Topic: Brexit: "Vultus inanis est et mori in fossa ego sum!"

[Dr. Beaker]

I'm with you Doc

As I've said before, most of the discussion and desperation at the moment is, rightly, about trade and the economy and all that jazz.

But perhaps only in years to come will people begin to see just what an existential own-goal this is as well. How we are proposing to turn away from our own corner of the world, and break ties with those cultures closest to us and most intertwined in our history, our language, and our sense of self. Not to mention to erase a shared but fragile European identity that somewhat unexpectedly, and against-the-odds, took root, sprouted and then was carefully cultivated and allowed to bloom and thrive after a half-century of madness, aggression, war and bloodshed.

And why? Because some people are angry at their situation and want to lash out?

The UK is not just cutting its nose off to spite its face, but also cutting off all it knows to face its spite.

Very well said.

[Zeb]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47192233

Glad she's drawn attention to the freedom of movement issue. It'll force Labour to reveal whether it has made a genuine shift in a soft Brexit direction and does now accept the continuation of FOM, or if the leadership is still in cherry picking mode.

The workers rights pledge isn't much for the Labour Brexiteers to point to either.

"I'm glad you mentioned your concerns about the backstop in public because if you don't like that you have to change the Withdrawal Agreement. And you're also saying you don't want to do that."

----

Another shout out to UK in a Changing Europe (think tank at KCL) and the academics who are doing things for it. They've tried to explain the backstop in a series of short essays.

Simon Usherwood has a piece which explains how the EU view the backstop and whether it can be changed.

Spoiler

A popular view in the UK is that the EU is implacable and immovable on the question of the backstop. But a more careful reading of statements from senior EU officials and from figures in the member states suggests that there is some room for manoeuvre, albeit within carefully prescribed limits.

There are three roots to the backstop concept: one principled, one legal and one pragmatic. The principled motivation is the desire to protect the interests of member states. The value of collective action at a European level comes with a requirement to ensure that no member is disadvantaged in relation to non-members. The failure of the UK to recognise that, practically at least, it has moved from member to non-member status is a wider issue in the Article 50 process. This is not least because it means that the concerns of Dublin will always carry more weight than those of London.

This runs into the legal concern. The EU is a rules-based organisation—it cannot rely on informal and emotive buy-in for its work from its citizens—and so it values the commitments made. Thus, the obligations of the Good Friday Agreement on the Irish government count for a considerable amount, as do the EU’s own requirements for market integration. These preclude internal barriers to free movement under the single market between member states, even as World Trade Organisation commitments require checks and controls at the edge of that market. Seen in this light, the backstop is an effort to square the multiple circles of different legal constraints. All of this is reinforced by the pragmatic aspect: in Brussels, the UK is not seen a reliable partner, given its endless vacillations over Article 50, in both procedural and substantive terms. Coupled with this, the numerous public statements from senior British politicians intended to create the strong impression that words might be one thing but they would have to be in binding legal terms to have any value has further eroded trust. Theresa May’s support for the Brady amendment on 29 January merely confirmed for many in the EU that there is a significant danger of discussions on the backstop poisoning the entire Withdrawal Agreement.

Which brings us back to the question of whether and how the EU might move on this issue. If the three roots point towards inflexibility, then it is important to recall that the EU is not an enthusiastic supporter of the backstop on its own terms: instead, it is tolerated as the least worst option given the constraints. Most obviously, the UK-wide temporary customs arrangement was a substantial concession to the British government, while all involved on the EU side of negotiations have repeatedly stressed their desire to see the backstop used only as a last resort and only until another arrangement can be found.

If another proposal were to be put on the table that satisfied the EU’s various needs—protection of its members’ interests and the integrity of EU policies on trade and regulation—then it would certainly be discussed and considered seriously. However, after two years of research and negotiation, the Commission and member states do not see any viable alternative given the UK’s stated preference to leave the single market and customs union (as Anand Menon and Matthew Bevington discuss in this report).

This comes back to the uncertainty over the UK’s intentions. Movement on the preferred form of the future EU-UK relationship (for example, to include participation in a full customs union or in the single market) would be the most obvious factor that could change, affecting the nature and extent of the backstop. However, any policy change by the British government would need to be backed by a solid majority in Parliament.

And this is the key barrier to EU flexibility. At present, the British political system looks blocked. Concessions on even one part of the backstop might turn out to be the thin end of a thick wedge: Tory backbenchers might feel emboldened to require the government to return for more re- negotiations to gain yet more. Without a clear and definitive line from the UK, the EU is liable to keep its counsel and hold its line.

[close]

[Theoldkopite]

They'll be a load of equines at the Irish border, wont go down well.

Will need a very high fence to stop them jumping over. Trump could probably help us with this one.

[Qston]

I'm with you Doc

As I've said before, most of the discussion and desperation at the moment is, rightly, about trade and the economy and all that jazz.

But perhaps only in years to come will people begin to see just what an existential own-goal this is as well. How we are proposing to turn away from our own corner of the world, and break ties with those cultures closest to us and most intertwined in our history, our language, and our sense of self. Not to mention to erase a shared but fragile European identity that somewhat unexpectedly, and against-the-odds, took root, sprouted and then was carefully cultivated and allowed to bloom and thrive after a half-century of madness, aggression, war and bloodshed.

And why? Because some people are angry at their situation and want to lash out?

The UK is not just cutting its nose off to spite its face, but also cutting off all it knows to face its spite.

This echoes more or less my thoughts. The EU is far from perfect, and as you say trade etc is at the centre of the debate at the moment. However, it completely misses as to why the EU came into being in the first place. There is a misplaced prevailing, even arrogant, attitude that the horrors of the last century surely wouldn`t be repeated by our modern outlook. That is quite frankly ignoring all the lessons of history. The slow degrading of the whole concept by predominantly right wing lunatics and marxist ideologues is precisely what got us in this mess in the first place, ignoring the vast majority who sit silently in the middle.

[Trim0582]

They think, the more they will suffer for being British the more British it will make them feel. Which is what they want.

10000%

Thatcher dined on that thinking for her entire premiership, somehow convincing ordinary people to vote for ruinous policies and even vociferously cheer and endorse them. It is some odd form of pious, martyrdom and a national identity of stoicism, lauding courage and fortitude through adversity.

Courage and fortitude are by no means bad, but the idea of creating havoc and disarray, just so, thereafter, you can be seen to weather the storm stoically, is utter madness, it is very troubling.

It is analogous with American gun enthusiasts, who day dream about being caught up in a shooting, so they can play hero.

[Zeb]

Peston (facebook) on changes to Corbyn's original letter to May and why both May and Corbyn would have to split their parties to find an agreement that would pass Parliament.

No matter how many times Theresa May reminds us, it is easy to forget that Labour’s manifesto committed it to delivering Brexit.

Equally it is hard to remember that the notorious motion passed by the last Labour conference that opened the door to the party’s possible support for a Brexit referendum - as a last resort - was also a restatement of the party’s pledge to deliver its own vision of how to leave the EU.

So it was rational for the prime minister to respond in good faith to Jeremy Corbyn’s written offer to negotiate Brexit terms that he and his party could support.

And quite apart from the convention that manifesto commitments should be honoured, she will presumably know - since almost everyone else in the UK does - that Corbyn is less attracted to a referendum than he would be to a job offer from Goldman Sachs.

And by way of further evidence, if such were needed, I am told that the original draft of Corbyn’s letter to May, which was written by Labour’s shadow Brexit secretary Starmer, contained reference to the party’s fallback position of a referendum. And this was struck out by Corbyn’s office before the letter was sent.

But none of that means there is a deal to be done between Corbyn and May - because the scale of compromise for both may well be beyond what their parties can wear and bear.

To get Corbyn and Labour on board, May would have to sacrifice some of the putative freedoms - such as the ability to ever diverge from the EU on Labour or environmental rules, or to negotiate free trade deals with non-EU countries - that for many Tory Brexiter MPs represent the whole point of Brexit.

And to get his party on board, Corbyn would have to explain why he would be doing a deal whose effect could be to sustain the Tory government in office till 2022.

But as I have said before, there is a deal to be done between May and Corbyn that would command parliamentary support - it would be a version of what some Remainy MPs have styled Common Market 2.0 - so long as neither mind that their respective parties would fracture as a price of that deal.

The point is that May’s and Corbyn’s visions of a tolerable Brexit are much more aligned than the views of the Brexiter and Remain wings of their own respective parties.

So it is May’s and Corbyn’s resolve to deliver Brexit and damn the consequences for the institutions that have sustained and nurtured them throughout their entire adult lives that will determine how and even whether the UK leaves the EU.

For both, it is all about whether their perception of the national interest trumps party interest.

Not sure the opposition is meant to deliver on its losing manifesto all the same. And even government manifesto pledges are subject to political realities or the Tories would still be pushing the Poll Tax.

edit: more from Peston on Corbyn's letter being changed -

"I am told Keir Starmer is not the happiest member of the frontbench.  According to multiple sources, he had agreed that the final part of Corbyn’s letter to May would say “if you do not accept this [Brexit offer] there will be a People’s Vote”. One source tells me “LOTO [the leader of the opposition] agreed to this. But then Keir discovered after the letter had been sent and published that the People’s Vote para had gone”. Starmer “called LOTO and was told ‘oh we must have forgotten that paragraph’”. Apparently Starmer’s reaction has not been one of unbridled joy. And even erstwhile Corbyn loyalists are becoming grumpy at what they see as his refusal to follow the revealed will of Labour members and supporters that their should be a referendum. One said: “the only interest” of Corbyn and his aides is “seeing a Tory Brexit through so they can wash their hands of it”."

[kennedy81]

Brexiters desperately trying to spin the latest economic figures. Growth down by 0.4% to 0.2%. Investment into UK down for fourth quarter in a row.

So much for 'OMG the uk has teh fastest growing economy in europe'.

[killer-heels]

Brexiters desperately trying to spin the latest economic figures. Growth down by 0.4% to 0.2%. Investment into UK down for fourth quarter in a row.

So much for 'OMG the uk has teh fastest growing economy in europe'.

Thats a massive drop.

[Dr. Beaker]

So after all this time, we are still here trying (unconvincingly) to pretend that the current party set-up can get us successfully through this national tug-o'-war in which half of the participants on each side are pushing, and party leaders can neither push, for fear of offending pullers, or pull, for fear of offending pushers.

[Schmidt]

So after all this time, we are still here trying (unconvincingly) to pretend that the current party set-up can get us successfully through this national tug-o'-war in which half of the participants on each side are pushing, and party leaders can neither push, for fear of offending pullers, or push, for fear of offending pullers.

We should start a campaign to put the queen back in charge, I'm not a fan of the royals but the brexiters would lap it up and she's pro EU right?

[ShakaHislop]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47192233

Glad she's drawn attention to the freedom of movement issue. It'll force Labour to reveal whether it has made a genuine shift in a soft Brexit direction and does now accept the continuation of FOM, or if the leadership is still in cherry picking mode.

The workers rights pledge isn't much for the Labour Brexiteers to point to either.

Seems like it.

From Tom Watson's interview on Marr yesterday

AM: So the second obvious problem with your proposal is what happens to free movement. One of your front bench colleagues has said in the past week that free movement is on the table. In other words, you might accept free movement, which a lot of your own voters would not regard as Brexit.

TW: Well, look, we’re looking for a new set of arrangements, and it does seem to me that the domestic context across the EU, particularly in Germany, Italy and Spain, on the current free movement arrangements, are under question domestically. So it may be that a new deal around a customs union could refresh the talks about what free movement looks like. And you know, if you’re going to reopen negotiations let’s take a look at that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/10021901.pdf

[thejbs]

10000%

Thatcher dined on that thinking for her entire premiership, somehow convincing ordinary people to vote for ruinous policies and even vociferously cheer and endorse them. It is some odd form of pious, martyrdom and a national identity of stoicism, lauding courage and fortitude through adversity.

Courage and fortitude are by no means bad, but the idea of creating havoc and disarray, just so, thereafter, you can be seen to weather the storm stoically, is utter madness, it is very troubling.

It is analogous with American gun enthusiasts, who day dream about being caught up in a shooting, so they can play hero.

Dunkirk spirit... 

[So… Howard Philips]

We should start a campaign to put the queen back in charge, I'm not a fan of the royals but the brexiters would lap it up and she's pro EU right?

And aren't most of her in-laws German, Danish and Greek?

[Yorkykopite]

Peston (facebook) on changes to Corbyn's original letter to May and why both May and Corbyn would have to split their parties to find an agreement that would pass Parliament.

Not sure the opposition is meant to deliver on its losing manifesto all the same. And even government manifesto pledges are subject to political realities or the Tories would still be pushing the Poll Tax.

edit: more from Peston on Corbyn's letter being changed -

"I am told Keir Starmer is not the happiest member of the frontbench.  According to multiple sources, he had agreed that the final part of Corbyn’s letter to May would say “if you do not accept this [Brexit offer] there will be a People’s Vote”. One source tells me “LOTO [the leader of the opposition] agreed to this. But then Keir discovered after the letter had been sent and published that the People’s Vote para had gone”. Starmer “called LOTO and was told ‘oh we must have forgotten that paragraph’”. Apparently Starmer’s reaction has not been one of unbridled joy. And even erstwhile Corbyn loyalists are becoming grumpy at what they see as his refusal to follow the revealed will of Labour members and supporters that their should be a referendum. One said: “the only interest” of Corbyn and his aides is “seeing a Tory Brexit through so they can wash their hands of it”."

Interesting, thanks.

You're right in what you say about honouring losing manifesto commitments too.

[Trim0582]

Dunkirk spirit...

At least at the time it was to fight encroaching fascism in Europe.

This time that spirit has been hijacked. The EU surely must be one of the greatest examples of peace, through trade and commonality, in human history.

The influence of the EU in stabilising the whole of Europe, is grossly underestimated. It has helped bring 50 years of peace and prosperity, for me it is the ultimate betrayal of a "Dunkirk spirit" if one was to ever have existed.

The boomer generation (not all) seem to be a generation that dined on the glory of the war, without ever actually having been in one, how dare they. 

[Yorkykopite]

The 'Dunkirk spirit' certainly did exist in 1940. But it's obviously the opposite of the spirit prevailing now. Dunkirk was about national unity and the sinking of all differences in order to defend ourselves against the threat of a Nazi invasion. It was also about a 'contract' we made with the rest of the world to fight on until fascism was beaten. *

Brexit, for all the talk of 'The People', is about permanently dividing the country as well as retreating into our own little corner and sticking two fingers up to the rest of the world. 

*EDIT - Bearing in mind the Churchill thread the Dunkirk spirit was also about rallying around our own Fascist White Supremacist government and in that sense was simply a battle between two fascisms. 

[Trim0582]

*EDIT - Bearing in mind the Churchill thread the Dunkirk spirit was also about rallying around our own Fascist White Supremacist government and in that sense was simply a battle between two fascisms. 

Yes, I have read it but managed to refrain from posting.

White, British, war time leader born in 19th century, probably more racist than a 21 year old student it 2019.
Quelle fucking surprise.

Although ironically, he was probably less anti-Semitic than a majority of Corbyns labour party.

I'm sure Churchill will be totally denigrated and written out of history in the fullness of time, any biographical books about him will be pulled from curriculums and subsequently burned. Nothing says progress like, totalitarian proscription and book burning.


FFS Yorky, this is why I stayed out of that thread!

[Zeb]

Interesting, thanks.

You're right in what you say about honouring losing manifesto commitments too.

Alan Johnson's going to be on the phone to Starmer soon saying, "Did I ever tell you about what happened to Corbyn's speeches during the referendum campaign?", isn't he? John Rentoul has it that Corbyn's in purdah again and refusing to speak to even members of the shadow cabinet about Brexit.

I suppose keeping the (blue) Tories in 'til 2022 would allow the real enemy to be fought in the meantime etc.

[oldfordie]

Peston (facebook) on changes to Corbyn's original letter to May and why both May and Corbyn would have to split their parties to find an agreement that would pass Parliament.

Not sure the opposition is meant to deliver on its losing manifesto all the same. And even government manifesto pledges are subject to political realities or the Tories would still be pushing the Poll Tax.

edit: more from Peston on Corbyn's letter being changed -

"I am told Keir Starmer is not the happiest member of the frontbench.  According to multiple sources, he had agreed that the final part of Corbyn’s letter to May would say “if you do not accept this [Brexit offer] there will be a People’s Vote”. One source tells me “LOTO [the leader of the opposition] agreed to this. But then Keir discovered after the letter had been sent and published that the People’s Vote para had gone”. Starmer “called LOTO and was told ‘oh we must have forgotten that paragraph’”. Apparently Starmer’s reaction has not been one of unbridled joy. And even erstwhile Corbyn loyalists are becoming grumpy at what they see as his refusal to follow the revealed will of Labour members and supporters that their should be a referendum. One said: “the only interest” of Corbyn and his aides is “seeing a Tory Brexit through so they can wash their hands of it”."

If Corbyn thinks he can walk away from Brexit without a backlash he's deluded, if he thinks the Brexit issue ends the day we leave he's deluded, if he thinks Labour voters will lay all the blame for Brexit on the Tories he's deluded. Corbyn will never be trusted or forgiven after Brexit.

[Red-Soldier]

Yes, I have read it but managed to refrain from posting.

White, British, war time leader born in 19th century, probably more racist than a 21 year old student it 2019.
Quelle fucking surprise.

Although ironically, he was probably less anti-Semitic than a majority of Corbyns labour party.

I'm sure Churchill will be totally denigrated and written out of history in the fullness of time, any biographical books about him will be pulled from curriculums and subsequently burned. Nothing says progress like, totalitarian proscription and book burning.


FFS Yorky, this is why I stayed out of that thread!

This is about where I'm at with Churchill, and like you, have stayed out of the thread.

[Zeb]

The Economist's Tom Nuttall is covering a Sabine Weyand Q+A. Worth picking up on how blunt the EU are now being about the chances of 'remain'.

Some of what she said:

"when I look at the situation in Britain, I see an extremely polarised country asking difficult questions about globalisation. I'm not seeing a majority in the Commons for a second referendum.

cakeism is found on Remain side as well as Leave. The chances for a reversal of Brexit are non-existent. The only option is to enable a structured exit.

the political declaration is vague because Britain has not decided what relationship it wants with the EU.

Corbyn's letter to May triggered an interesting debate. His proposals deserve to be discussed. Britain's discussion deserves to be given some time."

Extension to negotiate based on amending the political declaration has always been a possibility. Moving the conversation to shooting the unicorns in a non-binding political declaration seems to be the way out of this which the EU are making clear they'd support.

[ShakaHislop]

The Economist's Tom Nuttall is covering a Sabine Wyand Q+A. Worth picking up on how blunt the EU are now being about the chances of 'remain'.

Some of what she said:

"when I look at the situation in Britain, I see an extremely polarised country asking difficult questions about globalisation. I'm not seeing a majority in the Commons for a second referendum.

cakeism is found on Remain side as well as Leave. The chances for a reversal of Brexit are non-existent. The only option is to enable a structured exit.

the political declaration is vague because Britain has not decided what relationship it wants with the EU.

Corbyn's letter to May triggered an interesting debate. His proposals deserve to be discussed. Britain's discussion deserves to be given some time."

Extension to negotiate based on amending the political declaration has always been a possibility. Moving the conversation to shooting the unicorns in a non-binding political declaration seems to be the way out of this which the EU are making clear they'd support.

It feels foolish to talk down the idea of another referendum at a time when pressure seems to be building on Corbyn to make advocating for it Labour's official position, in favour of bigging up Corbyn's letter nonsense in the hope that it will lead to the UK shifting to a non-unicorn soft Brexit. Labour has never explicitly said it'd accept the continuation of FOM post-Brexit, so why the EU has decided to get so excited about that damn letter is puzzling.

Part of the reason we're stuck in this vicious cycle is because the EU tries to be too clever and praise unrealistic proposals from the UK side in the expectation we'll take the hint and turn the original proposal into something realistic. Instead, we take said praise to be white-flag waving from Johnny Foreigner and double down on the piss-takery.

[Zeb]

It seems a bit silly to talk down the idea of another referendum at a time when pressure seems to be building on Corbyn to make advocating for it Labour's official position, in favour of bigging up Corbyn's letter nonsense in the hope that it will lead to the UK shifting to a non-unicorn soft Brexit. There's no evidence there's a Commons majority for FOM either, which would be required for a non-cakey/unicorn Brexit.

It allows for an extension which is the key part, I think, as well as ensuring the Withdrawal Agreement itself becomes cross-party consensus (hoho). To some extent it may just be buying extra time to prep for 'no deal'. I don't think it would necessarily rule out a referendum to ratify whatever ends up being the end state of the political declaration - were remainers to lend support to the 'soft' Brexiters and vice versa. Although that's a hot mess of a compromise for everyone to find. Depends on how long an extension we would want to ask for too.

[Schmidt]

And aren't most of her in-laws German, Danish and Greek?

No one cares about facts like that though, in their gut a ruling monarchy would be a return to the good old days.

[ShakaHislop]

It allows for an extension which is the key part, I think, as well as ensuring the Withdrawal Agreement itself becomes cross-party consensus (hoho). To some extent it may just be buying extra time to prep for 'no deal'. I don't think it would necessarily rule out a referendum to ratify whatever ends up being the end state of the political declaration - were remainers to lend support to the 'soft' Brexiters and vice versa. Although that's a hot mess of a compromise for everyone to find. Depends on how long an extension we would want to ask for too.

Comments such as Weyand's don't make the task of those seeking another referendum any easier, which is annoying when a referendum could lead to the EU's ideal outcome from this. It feels like a slap in the face to all those that have been campaigning for a Peoples Vote to be honest.

[Zeb]

Comments such as Weyand's don't make the task of those seeking another referendum any easier, which is annoying when a referendum could lead to the EU's ideal outcome from this. It feels like a slap in the face to all those that have been campaigning for a Peoples Vote to be honest.

Without a viable plan agreed by parliament then a referendum could equally return the worst possible outcome for everyone. From the EU perspective, the ideal end state would be a 'soft' Brexit or an even more disadvantageous (to us) version of it. And while May is PM, and Corbyn present but not involved, then the EU is always going to prioritise something agreed with her over what's coming from the backbenches in parliament.

Was just reading through Ian Dunt's comments and he seems not a million miles away from what I'm saying.

"The thing to do now is to secure a extension of Article 50, which'll probably need to be for three months to get Commons support.

Then the battle is for UK participation in the May European parliamentary elections. This must happen. If we don't, then there is almost certainly no chance to extend Article 50 past July.

Things are bleak. This is a desperate rearguard defence against national hara-kiri. But then, that's what it has always been. Nothing has, er, changed."

[ShakaHislop]

Peston (facebook) on changes to Corbyn's original letter to May and why both May and Corbyn would have to split their parties to find an agreement that would pass Parliament.

Not sure the opposition is meant to deliver on its losing manifesto all the same. And even government manifesto pledges are subject to political realities or the Tories would still be pushing the Poll Tax.

edit: more from Peston on Corbyn's letter being changed -

"I am told Keir Starmer is not the happiest member of the frontbench.  According to multiple sources, he had agreed that the final part of Corbyn’s letter to May would say “if you do not accept this [Brexit offer] there will be a People’s Vote”. One source tells me “LOTO [the leader of the opposition] agreed to this. But then Keir discovered after the letter had been sent and published that the People’s Vote para had gone”. Starmer “called LOTO and was told ‘oh we must have forgotten that paragraph’”. Apparently Starmer’s reaction has not been one of unbridled joy. And even erstwhile Corbyn loyalists are becoming grumpy at what they see as his refusal to follow the revealed will of Labour members and supporters that their should be a referendum. One said: “the only interest” of Corbyn and his aides is “seeing a Tory Brexit through so they can wash their hands of it”."

Any comment from Starmer on this yet?

[Zeb]

Any comment from Starmer on this yet?

Nada since the interview with The Sunday Times and the immediate row back with the letter to members and clarification for MPs.

[Zeb]

Comments such as Weyand's don't make the task of those seeking another referendum any easier, which is annoying when a referendum could lead to the EU's ideal outcome from this. It feels like a slap in the face to all those that have been campaigning for a Peoples Vote to be honest.

Here's a fun clarification to chew over.

"Just to clarify: I said that I see no majority for a referendum in the HoC. I did not talk about polls or revocation." Sabine Weyand

[ShakaHislop]

Here's a fun clarification to chew over.

"Just to clarify: I said that I see no majority for a referendum in the HoC. I did not talk about polls or revocation." Sabine Weyand

Nice to see her respond, and acknowledge the mood of the public (according to opinion polls) even if the MPs actions aren't following suit.

Is she suggesting that there may be a Commons majority for revoking Article 50 without holding another referendum? That's even less likely than a majority forming for another referendum IMO.

[ShakaHislop]

Food industry warns Gove on Brexit 'crisis'

The UK food industry has threatened to stop co-operating with government policy consultations, saying it is busy trying to stave off the "catastrophic impact" of a no-deal Brexit.

The warning came in a letter to Environment Secretary Fuckwitted Pob lookalike Michael Gove from more than 30 business leaders.

They said it looked "ever more the likeliest outcome" that the UK would leave the EU without an agreement.

They added that it was a "moment of potential crisis" for their industry.

Those signing the letter included the heads of the Food and Drink Federation, the National Farmers' Union and UK Hospitality.

"Neither we nor our members have the physical resources nor organisational bandwidth to engage with and properly respond to non-Brexit related policy consultations or initiatives at this time," they wrote.

"Government has recruited many extra staff; we cannot."

The firms urge the government to place a range of current and planned industry consultations on "pause" until the Brexit uncertainty is over.

The consultations the firms cite include one relating to further curbs on the advertising of sugary foods, a national recycling collection strategy and proposals for a tax on plastic items with less than 30% recycled content.

The letter, first reported by Sky, is further evidence of the industry's frustration at the continuing lack of certainty over the Brexit process.

"Businesses throughout the UK food chain - and their trade associations - are now totally focused on working to mitigate the catastrophic impact of a no-deal Brexit," says the letter, which was sent last Friday.

"Large amounts of time, money, people and effort are being diverted to that end."

The letter comes just two weeks after major retailers warned MPs that a no-deal Brexit would cause huge disruption to the industry, leading to higher prices and empty shelves in the short-term.

Sainsbury's, Asda and McDonald's were among those who warned stockpiling fresh food was impossible, and that the UK was very reliant on the EU for produce.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47200688

Who needs experts anyway?

[killer-heels]

https://medium.com/@carole_cadwalladr/andrew-neil-brexit-the-bbc-f4a569f6516a

Just reading this, it's lengthy, but beggars belief.

Neil should not really be on the Beeb.

[Zeb]

Nice to see her respond, and acknowledge the mood of the public (according to opinion polls) even if the MPs actions aren't following suit.

Is she suggesting that there may be a Commons majority for revoking Article 50 without holding another referendum? That's even less likely than a majority forming for another referendum IMO.

Don't think you're wrong. Depends on whether MPs see the logical end result of failure to agree on anything but 'no deal' is bad? But that assumes logic etc etc.

[ShakaHislop]

David Davis: Pound plummeting under a no-deal Brexit 'might not be such a bad thing'

A 20% fall in the value of the pound in the event of a no-deal Brexit "might not be such a bad thing", David Davis has claimed.

The former Brexit secretary called on the government to deliver a "pro-business, pro-trade, pro-environment" exit from the EU, suggesting Chancellor Philip Hammond could cut taxes and increasing spending in a special no-deal spring budget.

Referring to predictions that sterling could plummet if Britain leaves at the end of March without an agreement with the EU in place, Mr Davis said: "Analysts predict that in the event of no deal, sterling could fall by over 20%. Is this such a bad thing?

"Our goods will become 20% more competitive on the global market and our EU competitors' goods would be less competitive."

A fall in the value of pound could push up inflation, which could mean everyday goods becoming more expensive and household budgets being squeezed.

But companies that export around the globe would find their goods would become cheaper in those markets.

Mr Davis, who was writing for The Times Red Box, said government and businesses should focus on the "possibilities" of Brexit.

Otherwise, there was the risk of "doom-laden talk" becoming a "fait accompli", he added.

He highlighted a "doom-laden" forecast from the Bank of England, which last week downgraded its growth prediction for 2019 from 1.7% to 1.2%.

Mr Davis said Bank governor Mark Carney "exemplifies an Establishment culture of seeing Brexit as a huge problem to be ameliorated rather than a once-in-a-generation opportunity which offers a prize and could reap massive rewards".

But Mr Davis referenced Project After, a purported plan by civil servants for tax cuts and tariff reductions in the event of no deal, as evidence of the "huge opportunities" such an outcome could offer.

"This could include cuts in VAT and corporation tax, a variety of tax reliefs to boost spending, and a wider review of the UK's regulatory regime after we leave the EU," he said.

https://news.sky.com/story/david-davis-pound-plummeting-under-a-no-deal-brexit-might-not-be-such-a-bad-thing-11634361

Nothing says anti-establishment more than tax cuts for the rich and less money for public services.

[Iska]

David Davis: Pound plummeting under a no-deal Brexit 'might not be such a bad thing'

Oh fuck off you utter lightweight (Davis that is, not you Shaka).  A 20% devaluation is a catastrophic failure, not a prize to be seized.  It makes us all 20% poorer.  If it means we work for 20% less THAT IS NOT A GOOD THING regardless of whether or not the ship steadies itself in due course.

[Alan_X]

Comments such as Weyand's don't make the task of those seeking another referendum any easier, which is annoying when a referendum could lead to the EU's ideal outcome from this. It feels like a slap in the face to all those that have been campaigning for a Peoples Vote to be honest.

It’s Russian Roulette. The ideal outcome (Remain) is possible but so is blowing your brains out.

If Parliament had voted to say No Deal means No Brexit then it would be worth pushing a referendum.

[Alan_X]

David Davis: Pound plummeting under a no-deal Brexit 'might not be such a bad thing'

https://news.sky.com/story/david-davis-pound-plummeting-under-a-no-deal-brexit-might-not-be-such-a-bad-thing-11634361

Nothing says anti-establishment more than tax cuts for the rich and less money for public services.

He really wants the prize for stupidest former Brexit Secretary doesn’t he. Brain dead.

[Dr. Beaker]

He really wants the prize for stupidest former Brexit Secretary doesn’t he. Brain dead.

I'm still not sure he'd win.

[Ghost Town]

David Davis: Pound plummeting under a no-deal Brexit 'might not be such a bad thing'

https://news.sky.com/story/david-davis-pound-plummeting-under-a-no-deal-brexit-might-not-be-such-a-bad-thing-11634361

Nothing says anti-establishment more than tax cuts for the rich and less money for public services.

Yep, he's a thick, despicable, immoral c*nt

[TheShanklyGates]

David Davis: Pound plummeting under a no-deal Brexit 'might not be such a bad thing'

https://news.sky.com/story/david-davis-pound-plummeting-under-a-no-deal-brexit-might-not-be-such-a-bad-thing-11634361

Nothing says anti-establishment more than tax cuts for the rich and less money for public services.

I await the hysterical tabloid front pages about a run on the pound with baited breath...