Brexit New Deal/Legal Changes - Risk Still Remains

[Saracen999]

Oh dear, here we go again. Privatising the NHS and selling it to the Americans.

Yes, I've considered what happens when we leave the EU. We'll be a reasonably large economy, capable of and free to trade with, and strike trade desls with, whoever we please and that wants to do deals with us. We aren't a small country subject to a hostile takeover, we're a nation capable of living in the big bad world without needing Nanny Brussels running things for us.

That seems to be the difference between pro-Brexit and pro-EU .... the latter don't seem have any faith in our ability to be able to cope perfectly well outside the EU. I do. It's not just the US that's keen on a trade deal either - so are plenty of others, big and small. Anyone, in fact, where it's of mutual benefit.

As for thermal shock, I said my 'ool was "coldish", not near freezing. Yeah, people die of cardiac arrest from thermal shock but in very cold water, and the resesrch I've seen suggests the best way to avoid that is to keep your head above water until acclimatised - which is good advice for a post-Brexit UK too. Even jumping into a relatively warm pool feels cold, when your body temp is higher .... for a few seconds. Then you realise it wasn't as cold as you thought, and that while jumping is unplesant for about 3 seconds, then you remember you're in Florida an an unheated pool is about 85 degrees, and the water is lovely, not the cold you feared. Come on in, it's lovely in here.

[ik9000]

Oh dear, here we go again. Privatising the NHS and selling it to the Americans.

Yes, I've considered what happens when we leave the EU. We'll be a reasonably large economy, capable of and free to trade with, and strike trade desls with, whoever we please and that wants to do deals with us. We aren't a small country subject to a hostile takeover, we're a nation capable of living in the big bad world without needing Nanny Brussels running things for us.

That seems to be the difference between pro-Brexit and pro-EU .... the latter don't seem have any faith in our ability to be able to cope perfectly well outside the EU. I do. It's not just the US that's keen on a trade deal either - so are plenty of others, big and small. Anyone, in fact, where it's of mutual benefit.

As for thermal shock, I said my 'ool was "coldish", not near freezing. Yeah, people die of cardiac arrest from thermal shock but in very cold water, and the resesrch I've seen suggests the best way to avoid that is to keep your head above water until acclimatised - which is good advice for a post-Brexit UK too. Even jumping into a relatively warm pool feels cold, when your body temp is higher .... for a few seconds. Then you realise it wasn't as cold as you thought, and that while jumping is unplesant for about 3 seconds, then you remember you're in Florida an an unheated pool is about 85 degrees, and the water is lovely, not the cold you feared. Come on in, it's lovely in here.

here we go again? I'm not sure we've gone anywhere before. But thanks for being so dismissive of genuine concerns. I'm glad you have so much faith in our politicians. My watching of Brexit suggests we really shouldn't trust them to handle such matters. Let's agree to disagree, I don't think either of us will convince the other. Not tonight anyway.

[Galant]

This from Gibraltar's Chief Minister (sort of PM):
https://twitter.com/FabianPicardo/st...85911339851781

"1. Today's result makes the possibility of our staying the European Union more likely than it has been since the Article 50 notice was given. What will happen is still not clear, but I believe it is likely Parliament will tomorrow take a 'no deal' exit off the table.

2. That will be good for Gibraltar. I believe it is the responsibility of all MPs to vote to take 'no-deal' off the table. Thereafter, the options will be to leave with a deal or to open the door to a revocation of the Article 50 notice,

3. or an extension and even possibly a new referendum. For Gibraltar, each of those permutations represents challenges and opportunities, but revocation and remain are the best options. At worst, if the deal comes back with changes in the back-stop, we are fully protected in it.

4. We will nonetheless continue to plan for every eventuality as we have every day since even before the result of the referendum, given that there is as yet no certainty of outcomes that we can bank on for Gibraltar & it's people. That remains the responsible thing for us to do."

--------------------------------------------------------

If No Deal is rejected then what's the vote to extend Article 50 for?

The EU are already saying no further concessions will be made, so no 'new' deal is possible. Any extension can only serve one of two purposes - better prepare for a 'No Deal' scenario after the extension (by default), or, figure out a way to stop Brexit, probably by a new referendum with no actual Brexit option on the table (which will be allegedly defensible because no deal will have been rejected in parliament).

The cynic in me wants to say that this entire 'botch up' was in fact carefully planned to lead us to a 'democratic' reversal of Brexit.

[ik9000]

The cynic in me wants to say that this entire 'botch up' was in fact carefully planned to lead us to a 'democratic' reversal of Brexit.

why dear boy, whatever do you mean?

[Galant]

[TeePee]

The Democratic Referendums will continue until peasants vote the way they are told.

[Saracen999]

here we go again? I'm not sure we've gone anywhere before. But thanks for being so dismissive of genuine concerns. I'm glad you have so much faith in our politicians. My watching of Brexit suggests we really shouldn't trust them to handle such matters. Let's agree to disagree, I don't think either of us will convince the other. Not tonight anyway.

I'm sorry if you think it's dismissive, but when you say things like

So with Brexit we'll either end up a vassall state of the EU or a vassall state of the US. Don't tell me we won't, we won't have a (practicable) choice and it'll be hunting season for the big and powerful nations. We'll be caught with our trousers down and we'll end up screwed by one of them. Given the choice I'd rather the EU. At least their worker rights and food laws are worth having. But the tories will salivate at the prospects of US employment law and privatising the NHS to US firms and that will be that.

Vassal state of the US? And then "Don'et tell me we won't" it doesn't leave much scope for discussion, now does it?

If that's what you really believe, well, you're entitled to your opinion, but as far as I'm concerned, it's just another left-wing fantasy nightmare.

So yeah, you stick to your view, and I'll stick to mine, because there's absolutely no chance we're ever going to agree if that's all the faith you have in this country.

[Saracen999]

It will certainly be interesting to see what happens next, but the Gibraltarian Chief Minister seems to have missed that leaving the EU is in law. It's a statute. No single vote on a motion in the House changes that. It is, effectively, a statement of opinion of what the House thinks, but to overturn an Act requires a defined procedure to be followed, requiring among other things, primary legislation that needs to be debated and passed in BOTH Houses, and then get Royal Assent. This all takes time.

Even extending article 50 is an uncertain process because it's not in the power of the House, or the PM/government, to do so. It'll require unanimous agreement from the EU 27, and it's far from clear what, if anything, they will agree to andxst a minimum, they're likely to want a clear statement of what a delay is for. And their patience seems to be running out.

What is possible is for art.50 to be revoked, cancelling Brexit entirely, but there are problems with that, too. One of them is that doing do won't reverse the referendum result, won't change the underlyjng division, and would be a clear-cut demonstration of just how fraudulent our so-called democracy is. There is a serious risk of reallt, REALLY nasty backlash from the people, and a huge question of whether any party suppoting that would survive the next election. And not just Tories. A lot of Labour MPs are in pro-Brexit seats.

Right now, anything seems possible, and no one course has overall parliamentary backing. The best bet for a solution was May's horrible deal, but that's been rejected. Resoundingly. Twice.

Even if the EU agrees an extension for a second referendum, it won't solve anything. if it votes Remain, leavers are likely to go up in flames and demand a decider. If it votes Leave, we're back to "on what terms?" May's deal? It's dead. No deal? Fine by me but parliament don't want it. Renegotiate? Oh, Brussels will love that .... starting again for 2 more years? They'll never wear it.

Whatever happens next, about 50% of the population, give or take a couple of percent, aren't goung to like it.

[TeePee]

There are bigger, long term questions. The economic damage of indecision, and delaying increases the pain in the short term, and will mean longer term economic damage. Brexit needs to happen sooner to allow a few years for things to settle down before the next General Election. A Labour victory might not be a complete disaster, but with Corbyn then having to lead the country amidst the collapse of the EU in four years time would make May look competent.

[Corky34]

...This, of course, is because nobody, but nobody, know what the future holds.

Technically true but we can make educated guesses, assessments, and predictions, the best predictor of the future is the past after all.

For instance IDK if I'll be alive tomorrow but considering I have been for the last 17,896 days it's probably a safe bet to say I will be, IDK if I'll still be in the same job 5-10 year from now but considering i have been for the last 25 it's probably safe to say i know what the future holds in terms of work-life.

That seems to be the difference between pro-Brexit and pro-EU .... the latter don't seem have any faith in our ability to be able to cope perfectly well outside the EU. I do. It's not just the US that's keen on a trade deal either - so are plenty of others, big and small. Anyone, in fact, where it's of mutual benefit.

Obviously i can't speak for everyone but it's not that pro-EU people don't have faith in our ability to be able to cope perfectly well outside the EU, it's that they know our ability to cope in the outside world would be servery diminished, it's an almost universal truth that we're stronger together, ask a single mum how hard it is to cope on her own, ask someone who's been unfairly dismissed how hard it is to seek redress on their own, ask any country that's not part of a larger trading block how they cope.

If No Deal is rejected then what's the vote to extend Article 50 for?

From what i understand MPs are hoping that becomes clear during the amendments phase.

The Democratic Referendums will continue until peasants vote the way they are told.

Whether is was democratic is highly questionable.

I honestly don't understand why there's not been an inquiry or at least more fuss made of the amount of dodgy money and suspected Russian interference during the campaign, i mean three of the campaigns are currently being investigated by police, the electoral commission has said that if the referendum was subject to the same laws as elections that its findings would've annulled the result and forced a re-run, and one of the major donors is being investigate by the national crime agency.

If that doesn't scream undemocratic IDK what would.

[Galant]

No deal tariffs released:

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...u-with-no-deal

Twitter account for Dept. for International Trade - https://twitter.com/tradegovuk?ref_s...Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Here's a collection of their Tweets recently posted:

"Today the government announces details of 12-month ������������ temporary tariff that will only be applied if we leave the EU with no deal:
UK businesses will not pay tariffs on 87% of goods imports by value – helping to avoid price increases & supporting households.

Tariffs will apply to 13% of goods to support UK businesses and developing countries.

There will be a mix of tariffs & quotas on products including:

Finished vehicles
Beef, lamb, pork & poultry
Butter & some cheeses
Bananas, raw cane sugar, and certain kinds of fish

And in sectors where the UK is maintaining protection from unfair trading practices.

The tariff changes mean the majority of UK households, consumers and businesses will face no additional charges on products imported from the EU.

The new tariffs will come into force as soon as we leave the EU - only if we leave with no deal.

They will apply for up to 12 months while we consult consumers & businesses on future tariffs.

The priority remains to secure a deal with the EU and avoid disruption to our global trading relationships but the Government is prepared for a no deal exit.

The government is publishing this approach ahead of the vote in Parliament on No Deal to ensure MPs are fully informed."


David Young, reporting on it:

"BREAKING - In No Deal scenario, the UK will initially not apply import tariffs on goods entering NI from RoI. Tariffs apply to some goods entering rest of UK. Won’t be any new checks or controls in NI, inc customs declarations. Will be some biosecurity checks - but not at border

Gov says arrangement reflects “unique social, political and economic circumstances” of NI. Says it will be “strictly temporary” and priority will be to negotiate long term measures with EU and RoI.

Gov says it recognises NI businesses and farmers will be concerned this will impact their competitiveness. But says these are only steps UK can take unilaterally to “avoid hard border in the event of a no deal”.



Gov makes clear it has no control on what tariffs EU may apply on NI goods moving to RoI - says temporary arrangements “do not set out the position in respect of tariffs or processes to be applied to goods moving from Northern Ireland to Ireland”.

There’s acknowledged risk in Whitehall that plan could see NI used as a “back door” for EU goods to enter the GB market. Anti-avoidance rules will be introduced to crack down on attempts to exploit this. But NO checks at ports to police those - reliance instead on intelligence."


Guardian coverage: https://www.theguardian.com/politics...y-no-deal-plan

FT coverage: https://www.ft.com/content/d05189c8-...5-23d669740bfb

[ik9000]

I'm sorry if you think it's dismissive, but when you say things like Vassal state of the US? And then "Don'et tell me we won't" it doesn't leave much scope for discussion, now does it?

If that's what you really believe, well, you're entitled to your opinion, but as far as I'm concerned, it's just another left-wing fantasy nightmare.

So yeah, you stick to your view, and I'll stick to mine, because there's absolutely no chance we're ever going to agree if that's all the faith you have in this country.

Faith in the country? Lots. We're a resilient bunch. Faith in our politicians - that's what I wrote, politicians - absolutely none. A view you have espoused several times in other threads IIRC. Not least calling May a lying *****. Sorry if it offends your views to express my concerns. Hopefully it is just a fantasy. However I fear the prospect of it.

[Galant]

Via Steven Swinford Tweet (Deputy Political Editor of Telegraph)

"New:

A delegation of 15 Brexiteer ministers is meeting PM at 4.30 today

They will demand a free vote on the Malthouse compromise and warn that they are prepared to quit if she will not allow them to back it

'We will all go. It would be the end of her'"

Story on Telegraph - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...uld-quit-back/

[Ttaskmaster]

I have a clear sign ....

Is it of the correct, EU-regulation size, colour and font, displayed in all required languages and measured in metric?
No?
They don't have to abide by it, then... and likely more so as you did not seek planning approval from Brussels.

[Corky34]

They will demand a free vote on the Malthouse compromise and warn that they are prepared to quit if she will not allow them to back it

IIRC The Malthouse compromise has already been roundly dismissed by the EU, or at least the key changes have as they do nothing to solve the Irish border problem, plan A replaces the backstop with the mythical max-fac solution that has already been rejected by both the EU and UK as the technology doesn't exist and plan B asks for the EU to extend a transition period, essentially kicking the can down the road a bit more and hoping something turns up.

[Saracen999]

Technically true but we can make educated guesses, assessments, and predictions, the best predictor of the future is the past after all.

For instance IDK if I'll be alive tomorrow but considering I have been for the last 17,896 days it's probably a safe bet to say I will be, IDK if I'll still be in the same job 5-10 year from now but considering i have been for the last 25 it's probably safe to say i know what the future holds in terms of work-life.


Obviously i can't speak for everyone but it's not that pro-EU people don't have faith in our ability to be able to cope perfectly well outside the EU, it's that they know our ability to cope in the outside world would be servery diminished, it's an almost universal truth that we're stronger together, ask a single mum how hard it is to cope on her own, ask someone who's been unfairly dismissed how hard it is to seek redress on their own, ask any country that's not part of a larger trading block how they cope.


.....

If the EU was "a trading block" I might be inclined to agree with that, but it is much more than that, and if the federalists among the Commission, and certain EU27 members get their way, it will be even less just a trade block going forward than it is now. Try telling member states in just about any other "trading block", be it TPP, Asean, etc, that laws are going to be made for it and it's courts will be junior to "block" courts and see how keen they are. Note: most trade blocks accept arbitration by a panel, on trade matters, but not an entirely superior court system over huge swathes of domestic law.

As for not knowing if you'll die tomorrow, there's a potential statistical misinterpretation in that, depending on exactly what you mean.

Some events are dependent on past events, and some aren't.

For instance, toss a (normal, non-fixed) coin 100 times and get heads every time, and consider the chances of the 101st being a head? Yup, 50% .... or 1 in 2. Perhaps very, very marginally less if you include a statistically insignificant chance of it landing on it's rim. History has no impact. This, of course, is very different to predicting, in advance, that you'll get heads 100 times on the trot.

Your chances of dying tomorrow will be a very complex blend of risks where there is no historical link to previous days, and those where there is. For instance, your chances of being killed by a runaway bus are the same as every other day provided your behaviour is the same too. Staying in bed all day clearly dramatically reduces the odds of getting hit by a bus.

Your chance of dying of cancer, however, is heavily influenced by all sorts of things, many of them linked to past events. Heavy smokers and drinkers are statistically far more likely to die of relevant cancers than non-smokers and non-drinkers but neither tend to appear and strike you down out of the blue.

Bear with me, I'm getting to the point.

Some conditions, however, than can strike you (or any of us) down with zero warning, could well (like a coin toss) hit you on any day of your life, from childhood onwards, with no identifiable link to past days events or previous behaviour.

For instance, I've lost two friends, one the husband of a close friend and the other a business acquaintance, to a brain eneurysm that, without warning or symptoms, dropped them instantly. Both were young-ish (mid-30s), both were fit and relatively active, neither smoked and one drank lightly and socially, while the other was teetotal. One dropped dead walking across the office, while the other went to sleep feeling fine and normal and never woke up. Died without waking his wife, either.

Inference number 1 - never take tomorrow for granted, because the great roulette wheel of life spins for all of us.

Inference number 2 - past events are often poor predictors of future events, and even where there is a relevance of past events, it requires a significant body of relevant historical data to even try to rationally predict future events.

And that is the point I said I was getting to.

Nobody knows the future as a result if Brexit because there is no relevant body of historical data. Brexit is a unique event.

So .... those attempts to produce "forecasts" have to work with other data, NOT relating to leaving such a trade block, and that is what various "reputable" forecasters have done. Trouble is, you are then forced to make some pretty substantial assumptions about the efect of Exit, to extrapolate the impact.

There are two main problems. First, the initisl step is to analyse EU trade data and try to infer cause rather than mere correlation. This has been done, but the process is .... questionable .... because the economies involved are very different. For instance, Germany and Greece, and therefore the economic factirs influencing performance are different. Case in point, some years ago interest rates were changed because it suited industrialised and large economies, but different economies (like RofI) got screwed as a result. Add to that that many EU28 economies are eurozone members but some (notably us) aren't, so EU 'benefits' like Euro membership will not affect non-zone members as they do members.

So ....any statistical analysis of the benefits ought to be based on cause not correlation, AND on a more granular level than mere net gain/loss, because we know those benefits are not distributed pro-rata (like that i-rate change) and so nor should the impact of leaving be. But it was.

Furthermore, there is no body of statistics, let alone relevant statistics, on which to base the impact of Brexit, because it is historically unique. Therefore, "forecasts" are based on some, at a minimum, questionable statistical assumptions, and those assumptions are then fed into governmental and think-tank "gravity" econometric models. But those very econometric models are based on decades of historical data, none of which have had a Brexit. So, any inferred Brexit effect is at best speculative because the models haven't been tested, and because even the statistical basis for the assumptions is questionable.

But then, consider only the econometric models. Forget Brexit, and just look at the accuracy of "forecasts" in, say, the last decade and compare those forecasts to what is now historical data of what actually happened, and you will find they have been wrong, over and over again, sometimes quite badly so.

So when I say nobody knows what impact Brexit will have, it is not based on some blase statement of "nobody knows the future", like life expectancy. It is based on a look at the general accuracy of econometrics, even in stable conditions, AND at the statistical work done to produce the assumptions used in the gravity models, itself the subject of disputed efficacy.

So really, nobody but nobody knows. The very best that can be said of forecasts is that they are (presumably) sincere and well-intentioned best efforts to predicts but .... using methodology that is not universally accepted and indeed is subject to academic dispute, AND that has a track record of being wrong, even in uncontroversial situations.

To take such forecasts as predictions of the future is to misunderstand them. They are really just planning tools, target-setters if you like, not a realistic predictor of the future. In that latter, they are very poor, but generally, all we have. Which is why I got out of econometrics.