Westministenders: Danger of "accidental" Brexit (whoops !) ?

[BigChocFrenzy]

i.e. Brexit without a deal - NOT intentionally so - due to UK govt incompetence and mutual UK/EU misunderstandings

The govt is proceeding from abysmal ignorance on a Brexit journey which may blunder into disaster.

Prominent Leave campaigner Richard North:

"The UK Government's narrative seems to rest on the belief that the EU will cave in under pressure, and is thus giving every sign that it is prepared to push negotiations to the wire.

If, on the other hand, the EU are determined not to budge, especially as, with their own White Paper on "The Future of Europe" triggering internal discussions unrelated to Brexit, they are not necessarily fully focused on the "British problem".

As a result, we could end up with an "accidental Brexit",
where the UK negotiators overplay their hand, ending up in the UK leaving without an agreement, forcing it to rely on WTO rules.

Most likely, it will take very little to convince the EU that Mrs May is bluffing – as the effect of the WTO option is likely to be disastrous for the UK economy.

We could thus have each side misreading each other, making the accidental Brexit all the more likely."

www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86395

No not the same ring as lloyds of london.

Let the drain begin! (On speed up) and let the realisations finally start. The media ain't going to be able to dress up all the losses. But we sure as hell will start to feel them very soon

There is a thread ongoing atm about a woman who is taken to tribunal because the owner thinks her evaluation on Trip Advisor is a lie.
Now can someone explain me why this isn't possible to do in politics? Why it's OK for politicians to tell lies, and there has been a lot of them recently?

I actually agree with Bolchy though. The reason why there is such n increase in racism is because it has always been there. A bit hidden out of sight but there nevertheless. There is no reason for people who were truly not racist to suddenly become racist iyswim.
What I see, in a lot of different areas of the society, is a return to the 'golden age' of the 1950s, with all its issues (including racism but not just that)

Out for day but new thread up for when this runs out:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/eu_referendum_2016_/2890887-Westminstenders-And-so-it-begins?watched=1

Yes that was a straw in my beer. I'm classy like that and it seems somehow appropriate.

Law and Policy @lawandpolicy
Very good thread from a Conservative's perspective.

Garvan Walshe @garvanwalshe
1 UK Govt wants to leave Single Market and replace it with shallower deals w states further away. Trade will be fall by a quarter.
2. It has done so because ECJ sovereignty and immigration control are more important to it than the economy.
3. It wrongly thinks it has negotiating cards, but EU's economy is much more important to the UK than the UK's is to EU
4. It used to think that walking away without a deal was enough of a threat, but now realises it isn't credible.
5. It is now threatening to withdraw security cooperation which is in the UK's interests unless it gets a deal
6. This is even less credible, and leaves two possibilities. Either govt already planning to walk out, or
7. It just doesn't know what it's doing.

Exactly where i am with things. Except my thinking is that it is a combination of 6 and 7 which is worse than either alone.

Wouldn't trust the bastards to do a deal on a second hand car. They would end up with paying 2 million for an Austin Healy with no wheels covered in shit.

And another:

John Springfield @John Springfield
#article50day in a short thread: the UK is smaller than the EU, and is a very open economy with an advantage in services trade. 1/
Thus Britain will feel the cost of no deal much more than the EU27, because it needs EU law to be able to trade many services. 2/
The EU27 control the negotiations, because they can walk away in 2 years. So Britain will be forced to make concessions. 3/
The British government has made little effort to prepare the British public & press for the consessions that'll have to be made 4/
So the big question is: can the PM say No to Brexiters? She hasn't so far, and Tory history suggests it will be very difficult to do so. 5/5

Again this leads to May losing power within her own party.

A good deal for the UK is not possible if she listens to her hard right.

When they walked out of select committee it says it all. Responsible governance is like disaster planning. You plan for the worst and hope for the best, not the other way around. The fact they don't want to do this, means there is wilful desire for chaotic exit but they don't know what this will really entail nor do they want to plan for it and only want to deal with it after it happens.

I really hope I'm wrong.

J k Rowling
Happy Boxing Brexit Day! The name derives from a ritual dance in which we skip around a burning bus while punching ourselves in the face.

James O'Brien
Within one week of the Westminster terror attack, our PM has told the EU: "If you don't give us what we demand, we will help terrorists."

Brilliant isn't it?

Thats very funny

These chaps don't seem to be on board with the BeLeaving of the myriad new opportunities coming our way.

news.sky.com/story/brexit-fears-hundreds-of-farmers-may-go-bust-without-tariff-free-access-to-eu-10817893

As Nick Turner, another local farmer selling his wares, tells me: "If there isn't free access there is no doubt, there will be hundreds of farmers who go bust."

And as a local NFU representative tells me, there won't be any chance of filling the gap elsewhere either: "Boris Johnson has said we can fill the gap by selling to the rest of the world. He needs to join the real world.

"There's no way we can compete with New Zealand and China in the growth markets of the south, they're just too close. We need to sell to France, Spain and Germany."

Oh those naysayers! They just need a stiff upper lip and to get on board the bonkers bus.

'Lego bricks and boiled eggs': the three Brexiteers explain everything – video
www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2017/mar/30/eu-brexit-european-union-brexiteers-boiled-egg-david-davis-liam-fox-boris-johnson-video
Mussolini started as a joke.

"Within one week of the Westminster terror attack, our PM has told the EU: "If you don't give us what we demand, we will help terrorists.""

Good point. Good thing govt was playing its cards close to its chest eh?

5. It is now threatening to withdraw security cooperation which is in the UK's interests unless it gets a deal

Not that proof is needed of the lack of intelligence in the Brexit camp, but it was probably not a good idea to draw attention so early to one immediate brick wall the UK will face in the next few years; which is that any treaties about security will need to respect the ECHR, or the EU cannot honour them. This means the UK agreeing to submit to the ECHR to continue to protect itself.

Not what Leavers (well the ones who ignored the experts) want to hear.

But, now A50 is here, who cares what the UK wants ? (Notice the EU ignoring any request to keep negotiations under wraps).

Mussolini started as a joke.

And ended strung upside down alongside his mistress from a garage forecourt.

So basically:
If you voted Brexit to avoid EU laws/courts/regulations - bad luck, you have to have them anyway.
If you voted Brexit to be free to trade on our own terms - bad luck, nobody else will trade with us separately and we need to trade with the EU on the original terms to keep afloat.
If you voted Brexit to chuck out Johnny Forrinner who is White and European - bad luck, as they are all staying, except your nice Spanish daughter in law who you thought would be "fine" because she's "nice" (and White) except that she hasn't worked for the last 10 years owing to bringing up your grandchildren so now can't stay.
If you voted Brexit to chuck out Johnny Forrinner who is Black and non-EU - bad luck, as you are thick.

drspouse that made me laugh

Yes. And hello higher food prices. Higher cost of living and fewer holidays to the Costa del sol

If you voted Brexit to avoid EU laws/courts/regulations - bad luck, you have to have them anyway.

Not exactly. The UK can deny human rights to UK citizens in the UK. But any treaty with the EU must recognise the European Convention of Human Rights, and thus the power of the European Court of Human Rights. So - as warned months ago - we are drifting into a situation where an EU citizen - despite not existing - will have more rights than a UK citizen. You can spin it any way you want, but that's how it will be. You can also add to that the data protection laws that the EU will require the UK to honour for EU citizens which are much more than UK citizens will have. That's if the UK wants to trade with EU citizens personal data.

Of course the UK could throw a strop and refuse to enter into any treaties that require submission to the ECHR. But it won't work. Submission to the ECHR - like US subservience to the US Constitution - is baked into the EU constitution.

Incidentally, the EUs reading of the ECHR prohibits capital punishment. So even if the UK does agree a treaty with the EU, it would not be able to execute an extradited criminal.

Being flexible in treaties isn't "being ruled by Brussels" - it's acknowledging that there is such a thing as society. International society. And we all have to get on in the world.

Back to the transitional deal issue, I am really tickled the leak indicates the EU will limit it to 3 years max. Because the much-touted FTA the government is planning will take likely 5-10 years.

I was always concerned by the blasé way a transitional deal was mentioned - because the EU hadn't actually agreed to one. It would have been sensible to get an assurance on it before art 50 was triggered.

Unless the EU is considering some super-fast-track deal that can be negotiated and ratified within 3 years - a feat never previously achieved - then they appear to be manoeuvring us onto an EEA/EFTA deal.

Unless of course we want to try death-blow WTO rules.

So how was the US under Obama ever going to manage a trade deal with the EU, given its penchant for capital punishment?

The UK is a founding member of the Council of Europe (established 1949), responsible for the ECHR. Russia and Turkey are both members as are almost all European countries, regardless of EU membership. This is not the same entity as the European Union Council. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is similarly a completely distinct entity from the ECJ.

This is quite a good wiki piece on the current relationship, (not that I generally rely on wiki as a source in these matters).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_the_European_Court_of_Justice_and_European_Court_of_Human_Rights

The EU is currently deadlocked on joining the Council of Europe as a distinct member and as such does not consider itself bound by ECHR rulings. However the ECJ does use the Convention as a source of law. This can have the perverse effect of interfering in a Member State's judicial relationship between its national courts and the ECHR. It may well be the case that the problems in the UK which have led some to call for withdrawal from the ECHR will disappear post Brexit. In that regard it is reasonable to view withdrawal from the EU as strengthening Human Rights for UK citizens - most of the issues occur over balancing competing rights.

"Lego bricks and boiled eggs" I completely get that

DH can always beat in at chess in under 6 moves. I am a whizz at perfectly timing boiled eggs however.

We have gone Minecraft in our HH so I now have visions of DD wielding a diamond sword.

Oh those naysayers! They just need a stiff upper lip and to get on board the bonkers bus.

Now you're getting it poorboy

But howabout

As a strate it really really won't work. Not when the economic realities hit people's jobs homes and pockets

I challenge you then to say that...and to take responsibility

Oh and to avoid confusion Lloyd's of London has an apostrophe.

Howabout good for you

To avoid confusion. We are fucked