Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Brexit

Westminstenders: May's Deal or No Deal

997 replies

RedToothBrush · 27/02/2019 18:48

Tonight: Votes on Amendments after May's Stitch-Up Promise which might nerf the crucial Cooper-Boles amendment as its now deemed 'unnecessary'. I think voting starts very shortly. (They are just summing up now)

A - Corbyn's Brexit deal
K - SNP's, banning No Deal
C - Cooper-Letwin bill paving amendment (which they hope not to move)
B - Alberto Costa's EU citizens rights
F - Spelman/Dromey's to enshrine PM's Brexit extension promise

Corbyn's amendment. You can ignore. Its going to fail.

The SNPs amendment should in theory pass, but with the vote on the 13th March and the government whip, it might fail today.

Cooper-Letwin (or Cooper-Boles whichever you prefer) needs to pass to ensure May can't worm her way out of the current timetable but it looks unlikely to pass. If it does it would come into effect on the 13th March.

Costa's amendment is interesting as he was forced to resign in order to table it (and protect his parents who are EU citz) even though the government have now backed his amendment. His speech was striking in how he stressed it was about people not party politics.

Looking like Spelman has been withdrawn. So possible there will be no vote on it, as May has promised a vote on extension on the 14th March.

The battle now turns to how long the (almost inevitable) a50 extension will be.

March 12th (or earlier): Second vote on May deal.
Its still unlikely to pass.

Which would lead to Cooper-Boles coming into effect (if it passes) though it now has effectively been accepted by May though she might renege.

We now face a vote rejecting no deal on March 13th. Which should ban no deal.

This makes the all important vote effectively on March 14th which will be about the extension. The detail and amendments on this are important and will affect what happens next.

March 29th is probably no longer important as we won't be leaving then.

If we only are able to get a short extension (which the EU might refuse and insist on a longer one! But I doubt it) then the end of April begining of May is crucial. If we don't pass the legislation to take part in EU elections then May can dictate to the HoC and force her deal through as the only alternative to No Deal.

The EU elections fall on May 23-26.

The new parliament starts on the July 1st. This is now effectively the cliff edge if May has her way.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/eu_referendum_2016_/3492426-Westministenders-Abbreviation
Abbreviation thread.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
25
1tisILeClerc · 02/03/2019 21:06

{A year-long delay is better than signing May’s awful deal says Dan Hannan }
While he and many others are saying that the WA is a 'bad' deal, has anyone in the last 3 years come up with anything that would be a better deal that the EU will accept, without trying to bend the EU's 4 principles?

TalkinPeece · 02/03/2019 21:14

Place marking with a belly full of curry ;-)

Peregrina · 02/03/2019 21:29

A better deal - revoke and then STFU about wanting special deals.

mathanxiety · 02/03/2019 21:33

Has this been posted?
www.bbc.com/news/uk-47426138
The screws are starting to tighten on British agriculture:
What follows is C&Pd in its entirety

UK-US trade deal: Envoy attacks 'myths' about US farming
{Fears over chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-fed beef are "myths", according to the US ambassador to the UK.

In the Daily Telegraph, Woody Johnson urged the UK to embrace US farming methods after Washington published its objectives for a UK-US trade deal.

EU rules currently limit US exports of certain food products, including chicken and beef - but Mr Johnson wants that to change in the UK after Brexit.

Downing Street has repeatedly denied it will accept lower food standards.

A No 10 spokeswoman said: "We have always been very clear that we will not lower our food standards as part of a future trading agreement."

Mr Johnson, however, described warnings over US farming practices as "inflammatory and misleading" smears from "people with their own protectionist agenda".

He also said the EU's "Museum of Agriculture" approach was not sustainable, adding: "American farmers are making a vital contribution to the rest of the world. Their efforts deserve to be recognised.

"Instead, they are being dismissed with misleading scare-stories which only tell you half the story."

On chlorine-washed chicken, Mr Johnson said the process was the same as that used by EU farmers to treat their fruit and vegetables.

Describing it as a "public safety no-brainer", he insisted it was the most effective and economical way of dealing with "potentially lethal" bacteria such as salmonella and campylobacter.
'Welfare standards'

President of the UK's National Farmer's Union (NFU) Minette Batters said that while Mr Johnson was correct in saying chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-fed beef was "safe" to eat, there were other factors that needed considering.

"The difference is welfare standards and environmental protection standards," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"Our consumer has demanded high standards of animal welfare, we've risen to that challenge - he's right to make the point that food security is crucially important, we would say the same - but all we're saying is: 'Produce the food to our standards and we'll have a trade deal.'"

Ms Batters said chicken farms in the US were not required, for example, to include windows in their sheds or clean out in between flocks.

The US National Farmers' Union has always maintained that its chicken and beef, which use processes banned by the EU, are "perfectly safe" and argues there has been a lot of "fear-mongering".

However, its British counterpart said the UK government should not accept a US deal "which allows food to be imported into this country produced in ways which would be illegal here".

That, Ms Batters said, "would just put British producers out of business".

Amy Mount from Greener UK, an environmental lobby group, said: "This wish-list shows that a hard-Brexit pivot away from the EU in favour of the US would mean pressure to scrap important protections for our environment and food quality.

"Any future trade deals should reflect the high standards that the UK public both wants and expects."

Despite the NFU's insistence that consumers are keen to maintain the current welfare standards in farming, Ms Batters said there was a possibility the UK would give in to the US.

She said: "There's always been the risk - and agriculture has always been the last chapter in any trade deal to be agreed - so yes there is a huge risk that British agriculture will be the sacrificial lamb in future trade deals."

Meanwhile, Dr Emily Jones, who is an associate professor of public policy at the Blavatnik School of Government at the University of Oxford, also said the issue was likely to be a sticking point for the US.

"I think the US won't buy it in negotiations with the UK," said Dr Jones, referring to the UK's insistence on maintaining its current standards.

"It's wanted, for a very long time, the EU to harmonise with US regulations and approaches to the production of food and it's exactly what it'll ask of the UK as well." }

I eat American food daily. Obviously, some of that is chlorine washed chicken. Quite honestly, it all tastes bland, and eating requires figurative holding of the nose as I know how animals are treated (have driven past feed lots in the west) and the way Monsanto has attained a stranglehold over crop production, both wrt seed development and chemical applications to crops. The environmental consequences of the American approach to agriculture are horrific (soil and ground water contamination, and food contamination) but as long as Monsanto makes its money none of that matters to the American political class because Monsanto lobbies very effectively, and this is what awaits the UK. Thanks to the way nature moves seeds and clouds of herbicide and pesticide across borders, this is what awaits Ireland too Angry.

I think it should be very clear at this point that the US is the Number 1 enemy of the EU, and that Brexit was engineered by forces in the US who use trade as a blunt weapon and who hoped Brexit would have a domino effect within the EU.

Frumpety's comment on American health insurance reveals the motive - profit above all other considerations, and the UK is a nice market to exploit.

BigChocFrenzy · 02/03/2019 21:33

The exit bill and expat rights would have had to be agreed whoever was pM

However, the future framework in the PD would have been very different without May's red lines

and a backstop would never have been thought of, if the UK had requested an EEA / EFTA Brexit as everyone had assumed would happen

and if DD especially hadn't kept assuring the public as soon as anything was agreed that the UK wouldn't be bound by it.

Littlespaces · 02/03/2019 21:35

Too unthinkable even for a flowchart ? Yes - the question mark is almost better than words. It leaves the full horror to my vivid imagination. The Ides of March is so true Interchangeable.

I do think it is about closed minds, austerity and communities feeling threatened. People put it down to racism but it really isn't that simple.

I read something about people being either 'Somewheres' (those who identify strongly with an area / have not moved about) and the 'Anywheres' (happily slot into a new area/ move about for work). The latter group were more likely to vote Remain.

I can't remember the source now but there is some truth in it when it comes to my family.

mathanxiety · 02/03/2019 21:38

Sorry - I see Lonelyandtiredandlow posted the article link.

Violetparis · 02/03/2019 21:43

The latest poll in the Observer/Guardian has Con 37%, Labour 33%, Lib Dem 7%, UKIP 7%, TIG 5%.

bellinisurge · 02/03/2019 21:47

@Littlespaces the Leavers and Remainers I know are the opposite of this description.

mathanxiety · 02/03/2019 21:56

www.thejournal.ie/bloody-sunday-murder-charges-4521080-Mar2019/

Non-paywalled report^^ of the possibility of charges over Bloody Sunday.
I hope there will be a trial.
It will be interesting to see if the men charged will be thrown under the bus by the officers and the political class who sanctioned or ordered actions in the 70s.
It will also be interesting to see if collusion between the Army and Loyalist paramilitaries is brought to light.

In the comments under the article there are references to 10 people murdered by the 1st Battalion Parachute Regiment (aka 'The Paras') a few weeks before the Bloody Sunday massacre.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballymurphy_massacre
There is also reference to plans that were mulled to murder children in a school that iirc have been mentioned here and in the press.

This was the dirtiest of wars and the idea that the passage of time makes it inadvisable to bring charges is imo despicable. The victims are still dead, are they not? The animosity and rage that the campaign of terror brought about are still simmering under the surface and only a nice bright light shining on events of the past has any hope of bringing a sense of justice done, finally.

In 2016, Sir Declan Morgan, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, recommended an inquest into the killings as one of a series of "legacy inquests" covering 56 cases related to the Troubles.[6][7]

These inquests were delayed, for funding was not approved by the Northern Ireland Executive. The former Stormont first minister Arlene Foster of the DUP deferred a bid for extra funding for inquests into historic killings in Northern Ireland,[8] a decision condemned by the human rights group Amnesty International.[9] Foster confirmed she had used her influence in the devolved power-sharing executive to hold back finance for a backlog of inquests connected to the conflict.[8] The High Court said "her decision to refuse to put a funding paper on the Executive basis was unlawful and procedurally flawed."[10] In January 2018, the coroner's office announced that the inquest is due to begin in September 2018.[11]

Hopefully if there is a trial it won't be a whitewash because that would have far reaching consequences.

56 is a lot of cases needing investigation in an area so small with such a relatively small population.

mathanxiety · 02/03/2019 22:58

The Paras shouldn't have been sent into a peacekeeping role, they were a front line attacking force, totally unsuited for this deployment and of course the soldiers have previously been cleared.

They weren't sent as peacekeepers though. They were sent to conduct a guerilla war and a war of attrition if necessary.

mathanxiety · 02/03/2019 23:21

But let's assume Brexit happens and we remain out for the foreseeable future:
Europe will then have 65 million people 20 miles offshore, their biggest single trading partner on this side of the planet and your biggest security partner.
And this at a time when you've got trouble to the east and trouble to the south.
The British role in this can be important.

Ivan Rogers interview in Der Spiegel, quoted by BigChoc.

So zooming out a little...
This is why I would anticipate provocation of Russia by the US in an attempt to force the EU to become more entwined with the US both politically and in terms of economy and trade than it is now. The price of US protection might be opening the EU to US agricultural products or some other conditions that would essentially destroy the EU. I would look for an oblique provocation using proxies such as Ukraine or the Baltic states. Russia has already taken the preemptive step of getting Turkey onside.

Peregrina · 03/03/2019 00:09

And this at a time when you've got trouble to the east and trouble to the south. The British role in this can be important.

I would have seen this as the UK deciding to throw its lot in with the EU - so effectively become part of an EU army.

LonelyandTiredandLow · 03/03/2019 07:46

math whilst I think US can profiteer from such an idea, I think EU is more useful as a bloc to US. Russia however...I think they will be the ones making the moves and causing discontent. They'll probably start with Greece where anti EU sentiment is divisive, Italy etc. I'm sure they are behind the funding of most of the far right parties, just as they were with Leave and Barker in HoL here.

I suspect it is easier for them to antagonise old fears of unity to break EU, especially with another hot summer coming and possibly more migration on it's way due to climate change. Personally I think that is the angle. Once EU is completely broken and divided they can start another war or simply pick over the spoils between Russia, China and USA. EU was too threatening to them if it was going to start an army I fear which enabled Russia to do the psyops as I doubt the other countries would let that happen while they were still profiting from the trade.

LonelyandTiredandLow · 03/03/2019 07:49

Mind you it did all coincide with the EU taking big US companies to court - so I wouldn't be surprised if US just finds EU more annoying under Trump. We know US and Russia are working together anyway so it makes sense.

Motheroffourdragons · 03/03/2019 08:06

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ to protect the privacy of the user.

mathanxiety · 03/03/2019 08:23

The US is interested in profit above all else and the EU prevents the US from exploiting the EU market the way it will do in the future UK. I suspect it is American money and Steve Bannon and people like him who are behind the far right.

The US is not interested in good relationships with blocs that seem to thwart its aims and get uppity by talking about starting up their own armed force. Assuming common cause with the US and assuming the US considers that western Europe has common cause with it is a mistake that is not warranted by examination of US history since 1939, and even under Obama. The motto of the US is 'you are either with us or you are against us'.

What 'with us' means is 'marching in lockstep', dismantling all barriers to trade with the US, and accepting all US conditions for trade. It also means accepting the American version of foreign policy and joining in when America decides to wage war abroad.

Someone posted in a previous thread that Russia's main impetus is in fact defensive, and I agree with that. This has been Russia's motivation through history from its emergence on the international scene (maybe under Peter the Great), including the Cold War period.

I do not think the US and Russia are working together. I think Russia rightly sees the US as more of a threat than it sees anyone else, with the memory of America's involvement in the Ukraine coup fresh in memory, and also with American involvement in Syria (that has not been welcome and seen as an attempt to secure a place at the negotiating table when the dust settles even though Russia bears the brunt of the struggle against IS there). I think Russia would like a solid trading relationship with the EU and has been hurt by sanctions imposed at the behest of the US and UK. Deep down I suspect Germany would like better relations with Russia, which is after all a big market for German goods on the doorstep of eastern Europe.

LonelyandTiredandLow · 03/03/2019 08:32

So in that respect Russian money going to leave to get us out of EU to let them in has played into US hands. We get their rubbish and lower standards/higher health costs and probably privitisation of health care, while EU slowly divides under populism via Bannon and eventually suffers the same fate.
It's such an old boys network still, like a giant version of HoC.

lonelyplanetmum · 03/03/2019 08:32

I suspect it is American money and Steve Bannon and people like him who are behind the far right.

It's not just a suspicion .. it's established that Robert and Rebekka.Mercer and/ or their Renaissance Technologies played a key role in the Leave campaign isn't it? They donated money and data analytics services to the Leave campaign and met up with Nigel Farage etc.

The only dispute surrounds proving the % extent of the effect that had I suppose.

LonelyandTiredandLow · 03/03/2019 08:38

We know Bannon/Mercer/Farager are all linked to Russia, so I do think this is all connected and they are colluding against EU.

Don't remember seeing this about Brady supporting May?

DGRossetti · 03/03/2019 08:52

The US is interested in profit above all else

Not quite true ... you need to add on it's own terms to that. If it were pure profit, it would be less sinister that a profit made enforcing the US weird idea of morality.

Look how they decide what causes are worthy of federal money.

LonelyandTiredandLow · 03/03/2019 08:54

This is frightening - if you swap 'Trump' in the article for 'Brexit' you can see a lot of similarities to UK particularly with May pandering to ERG and thus making it 'far right friendly' Neo Nazi plot against America.

“I think what we’re starting to see now is people becoming more disheartened and disconnected from mainstream politics,” said Keegan Hankes. - both remain and leave; no one is happy with politics.

“What we’ve seen in the Trump-era is that a lot of the people on the fringes see opportunities for political engagement where they didn’t see it before,” said Berger. “The question is: what happens when that window closes?” - akin to the 3mil non-voters...

jasjas1973 · 03/03/2019 09:13

In terms of Agri, how much is the UK market really worth to US farmers?
Most uk consumers wouldn't touch their chicken or beef and UK Supermarkets who sold it, would soon find themselves on the wrong end of publicity, even if the Govt reduced labelling standards.

Of course, if the UK imported these products, that's the end of any form of frictionless trade with the EU, a far more important market to the UK/EU.

In the event of HoC agreeing to the WA (imo highly likely now) any FTA with the US is dead for several years.

Peregrina · 03/03/2019 09:23

I suspect Germany would like better relations with Russia, which is after all a big market for German goods on the doorstep of eastern Europe.

I suspect so too, with the some of the same motivation that prompted the founders of the EEC/EU - to avoid the destruction caused by war with them.

Most uk consumers wouldn't touch their chicken or beef and UK Supermarkets who sold it,

How would we know, if the labelling was reduced and the price was cheap? I would see it more being introduced into institutions - schools, hospitals, prisons, possibly works canteens. Who asks where the meat for their children's lunches is obtained? Won't affect the HoC or HoL of course, their meat will be certified as coming from 'OrganicDevonFarm' or such like.

borntobequiet · 03/03/2019 09:25

Broadcasting House just did a profile of Chris Grayling complete with Benny Hill music...