the Single Market. We've lost sight of this, and tell ourselves that removal of tariffs is all we need to do to make trade work. We forget at our peril.

[Alan H]

Was it you who voted for this, coffee? Or this?

[animist]

I think that Parliament will eventually accept the May deal, whatever its faults, since what is the alternative?

I think they need to realise that would be a dereliction of their duty to their constituents. However, it was resoundingly defeated and many MPs knows it will be a disaster, so it's difficult to see it getting through - there's always the possibility at the last minute of withdrawing the A50 notification... That could be done on 29 March.

I do not think so, since the Government legislated to make that day into Brexit day. OK, tell me why the May deal would be a disaster. Well, yes, it would be, but not in comparison with No-Deal, which was the basis of my previous post. What do you mean about "dereliction"? What would be a dereliction and why? Remember that the rejection came from MPs of totally contradictory persuasions on Brexit.

While I am at it, Alan, what do you think about the following opinion? Britain may be in a worse position than the EU27 overall as regards Brexit, including No-Deal Brexit. The exception to this is the Irish border. I think that the EU, and Ireland in particular, are in a cleft stick, which may make the EU27 blink (which would be much to my disappointment). Look, the backstop requirement is there to prevent a hard border at some point in the future, but if there is a No-Deal then the hard border appears immediately. So can EU/Ireland hold out for the unreconstructed May deal, faced with the awful nature of what passes for politics in Britain?

[Alan H]

I do not think so, since the Government legislated to make that day into Brexit day. OK, tell me why the May deal would be a disaster. Well, yes, it would be, but not in comparison with No-Deal, which was the basis of my previous post. What do you mean about "dereliction"? What would be a dereliction and why? Remember that the rejection came from MPs of totally contradictory persuasions on Brexit.

While I am at it, Alan, what do you think about the following opinion? Britain may be in a worse position than the EU27 overall as regards Brexit, including No-Deal Brexit. The exception to this is the Irish border. I think that the EU, and Ireland in particular, are in a cleft stick, which may make the EU27 blink (which would be much to my disappointment). Look, the backstop requirement is there to prevent a hard border at some point in the future, but if there is a No-Deal then the hard border appears immediately. So can EU/Ireland hold out for the unreconstructed May deal, faced with the awful nature of what passes for politics in Britain?

I think your last phrase sums up why it is so difficult to predict what they will do. I take your point that May's deal may well be less worse than no deal - and I suspect she's hoping others will see that as well - but it's still a dereliction of duty by MPs. It is simply the lesser of two self-imposed harms. Some MPs have it in their tiny little minds that the advisory referendum MUST BE OBEYED come hell or high water, whatever the cost and the implications. To do otherwise would be to would be a gross dereliction of duty to their constituents (whether theor own voted for Brexit or not). It's been a good ploy that Labour et al. have allowed the Brexiteers to get away with. It was a wheezo marketing idea... That compliance with the advisory referendum has overridden every other statutory duty of MPs to represent the best interests of their constituents and the country. All Brexiteer arguments end up with, ah yes, but the Will of the People...

You may be right about the border issue: it's clear the EU cares more about the GFA than the UK does and I'm sure the EU will do all it can to prevent a situation that might mean that there is a conflict on one of their borders. MPs seem to care not a jot about that. I don't really care for arguments that we have to ensure we don't have a hard border because violence might erupt - that's a bad road to go down - but it can also be argued on simply complying with our international obligations under the GFA. If we leave the EU, there will be a hard border. This talk about technological solutions is farcical: border control are not there to ensure the responsible hauliers have dotted the i's and crossed the t's: they are there to stop the smugglers. You can't do that by having a few cameras or computers.

[Alan H]