To wonder how people think a new Prime Minister is going to be able to deliver Brexit

[Bearbehind]

I’m no fan of Theresa May; the reason we are in the mess we currently are is because of her red lines and the fact she has never been honest about what was and was not achievable.

But what do people think a new PM can achieve?

No deal will seriously damage the country, even the government’s own impact assessments have concluded that and there’s simply not the numbers in parliament for no cal to happen (even though it’s the default position)

The EU aren’t suddenly going to remove the backstop for a new PM because we’ve proven we cannot be trusted to do what we say so it’s needed.

@DroningOn - Isn't it entirely plausible that they do absolutely nothing, no more deal discussions or votes bu MPs and then in October we just come out of Europe with no deal.... Brexit delivered?

Yes. That's spot on. The default position is unless something happens to prevent (extension agreed, revoke), brexit happens.

@Isthisafreename

and that's the real issue. So-called "democrats" not being prepared to accept that their view of the world may not be correct.

There 27 other countries in the EU
There are 193 nations not in the EU, (based on the UN) meaning we would be joining the 165. How on earth do they all survive. It's must be a mystery to you.

193 nations in total. 165 not in the EU, plus the UK.

FGS, we can’t just stumble into No Deal as it is too detrimental to the country.

Leavers might choose to ignore all the impact assessments that prove this but that does not mean it will all be fine.

No PM is going to want the legacy of what no deal entails.

I’m confused.

I though MP’s had passed some sort of legislation that means we can’t leave the EU without a deal. So why are we still talking about ‘no deal’ ?

All the no-deal fans won't believe it's a disaster until they see it with their own eyes. By then it will be too late and they'll have dragged the rest of us along with them.

I know there is little point in trying to explain these points again, but nevertheless: No deal is bad for the EU but infinitely worse for us.
We are far more reliant on trade from Europe than they are on trade from us. They will lose access to one market. We lose access to the markets of 27 countries PLUS trading arrangements that we have with most of the rest of the world through our EU membership. We have so far managed to negotiate to roll over deals with what, 4 countries in the entire world? We lose leverage as we are much more valuable as part of the giant EU market. The only things we would be able to offer is a reduction in standards, hence the fact that the US might be keen to do a deal with is if we let in their inferior-quality foodstuffs which are banned by the EU.

There are 193 nations not in the EU, (based on the UN) meaning we would be joining the 165. How on earth do they all survive.

🤦The vast majority of these are in their own regional trading blocs. Even North Korea has some trade agreements. Most of them would also jump at the opportunity to be part of the world's most powerful trading bloc because of the massive economic benefits.

However, as I said, this will all fall on deaf ears. So far, Parliament have realised what the fall-out would be once everyone realised no-deal Brexit was actually a huge piece of shit not a glittery rainbow but who knows if they can continue to do anything to block it.

There are 193 nations not in the EU, (based on the UN) meaning we would be joining the 165. How on earth do they all survive. It's must be a mystery to you.

No mystery at all. They have trade and other agreements with each other, either individually or through blocs (EU, Mercosur, ASEAN etc) - agreements that have developed through years of negotiation and cooperation.

Just as the UK currently has a trade agreement (i.e. membership) with the EU, and through the EU has trade agreements with countries and blocs in the rest of the world. All of which (750+ agreements) the Brexiters want to put through the shredder on 31st October, leaving the UK with no deals on anything (except Dr Fox's deal with the Faroe Isles for a million oven-ready puffins).

Of course the UK will then be free to make deals with whoever will trade with them. The illusion is that this will happen on the UK's terms. The reality is that everyone else will be waiting to see just how fcuked the UK is before entering into any agreements. Despite what Johnson, Davis and the other fantasists keep claiming, the UK is no longer in a position to demand that countries trade on the UK's terms. The days of gunboat diplomacy and colonies have long gone.

Leaving on 31st October is easy enough, but having burned bridges, ripped up agreements, insulted all and sundry and breached the GFA, what does the UK do on 1st November?

@Gth1234

@Isthisafreename - There 27 other countries in the EU. There are 193 nations not in the EU, (based on the UN) meaning we would be joining the 165. How on earth do they all survive. It's must be a mystery to you.

They survive because they have trade deals in place which means they do not operate on base WTO terms. No deal means exactly that. No deal with the EU. No deal with any of the countries that the UK currently has deals with by virtue of its EU membership. No deal means trading on WTO terms. That means that if you waive tariffs to one country, you must do the same for all countries. Here's a link that explains why trading on WTO terms is not a good idea theconversation.com/no-deal-seven-reasons-why-a-wto-only-brexit-would-be-bad-for-britain-102009

and that's the real issue. So-called "democrats" not being prepared to accept that their view of the world may not be correct.

No. The issue is certain leave supporters either incapable of, or refusing to, recognise economic reality.

You want to leave the EU. Fair enough but at least figure out what it actually means. You may think that the fall-out is worth it in order to achieve your goal. You may feel that destroying the GFA and the negative economic impact in the short to medium term is an acceptable price up pay for leaving the EU. If you admitted that, you would at least be demonstrating a reasonable grasp of reality and, while I might disagree with you, I would be able to respect your decision as it would be based on facts rather than magical thinking.

It was never ever going to be good for anyone except those rich enough to rise above it and profit from everyone else’s pain.

It was never as simple as a yes/no question, there are too many options on both sides but especially the Leave side. And now all those who “won” are tearing the country apart fighting over which of the “winners” are going to get their way.

There is no good deal. Just a staggering amount of arrogance of those who think that they can pull one out of all the bullshit.

@tomtom1999xx - I though MP’s had passed some sort of legislation that means we can’t leave the EU without a deal. So why are we still talking about ‘no deal’

They did but that is simply a declaration of preference. It won't have any impact on brexit unless some legislation is passed to prevent brexit or agreement is reached to extend A50 or to accept the WA.

{ tomtom1999xx Sun 26-May-19 13:33:30

I’m confused.

I though MP’s had passed some sort of legislation that means we can’t leave the EU without a deal. So why are we still talking about ‘no deal’ ?}

A50 having been 'triggered' by Theresa is an internationally recognised legal statement of intent to leave the EU.
At this point there are only 2 outcomes, the UK leaves (currently 31 October) or a Prime Minister goes to Brussels and asks to revoke. It is a binary choice at the moment LEGALLY.
The HoC, the cabinet, and to a degree the HoL are currently the kids in the back of the car arguing whether they want to go to the beach or to the zoo. All the EU need to know, by 1 minute to midnight EU time on 31 October, is whether the UK wants in or out.

Isthisafreename, 1tisILeClerc

Thank you for explaining.

WTO rules require a border between the UK and EU

There is no rule in the WTO requiring its member governments to secure their borders.

Where the UK might run into trouble is under the WTO’s non-discrimination rules, particularly
“most-favoured-nation” treatment (MFN), which means treating one’s trading partners equally.

The UK cannot immediately trade on WTO. WTO is the framework for negotiations

WTO rules already apply to the UK’s present trade relationship with the EU.

They will also apply to any future trade relationship between the two, whether there is a deal of some kind, or no deal at all — so long as the UK and the EU and its member states are members of the WTO.

The UK has submitted its draft schedules to the WTO - all 715 pages of it, and most of that is likely to be accepted. Only about 25 pages will be up for negotiation - 100 or so tariff quotas where the UK has admitted it’s likely to have to negotiate with other WTO members.

In effect, the UK has just replicated the EU’s tariff commitments, which are currently its own too, as an EU member. Its draft schedule literally copies and pastes all the tariffs from the EU’s goods schedule.

And there are special schedules submitted for the case of no WA to treat NI as a special area due to security concerns.

Where have the UK WTO schedules got to, what is the latest?

20 countries objecting last October; are all these resolved now?

WTO rules require a border between the UK and EU

There is no rule in the WTO requiring its member governments to secure their borders.

If goods are passing from one country to another and the two countries have different tariffs, standards, certifications etc. then the goods will need to be checked in order to register where they came from. Until there is some technological solution, this has to happen either at the border or the sealed goods travel to a controlled area away from the border for checking - either way, the checks constitute a de facto border.

WTO rules already apply to the UK’s present trade relationship with the EU

They really don't. The EU is a bloc of 28 countries that have agreed their own internal rules between them.

{In effect, the UK has just replicated the EU’s tariff commitments, which are currently its own too, as an EU member.}

If the UK is simply replicating EU tariffs, why is it bothering to leave?
The whole point of leaving is to be separate, and it will impede trade deals with the USA.
There is also the issue of technical compliance/standards/liabilities.

The tariff splitting discussions can't happen until the WA is signed.

Havanananana They really don't. The EU is a bloc of 28 countries that have agreed their own internal rules between them.

Yeah, they really do.

Even now, while the UK is a member of the EU and its single market, it is governed by WTO rules. These mainly deal with how the EU and its member states relate to the rest of the world. They also discipline how the single market and customs union themselves are set up.

The difference is that the EU’s member states have agreed to go beyond those WTO rules for much of their trade relations. Therefore when disputes arise between the member states, they are handled within the EU, for example if the UK objects to French restrictions over foot and mouth disease.

If the UK is simply replicating EU tariffs, why is it bothering to leave?

Because the UK wants to minimise any negotiations it might face in the WTO and it’s practical if the UK and EU are in a some kind of customs union. The tariffs are even quoted in € to speed up agreement and minimise haggling over exchange rates.

It was meant as a sort of rhetorical question in that why is the UK leaving if it is simply going to cut and paste. Pointing out the strangeness of declaring the UK will be 'free of the EU' but actually staying the same and by doing so creating the need for duplicate 'red tape'.

why is the UK leaving if it is simply going to cut and paste.

If Leavers had actually thought that through we would be in a better place now.

How anyone ever thought we could tell our closest neighbours and biggest trading partners to fuck off is beyond me.

We were always going to end up complying with EU rules in order to trade with those on our doorstep.

Which reverts back to - ‘what is the point?

So OP, you don't really want to ask Mnetters about their opinions about who they think would make the best PM (elected by the Tory Party) but you just want to vent a bit about Brexit.

And I see, the prolific posters on the Brexit Board (97% Remain voters) have got bored with their own echo chamber and have sniffed their way over here - like little terriers poised for Leave Mnetters to post.

Well, turn on the News, put your feet on a footstool and pour a large glass...noone really knows until the results are in.

If the UK votes cluster in the majority towards the Remain Parties then the Tories will elect a soft Brexiteer (eg: Gove/nuevo Gove); if the majority of votes go to the Brexit Party then more likely to be Raab or Brady. You can rule out any female because the misogynists won't risk that.

These are my guesses, as no one knows anything right now.

you don’t really want to ask Mnetters about their opinions

Not true hate

As above, I do actually think the only way out of this mess is no deal, but I also think there’s not a single person who’s prepared to put their neck on the line to be the PM who does it.

no one really knows until the results are in

You do know this doesn’t make the slightest difference to what a new PM is actually prepared to do don’t you?

Bear - your response is very refreshing.

With regards to your last statement as I said above I don't claim to know anything right now, but I might disagree with it a bit because with the wide range of possible leaders and what any/or/either of them are prepared to do will be influenced by tonights EU Election results...I guess.