Westminstenders: May's Deal or No Deal

[RedToothBrush]

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Looking like Spelman has been withdrawn.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.

Alan Beattie@alanbeattie

One reason the Commission and EU27 are baffled at how bad UK has been in Brexit talks is
they are used to dealing day-to-day with high-quality UK civil servants, not rubbish ministers

Maybe the ERG are softening on the WA because they realise a backstop of some sort will be essential later, whether for a trade deal with the EU or US.

Leading Brexit think tanker Shanger Singham & NI-only backstop for US trade deal^

JPCampbellBiz@JP^^Biz

Interesting thing about Shanker on Newsnight is that ^
he more or less conceded the island of Ireland would have to be a single SPS area to both do a US trade deal & avoid a hard border.^

Which would mean...making permanent the Irish Sea checks regulatory checks in the backstop.^

pretty^^ I wonder if an independent Scotland in the EU would have the same power over England as the RoI does atm over Brexit terms 🤔

Maybe the ERG are softening on the WA because they realise a backstop of some sort will be essential later, whether for a trade deal with the EU or US.

Their problem is still cake and eat it. The physics haven't yet been invented which allow the UK to be two things simultaneously. We either deal with the EU on EU terms or we deal with the US on US terms. (Being able to demand UK terms disappeared decades ago).

The two are mutually exclusive.

The no deal we are still headed for would ensure the US could not do any deal until the UK abides by the GFA anyway.

And the irony of MPs being allowed to vote time and again on the same subject while the country don't get a second vote is not lost.

Quite.

btw, still loving Soft Border Patrol ...

bellacaledonia.org.uk/2018/06/27/the-us-embassy-on-brexit/

The clip is basically saying the Government should level with the electorate and that massive disenchantment may follow if Brexit leads to recession or long term decline.

Unfortunately, I don't think it will, as Scotland is unlikely to be a full member until the Brexit negotiations are complete (....but there again..... ).

I suspect though that Ireland will set a useful precedent as to what is acceptable for a land border.

The suppressed 1975 McCrone report about the potential impact of the discovery of oil on the Scottish/UK continental shelf (which was only able to be published 30 years later due to a carefully worded FoI request after the FoI Act came into being) had the following to say about the impact of too hard a Scottish currency:

To counteract this situation it would be essential to try to keep the surpluses on the balance of payments down and thereby reduce the upward pressure on the exchange rate. This could involve extensive lending abroad, whether to England, the EEC or under-developed countries. Such lending could well be in Scotland’s interest rather than face the prospect of an intolerably high exchange rate; it might also do much to help cement relations with other EEC countries and, coupled with the supplies of oil for export, would make Scotland a highly desirable member of EEC with a strong bargaining position.

and on the prospect of trade war again with England and membership of the EEC (as was)

Without EEC Scotland would always run the risk that England might find it expedient to impose an import surcharge, a quantitative control or even a tariff on goods coming from Scotland. It was largely to eliminate this that Scotland accepted the Union of 1707. New EEC rules would have the same effect and for all nine member states. In the unlikely event of England leaving the EEC, Scottish access to the other countries could in time largely compensate for any restrictions that might arise on English trade.

It would seem that nothing much changes...

www.oilofscotland.org/mccronereport.pdf

The clip is basically saying the Government should level with the electorate and that massive disenchantment may follow if Brexit leads to recession or long term decline.

Except the massive disenchantment is what led to Brexit

There is no escaping the fact that whatever happens - from Revoke to no-deal and all points in between, there is no upside to Brexit. Not now. Not next year. Not next decade. Not in five decades time.

I have seen the future. It's successive governments of all stripes desperately spinning plates to fool some of the electorate some of the time that everything is OK.

Notice that almost all of those Wiltshire people were elderly, and won't be affected too much by Brexit. Or only to the extent that the Care Homes shut because they can't get staff.

Peregrina
Notice that almost all of those Wiltshire people were elderly, and won't be affected too much by Brexit.
Or only to the extent that the Care Homes shut because they can't get staff.
You have nailed it
As y'all know I deal with small local councils
NIMBY / Brexit central
but then they magically want low paid people to come and wipe their bums at Sunrise

time for another letter change in my name !

Reports strongly suggest that if the UK wants a USA FTA, then it will have to accept an NI-only backstop,
i.e. all checks on the Irish Sea / GB ports & companies

That would give the US politicians the best of both worlds:

Being able to export their lower standard food to the UK and forcing the NHS to pay massively increased orcies for US drugs
while also appeasing the powerful Irish American lobby in Congress, who would otherwise try to block ratification of any deal

BigChoc
My New York informant tells me that the UK trade deal is an utter irrelevance to the USA as our market (once separated from the EU) is only ripe for gouging.
If the USA could sell soya to China again tomorrow, the UK would be dropped like a fag butt

twitter.com/CiaraMcMillan4/status/1102122614120767488

@CiaraMcMillan4

The dept for exiting EU (DExEU) estimate that an #nodeal Brexit will cost the UK £158bn per year. That’s £3bn per WEEK. Dwarfs the “£350m per week” we were supposed to save.

And we are projected to lose another £13bn per year on "the administrative burden on businesses from customs declarations alone".

Let that one sink in for a moment. Same as the net amount we spend on EU contributions. On administration ALONE.

That little chart just linked doesn't show the jobs being lost as some manufacturing and financial industry puts their departure into action (option 4, remain). They would surely want a big handout to undo their departure plans?
Saying that it is obviously infinitely better than options 1-3 financially BUT it still doesn't sort out the 'feelz' unless the likes of Farage, Johnson and others are actually heading to prison for their part in illegal activities.

TiP I strongly disagree with your US informant, because it contradicts several published reports and official statements

The huge US agribusiness conglomerates want a new market where they can sell their industrialised meat, chicken etc
Their pharmaceutical industry is furious that the NHS pays less for their drugs than US healthcare firms and wants to force them to pay the higher US prices.

They want Brexit as the first step - they hope - in breaking up the EU, their chief rival atm as a trade bloc
The EU btw, that keeps levying swingeing fines on their biggest businesses for breaking the rules.

We wouldn't have had all this US money being channelled into Leave for years, if it wasn't profitable.

BigChoc
My dad might disagree with the official line, but the old git is well in touch with the mood in his city

The powers that be might be interested in the UK, but US voters are not
and will not allow it to impact on their lives

There are geopolitical aspects of Leave, BigChoc - the hoped for domino effect of Brexit didn't materialise but Brexit still serves as a warning to the EU of what US money and data manipulation are capable of doing. And imo you are right to conclude that the US wants to break up the EU, or at least to get the EU to roll over and allow trade with the US on its terms (as DGR pointed out).

China is a massively bigger market for the US than the UK is.

While US voters in general are not interested in the UK, the Irish government seems to have done quite a bit of work in educating lawmakers on the implications of Brexit for Ireland. I would anticipate that they could push whatever NI angle they wanted thanks to general public apathy. If the question of Irish reunification comes up I suspect the general consensus among voters who watch the news would be a kneejerk positive response.

A Guardian article discussing increase suicide risk among farmers. DP (who voted Remain) is already experiencing the drop in sheep prices mentioned - and his sheep are his long term future pension. He keeps asking me why Theresa doesn't just stop it all. I wish I could give him a cheerful answer.
www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/03/brexit-and-bad-weather-puts-uk-farmers-at-risk-of-suicide-say-charities

@Missbel - My husband and I ask ourselves the same - it is such a huge act of self harm, and I haven't heard of one positive (that's true).

Having a blue passport doesn't count......because that is just an aesthetic- not something that makes a real difference in people's lives.

I am so sorry your partner is experiencing this. I shall be buying English lamb from my butcher.

There is still so many lies spread by the media - I just want to pull my hair out.

The link is only suggested, and is tenuous and unproven, LonelyAndTiredAndLow. An alleged coincidence of interests does not mean that parties have colluded.

Robert Mercer has a history since 2006 of political involvement that includes big donations ($millions) to the Citizens United Group that featured in the landmark Supreme Court decision that completely scuppered American democracy.

Mercer's fund (Renaissance) makes money by anticipating change in the markets. Precipitating that change is a far less risky proposition and there is a lot of evidence that this is actually what Mercer does by means of throwing money at influencers and lobbying (and so does his partner in Renaissance, James Simons - but Simons is a huge Democrat donor. Mercer and Simons between them donated around $50m to their respective causes in 2016 alone).

Prettybird
But if labels aren't allowed to mention state "mechanically recovered meat" or "country of origin: USA" - let alone "hormone grown" or "chlorine washed" or "genetically modified" shock, then how can consumers exercise choice?

You are making the mistake of assuming there will be a situation that is highly regulated and where labeling is mandatory, like the one that exists now.

The point of the US way of doing things is that regulation on labeling is light.

So you will find that there will be labeling, but it will be voluntary apart perhaps from nutritional information.

Aspects of food production that UK consumers now see in black and white terms will be harnessed to the service of profit making. People will consider aspects of animal and crop science only in relation to how much the final product costs. The value of certain methods of crop cultivation and an approach to animal welfare will be lost as cynical speculation on the motives of producers come to the fore. The public understanding and appreciation of science and best practices will be degraded. This has already happened in the US. 'They're taking away our burgers' has become a rallying cry against the recent green climate change initiative sponsored by the US green lobby and some sections of the Democratic party.

Methods and approaches to agricultural production like 'organic' or 'non-GMO' or 'hormone free' or 'anti-biotic free' or 'free range' - that mean a lot in terms of farming and food quality, and that have solid scientific research behind them - will become mere catchwords for premium products instead of widely accepted reflections of a scientific standard understood by the public to be necessary conditions for agriculture.

Producers seeking to differentiate between given brands of milk at different price points will proudly state that X is not from cows treated with growth hormone, while Y will be the cheaper variety. Some beef will be labeled 'grass fed' and will cost an arm and a leg. Etc. The public will aspire to one day buying the fancy stuff because it will be a status symbol in their fridge or on their table, and until then they will chow down on the chlorinated, mechanically separated, caged, pesticide and herbicide ridden cheaper products.

Consumers will exercise choice if they can afford to, and the choice will be based on spurious grounds.

In the US there is no routine labelling of
free range
imported
GM
chlorine washed
food there is ALL about aesthetics not provenance

The public will aspire to one day buying the fancy stuff because it will be a status symbol in their fridge or on their table, and until then they will chow down on the chlorinated, mechanically separated, caged, pesticide and herbicide ridden cheaper products

That is a very scary prospect but not one i think will happen.