-
His resignation letter (2nd para) refers to being sidelined by May.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/david-davis-why-i-quit/
and he refers to the alternative proposals his department was working on in his letter to MPs (bottom final page)
-
EU/Japan trade deal means it makes more sense to pull production back to Japan as the UK is no longer needed or desirable.
And that's the real elephant in the room.
The EU is becoming increasingly uncompetitive as the economic centre of gravity moves to Asia Pacific and it's "Fortress Europe" protectionist trade policy is coming under attack from both Trump and growing economies.
Does the UK strike out on it's own (it's traditionally been more Free trade than other EU countries) or does it stick with the EU with it's shrinking share of world trade and try to reform it from within?
-
@Victor-Meldrew EU has signed or negotiated some pretty decent non protectionist treaties in recent years such as Japan, Singapore and Canada along with plenty under negotiations such as NZ and Australia.
TPP has obviously stalled due to the US but it is coming down to the UK finding itself siding with the yanks or Europe.
Europe just makes way more sense both geographically and for access to Asia at present. Sure the Eurocrats are dicks but they will always have to be playing by someone’s rules, if not Europe’s then the US.
The two are so far apart on many standards that trying to play on both teams will be a nightmare especially for manufacturers and farmers. -
I think the EU has been forced to do FTA with other countries as it's economic power wanes quite rapidly - it isn't doing deals from a position of strength. The EU rebuffed India for years and has now probably missed the chance of a FTA with one of the fasted growing countries - despite cosying up to Modi recently.
The ideal for the UK, post-Brexit, is a FTA with the EU but better than the somewhat limited EU - Canada/Japan/Singapore deals - and also deals with the likes of India and the US.
There's a huge opportunity/prize post-Brexit for the UK, but the tossers on both sides of the divide seem to either want to stick to the EU with it's shrinking share of world trade or think there's a magic trade unicorn beyond the Mediterranean
-
The two are so far apart on many standards that trying to play on both teams will be a nightmare especially for manufacturers and farmers.
Fair comment, but you still have varying standards, James Dyson made a comment on the EU "Single Market" - he makes as many versions of his vacuum cleaners for sale in Europe as he does for the rest of the world put together.
The EU Single Market is a bit of a myth in many ways. It doesn't cover services, for example, and from professional experience, it's easier for a UK company to sell insurance in India or Canada than France or Spain
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Brexit:
@Paekakboyz said in Brexit:
This is a right mind-fuck.
It is truly staggering to hear MP's dismissing the result of a referendum, arguing for second and/or third referendums or arguing for the referendum result to be ignored.
MPs really seem to have lost their common sense and are running around like headless chickens with no thought of the consequences of their actions.
The vox pop is that voters are getting seriously pissed off with MPs both trying to find ways to frustrate the result of a referendum and purist Brexit MPs not willing to accept any reasonable deal.
I'm hearing this a lot and I'll have to think about whether it holds water. The first complication is that there is no requirement in British law to recognise the outcome of referenda at all. They are at best a way to gauge the temperature of the electorate. The Brexit referendum wasn't required to be had at all and a second or subsequent referendum will have just as much legal status as the first, i.e. none. The referendum was actioned at the pleasure of the Government and if they ignore it, repeat it, run another one or try to execute its outcome is once again at the pleasure of the Government. From what I can tell there is nothing at all stopping the Government from running another for any reason or none. And they can ignore that one too if they don't like it until they get a result that suits them then say that is the most significant vote.
The second thing is that votes supersede previous votes all the time. That is how elections work. A party has a manifesto pledge, gets elected (thereby making the manifesto pledge "the will of the people"), and tries and fails to enact it into law but that doesn't stop anybody, including themselves, from campaigning on a completely contrary platform 3 years later (I know, 5 in the UK). Every vote is a fresh start and there is nothing stopping a Government from calling a new one whenever it likes. In fact the main advantage to holding the Treasury benches is that you get to decide when and how the next vote happens even if you fuck it up like May did.
The recourse for the electorate is not to vote for them the next time. The evil genius in this case is that there was never a clear party line delineation between Leave and Remain, so none of the voters knows which party to turf out on their arse for being obstructive or supportive. The shit literally gets spread in an even layer across every party, and everybody smells the same. It really is a lesson in how to antagonise the greatest number of people until they lose patience with the entire process.
-
There are some good points there JC, but to argue from that perspective you would have to accept that if a party held power and unilaterally wanted to exit the EU one sunny Wendsday there is no compelling reason to go right about it, and if the electorate doesn't like it - wait for the next election. Some things have long lasting repercussions, where genies can't be put back in the bottle... for that reason things (rightly) go to referendums to gauge the will of the people.
It's referred to as the Westminster tradition, not the Westminster Well-Technically...
They took something to the people, the people voted, now the parliament has to act in good faith to execute on that.
-
@rotated But a referendum is specifically not part of the Westminster tradition. Until recently the overriding belief was that referenda were in fact unconstitutional. If Cameron had been more honest he would have put some ts and cs on the referendum question saying by the way, we may or may not pay any attention to the outcome. But that would have led to a low turnout and, worse, would have infuriated the Tory right who have been trying to get out of Europe for decades. I think we have to remember Cameron never believed a leave decision was possible, so why would he have rocked that boat? He was playing to his right.
To answer your point about the government operating unilaterally to revoke membership, your right. They can. Parliament is absolutely sovereign and they can do what they like if they have a majority to vote it through. For all the talk of the will of the people, there is legally no such concept in UK governance. Parliament can do whatever it likes. The consequences that may follow might be politically, legally or socially disastrous but they are allowed to be idiots if they want.
-
I'm hearing this a lot and I'll have to think about whether it holds water. The first complication is that there is no requirement in British law to recognise the outcome of referenda at all. They are at best a way to gauge the temperature of the electorate.
The House of Commons voted to hold a referendum on EU membership by a huge majority and told the electorate before they voted it would implement that decision.
And when the electorate doesn't vote the way the parties in the HoC wanted, and votes to leave the EU, they tell the public that the referendum (in your words) "was at best a way to gauge the temperature of the electorate" or told them they had got the vote wrong so go back and vote the right way this time
Do you really think UK voters wouldn't get pissed off and would simply shrug his/her shoulders and accept it? That it wouldn't have a huge and negative impact on the democratic process?
In fact the main advantage to holding the Treasury benches is that you get to decide when and how the next vote happens even if you fuck it up like May did.
Not possible under UK law (Fixed Terms Parliament Act, 2011). There needs to be a 2/3rd HoC majority to dissolve parliament before the 5 year term is up.
-
But a referendum is specifically not part of the Westminster tradition.
Neither is ignoring the result when you hold one and promise the electorate you'll implement the result.
The "it's only advisory, it isn't in the Westminster tradition and Parliament is sovereign" points you raise were only trotted out, ad finitum, when the Remain campaign lost.
No matter how much you book-end it, the simple fact remains that a very high % of MPs have openly refused to accept the result of a referendum they themselves called - and that's a very dangerous path to go down
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Brexit:
But a referendum is specifically not part of the Westminster tradition.
Neither is ignoring the result when you hold one and promise the electorate you'll implement the result.
The "it's only advisory, it isn't in the Westminster tradition and Parliament is sovereign" points you raise were only trotted out, ad finitum, when the Remain campaign lost.
No matter how much you book-end it, the simple fact remains that a very high % of MPs have openly refused to accept the result of a referendum they themselves called - and that's a very dangerous path to go down
It’s hard to know what’s what. I personally think a lot of MPs who are/were leave, are voting against the deal because they under estimated one of a few things
- The size of the task to leave
- Potential Fallout from no deal
- EU stance and what deal was available
MPs are people as well. Anybody had second thoughts before signing something potentially massive?
-
@MajorRage said in Brexit:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Brexit:
But a referendum is specifically not part of the Westminster tradition.
Neither is ignoring the result when you hold one and promise the electorate you'll implement the result.
The "it's only advisory, it isn't in the Westminster tradition and Parliament is sovereign" points you raise were only trotted out, ad finitum, when the Remain campaign lost.
No matter how much you book-end it, the simple fact remains that a very high % of MPs have openly refused to accept the result of a referendum they themselves called - and that's a very dangerous path to go down
It’s hard to know what’s what. I personally think a lot of MPs who are/were leave, are voting against the deal because they under estimated one of a few things
- The size of the task to leave
- Potential Fallout from no deal
- EU stance and what deal was available
MPs are people as well. Anybody had second thoughts before signing something potentially massive?
All true.
But there's a big difference between having a rational discussion and debate on what type of deal we leave on (or if we leave with no deal) and MPs being open about using every means possible to effectively overturn the referendum result.
It's the sheer stupidity which astounds. They genuinely believe that if Remain wins a second referendum, even narrowly, that will be the end of the matter and politics can go on as before. Cloud cuckoo land
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Brexit:
All true.
But there's a big difference between having a rational discussion and debate on what type of deal we leave on (or if we leave with no deal) and MPs being open about using every means possible to effectively overturn the referendum result.
It's the sheer stupidity which astounds. They genuinely believe that if Remain wins a second referendum, even narrowly, that will be the end of the matter and politics can go on as before. Cloud cuckoo land
Indeed. I saw an interview with Farage last night. It was proposed to him that Brexit may not go ahead, and he was remarkably sanguine about it. The prior discussion was around extension and all 27 members on the EU side needing to approve it ... so I wonder if he has inside intel that at least 1 isn't going to approve it.
This leaves question for allMP's now, and it's a fucking tough one. Do you vote for a deal which you hate to ensure Brexit goes through ... or do you vote against it, when you know that mens either no-deal leave or withdrawl of article 50. Both which have far reaching consequences.
It should never have got to this point. But it has, and hence that must be debated and discussed.
-
@MajorRage said in Brexit:
I saw an interview with Farage last night. It was proposed to him that Brexit may not go ahead, and he was remarkably sanguine about it.
Farage has formed a new party and will know it can inflict some serious damage to both main parties in a future GE - particularly in key Leave voting areas. His view is "the genie is out of the bottle" on the UK's relationship with the EU and is quite content to watch the mainstream parties make idiots of themselves on any withdrawal deal.
Disparaged and insulted by the political establishment for years, he's arguably one of the shrewdest politicians in recent years.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Brexit:
@MajorRage said in Brexit:
I saw an interview with Farage last night. It was proposed to him that Brexit may not go ahead, and he was remarkably sanguine about it.
Farage has formed a new party and will know it can inflict some serious damage to both main parties in a future GE - particularly in key Leave voting areas. His view is "the genie is out of the bottle" on the UK's relationship with the EU and is quite content to watch the mainstream parties make idiots of themselves on any withdrawal deal.
Disparaged and insulted by the political establishment for years, he's arguably one of the shrewdest politicians in recent years.
I can't think of anybody in this world who would have spent more time laughing than him over the last 2 years.
-
More hilarity from the House of Commons today..... The Second Referendum MPs put an amendment down hoping to win a vote on a "people's vote" - due to be voted on at about 1700.
Having realised they will lose the vote, the "People's Vote" campaign are now calling for it's supporters in the house to vote against their own amendment.....
You really can't make this sort of shit up.
"The House of Commons was a Benny Hill chase on acid, running through a Salvador Dali painting in a spaceship on its way to infinity". - Tom Peck, The independent
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Brexit:
More hilarity from the House of Commons today..... The Second Referendum MPs put an amendment down hoping to win a vote on a "people's vote" - due to be voted on at about 1700.
Having realised they will lose the vote, the "People's Vote" campaign are now calling for it's supporters in the house to vote against their own amendment.....
You really can't make this sort of shit up.
"The House of Commons was a Benny Hill chase on acid, running through a Salvador Dali painting in a spaceship on its way to infinity". - Tom Peck, The independent
Not quite right. The push for the second referendum bill is not from the the Peoples Vote brigade. They never wanted a vote on it today. They are simply saying that now isn't the time.
The comedy for me, which pushes me to utter despair, is that May wants a third vote on her deal. Which means that many of her critics were absolutely right. She's just been delaying and delaying it so that it's the only realistic option. She's changed fuck all, explored fuck all other options and just keeps re-iterating the same bloody thing.
I'm getting angry now.
-
@MajorRage But is it just her? Perhap the EU are s ticking it to us and saying it's this or nothing and she knows that? They know we're in a position of weakness - due to our incompetent handling from the word go and it's not as if we've been playing our cards close to our chest is it?
-
Amendment was sponsored by Vince Cable, Jo Swinson & other luminaries of the People Vote campaign. Obviously they didn't bother checking with the folks back at the ranch...
Yep. May's plan has been clear all along and she might well get it thru next week if reports of the DUP coming on board are true. She might win by continuously losing - which speaks more about her opponents than it does about her.
Bloody mess has to end.
-
Good points and it's interesting that the EU's Tusk is pointing to a 2 year or 4 year extension which might concentrate the Brexit head-bangers minds
But I don't think it's to do with weakness - it's more about maintaining an orderly exit and allowing the EU to move onto more pressing matters If there's EU parliament elections in the UK in May, it's likely the rump of UKIP or Farage's new party will do well and swell the ranks of the expected anti-EU parties in Stasbourg.
Brexit