It is a lie that Brexit is now “done”, but we have of course left the EU. It looks like Johnson doesn’t want alignment with the EU in any trade agreement, but what gains will we get from diverging? If he is hoping that, by diverging from EU standards, we can increase our international non-EU trade, who will we trade with? Won’t they have standards we will have to adhere to? We will be swapping one set of standards for another, while at the same time creating friction with our biggest trading partner (45% of our trade is with the EU) and making that trade less economical. Companies who currently export to the EU will continue to do so, and they won’t diverge from EU standards. But they will have to complete extra paperwork and may be subject to extra checks during the export process.
Since we’ve left the EU, what has changed? Nothing. We are still subject to its laws, we are still paying in to the EU budget. Yet those people demanding Brexit are happy. We were disturbed by fireworks at 11pm on 31st Jan as people around us celebrated the fact that we had left. I don’t know what will change come the end of the year, but if Johnson is going for a very basic trade agreement, as he seems to be, things like EHIC won’t be available – so travel insurance will be more expensive. UK driving licences won’t be valid in mainland Europe, so we’ll have to get international driving licences. Not all insuperable per se, but added up, it will just be that bit more of a faff to go abroad. Maybe that won’t bother the bare-chested rent-a-mob braying around Westminster, but I daresay even they like a Spanish holiday occasionally. It might come as a surprise when they are in the slow lane for passport checking next year.
I’m disappointed by the way Brexit is now being discussed; I’m worried that there isn’t a real dialogue happening, and I’m concerned that we are all now becoming entrenched in our views and less willing to listen to other points of view.
People do bandy about the concept of loser’s consent and suggest that those who voted for Remain should now fall in line and support Brexit. But I find that difficult, since no-one has offered any reason to now support Brexit. No-one is pointing to any specific subject and saying “see this? This will improve, thanks to Brexit.” In order to get loser’s consent, I think the victor must demonstrate that their path of action is the best option – or, at least, not the worst option. By addressing concerns, one could obtain loser’s consent. But I don’t see anyone addressing the concerns of those who voted for Remain. I hear that we are getting back control of our money, our borders and our laws, but what does that actually mean? What do those in charge want to do with our money, our borders and our laws now that we’ve regained control of them?
If “remainers” are referred to at all, they should get over it, they should back the country, they should listen to the will of the people. We’re currently talking past each other and no-one is listening. Those who voted Remain are being shut out of the national discourse. And that is exemplified by lots of voices on Twitter now, saying that Johnson fully owns Brexit and he will need to own the consequences of Brexit. That’s right, but we’re all going to feel the consequences, and which of us will be able to link those consequences back to Brexit?
I don’t have a solution for any of it, but it seems that nor does anyone else. And the more I think about it, the more glum it makes me.
TTFN.
Showing posts with label Brexit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brexit. Show all posts
Sunday, February 09, 2020
Saturday, January 26, 2019
19-01-26 Saturday I - Brexit Update
In my view, Rees-Mogg is deluded. His new offer to Theresa May is that he might be minded to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement (WA), as long as she removes the “backstop” part of it. Unfortunately, the backstop is one of the major parts of the WA. T May might want to remove the backstop, but unfortunately this has been included as insurance in case a future trade deal can't be reached, and the EU won't countenance reopening the Withdrawal Agreement.
At the same time, May is inviting MPs from across the House for talks on how to resolve the Brexit logjam, but she doesn't seem to be willing to accept suggestions from others – it seems to be an exercise to persuade others of the excellence of her ideas. She saw that she was going to lose the meaningful vote before Christmas so she pulled the vote, but she then brought the same vote back mostly unchanged and lost anyway. She lost by the largest margin suffered but any government ever, in the history of the UK parliament.
And yet she doesn’t seem to have any alternative. She keeps circling back to this deal which was voted down by 230 votes, apparently thinking that if the EU provide some warm words, MPs might be persuaded to vote for it. The trouble is that warm words and assurances don’t change the wording contained in a legally binding document. Even if she exerts more pressure on her MPs (because Labour MPs aren’t feeling the pressure), she won’t be able to persuade enough of her side to vote for the WA so that it passes.
Then there are other actors in Parliament, trying to drive their agendas.
Brexiters are supporting an amendment to put a time limit on the backstop, which might get some support but won’t be agreed to by the EU. What would be the point in having an insurance policy which expires before you need it to? Remember, the backstop kicks in on a certain date *if* we haven’t agreed a future trade deal with the EU. So, if the EU won’t agree to a time limit on the backstop, this amendment is dead in the water, as far as I can see.
In my view, and given the length of time that trade deals take to complete, having the backstop start from December 2020 is too early. It should be 2022 at the earliest, and possibly as late as 2025. And until the future trade arrangements are agreed or the backstop does kick in, we should continue as we are, as a member state. Murrison today described the WA or the backstop as “not having an Article 50”, i.e., we are leaving one international treaty which did have a break clause, to join another one which doesn’t. And I can see the logic in that, but the EU has been a trusted partner for the last 40 years, and I don’t think we need to suspect them of acting in bad faith now.
The other amendment which is important is the Cooper amendment. This proposes that if there is no deal agreed by 26th February, then Mrs May should seek an extension to Article 50 from the EU. This would be a way for Parliament to “take No Deal off the table”, to use a well-worn phrase. This is a cross-party amendment so it should get considerable support. The majority of MPs don’t want No Deal, so extending the Article 50 deadline makes sense. I’ve also seen reports that the Labour leadership might encourage / whip their MPs to vote for this amendment. There are a couple of issues with this though, and I’ll describe them here.
If Labour whip their MPs to vote for this amendment, then it becomes a party political issue. Tory MPs might respond by voting it down, and that would include the DUP. How arrogant, they might think, for these people to think they can instruct our PM to act in a certain way? They might not be able to support this amendment on those grounds. The amendment has been proposed on a cross-party basis – Nick Boles and Oliver Letwin (Tories) have also been involved in putting this together – but the Tories might vote along party lines and support the PM.
Then there are a largely silent (as far as I can see) rump of MPs who believe that the “Will of the People” must be enacted, and it would be wrong to delay leaving the EU. If we did delay, it might even lead to us not leaving at all. If we delay once, what is to stop us delaying again? And again? Such a move would be a “betrayal” of the public, and it would go against the decision they took on 26th June 2016. These MPs won’t support an extension to Article 50.
The amendment would only kick in if we don’t have a deal by 26th February, but given the way things are going, do we think a deal is likely by that date? I would suggest that is a question to which the answer is “no”.
If we ignore these likely naysayers, and assume the amendment is passed, what is the likely response from the EU when we request an extension to Article 50? I would suggest that they will ask us why we want to extend Article 50, and what purpose the extension will serve. If the extension is only so that Parliament can continue internal squabbles about what it is that they want, I think that the EU might take a dim view of this. They might allow the extension once, but if that doesn’t result in a decisive outcome, any further requests for extension might not be granted. It may be that the first request isn’t granted.
Given all the above, I think it is perfectly possible that we can still leave without a deal on 29th March. Luckily, I've got a “Trading Places bet” (I.e., £1) with PaddyPower at 6/1 that we do leave without a deal. I think this is still likely despite the fact that a number of sources are advising that we don’t have enough time to enact all the legislation required to allow us to leave the EU. I guess it will be passed shortly after we’ve left.
I would be happy to be proved wrong by events next week, and if we don’t leave, or leave later, or leave on more favourable terms, I’d be happy to lose £1. At least things might not change dramatically. Either way, it’s going to be interesting.
TTFN.
Wednesday, January 02, 2019
19-01-02 Wednesday I - Brexit Outlook
It’s not good, is it?
The one thing to remember is that we are leaving the EU on the 29th March. If nothing happens, if there is no intervention, we leave by automatic application of law. All that needs to happen is – inaction, indecision, inertia.
May’s Withdrawal Agreement shouldn’t get passed, going on the present numbers. Unless a hell of a lot changes, the House of Commons won’t vote for the deal as it exists. And the EU won’t renegotiate it, since the negotiation phase is complete. May might get some warm words, but that won’t change the legal text of the Withdrawal Agreement (WA). And the “backstop” part of the WA is unacceptable to most MPs. The customs union and single market aspects of the backstop mean that we will be “tied forever to the EU”, at least until the future trading arrangements are set. The trouble is that trading arrangements can take years to agree, and there are specific dates at which we enter the backstop. We could be in the backstop indefinitely.
If May’s deal is voted down, there is no real alternative. Labour will probably call for a vote of No Confidence in the government, and hope to bring about a general election, but since they are still apparently pro-Brexit, I don’t see them being particularly successful. Probably smaller parties – i.e., the Lib Dems and the Greens – will pick up more votes than normal, but if Labour don’t change then they could be locked in a death spiral with the Tories, and end up with another hung parliament.
The House of Commons can keep voting down each proposal brought forward by the government, but what is really needed is for the govt. to bring forward legislation which Parliament can approve. But it is unlikely that the govt. will propose a second referendum, or a revocation of Article 50. May’s approach to government is not collegiate or inclusive, and she is not persuading the majority of MPs that her way is the right way. There has already been a party vote of No Confidence triggered by the members of the ERG, but they won’t vote with Corbyn if & when he triggers a vote of No Confidence in Parliament. Party above all else, after all.
Before Christmas I was quite optimistic that something could be done to mitigate the worst of Brexit. Now, however, I am fully expecting the worst. And I don’t think we’re going to like it.
TTFN.
Saturday, February 10, 2018
Saturday 18-02-10 I Brexit, an itch I can't scratch
I read with interest today that the EU are beginning to decide what Brexit will look like. It is unsurprising that someone has stepped into the void where British leadership should be, but I guess someone had to.
The current Brexit planning seems to want no hard border with Ireland, but also no customs union. I think the two things are irreconcilable, and I’m not quite sure what Theresa May / David Davis are aiming for. Unless they are trying to scupper the whole shebang, maybe?
Michel Barnier said that the Brits are going to have to make some decisions, and quickly, if they want to get everything nailed down by the self-imposed March deadline. Now, he is saying that if the disagreements are not resolved, any transition period could be in doubt.
This is the issue though; the UK are throwing out some “blue sky” thinking, and desperately hoping that something sticks. The position papers they published last year were sent out into a vacuum, nor were they properly assessed or tested by analysts. Now, I expect, the negotiators are getting to the hard end of it, and the question should be “how will that work, precisely?”. But it seems that Davis and his team think that their function has been fulfilled – “we’ve given you a proposal, now make it work”.
Every time I hear a Brexity spokesman on the radio, they suggest that we will be out of the customs union, but we still want free trade with the EU countries. “We don’t want to impose tariffs on their goods, and we don’t see why they would want to impose tariffs on ours”, they say. Unfortunately, that isn’t how trade works; if we are outside the EU, then we will be subject to tariffs; this is the way it has to be, because the EU needs to treat all trading partners the same. If they don’t impose tariffs on us, the U.S. can open a trade dispute with the WTO, as I understand it, because the EU would not be treating their trading partners equally.
It’s all a big mess, and I don’t see any way out for this government. They have painted themselves into a corner with all their red lines (no ECJ jurisdiction, no hard border in Ireland, no customs union, etc.) and I don’t believe they can deliver what they promised. Let’s see how it goes, shall we?
TTFN.
The current Brexit planning seems to want no hard border with Ireland, but also no customs union. I think the two things are irreconcilable, and I’m not quite sure what Theresa May / David Davis are aiming for. Unless they are trying to scupper the whole shebang, maybe?
Michel Barnier said that the Brits are going to have to make some decisions, and quickly, if they want to get everything nailed down by the self-imposed March deadline. Now, he is saying that if the disagreements are not resolved, any transition period could be in doubt.
This is the issue though; the UK are throwing out some “blue sky” thinking, and desperately hoping that something sticks. The position papers they published last year were sent out into a vacuum, nor were they properly assessed or tested by analysts. Now, I expect, the negotiators are getting to the hard end of it, and the question should be “how will that work, precisely?”. But it seems that Davis and his team think that their function has been fulfilled – “we’ve given you a proposal, now make it work”.
Every time I hear a Brexity spokesman on the radio, they suggest that we will be out of the customs union, but we still want free trade with the EU countries. “We don’t want to impose tariffs on their goods, and we don’t see why they would want to impose tariffs on ours”, they say. Unfortunately, that isn’t how trade works; if we are outside the EU, then we will be subject to tariffs; this is the way it has to be, because the EU needs to treat all trading partners the same. If they don’t impose tariffs on us, the U.S. can open a trade dispute with the WTO, as I understand it, because the EU would not be treating their trading partners equally.
It’s all a big mess, and I don’t see any way out for this government. They have painted themselves into a corner with all their red lines (no ECJ jurisdiction, no hard border in Ireland, no customs union, etc.) and I don’t believe they can deliver what they promised. Let’s see how it goes, shall we?
TTFN.
Saturday, November 25, 2017
Saturday 17-11-25 Brexit Update (Again)
So here is how I think Brexit is going to proceed.
We won’t get a deal by the end of March 2019. In fact, we probably won’t even know at that stage what the outline of Brexit will look like. Or, it will be starting to take shape, but the detail won’t be known. I’ve actually got a bet on that, although it’s only pennies.
By that date we will have extended the timeframes associated with Article 50. We won’t be leaving the EU at the end of March 2019. The extension will probably be either two or three years, so that will take us to March 2021 or 22.
After that date there will be a transition period of at least two years. That will give businesses time to adjust to the new status quo. During the transition period, we will remain part of the EU, we will continue to observe the decisions of the ECJ, and we will continue to pay into the EU coffers.
By that stage, no-one will want to talk about Brexit; it will be a taboo subject. It will belong to nerds and specialists.
However, these extended timeframes will give the UK authorities time to set up new regulatory bodies, so for instance whatever we decide will replace the EMA (European Medicines Agency) can be set up and start to function.
As time goes on, the will to execute Brexit will drain away. Especially with the small kerfuffles which will occur from time to time, when people realise what actual impact Brexit will have. This week there has been uproar that cities in the UK have been ruled out of the competition for European Capital of Culture 2023. To my mind, the loss of this title is a trifling matter when we consider what else will need to be changed in the new Brexitopia. Maybe, though, small matters like these are tangible & understandable examples which people can grasp as a sign of what is to come?
For instance, the company I work for is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority in the UK. Because “passporting” will be lost, we will have to choose a country in the EU to have our European Headquarters, and we will have to work with the financial regulator in that country. But the regulator won’t want to talk to a shell company, when the strings are being pulled in London. So we will have to duplicate our legal Counsel team, and our Risk team, and incur costs which would be unnecessary without Brexit. To my mind, that is a more substantial concern than whether a city is called “European Capital of Culture” for a temporary period.
With the extended timeframes given to Brexit, public interest will wane, and it may be that the opportunity will come to revisit the referendum. In my view, the 2016 referendum would have to be nullified by a second referendum. If Parliament voted against Brexit without going back to the people, they would be accused of ignoring “the will of the people”, despite the facts that it was a 52-48 split, and only 37% of the voting public voted for Brexit. So either we have a second referendum, or possibly Labour could stand on a manifesto cancelling Brexit – if they got elected, then they could maybe put a stop to it. I know that Labour’s current stance is pro-Brexit, but I don’t think they are as dedicated to the cause as some of the right-wing free market fundamentalists occupying the Tory backbenches.
Let’s see how it goes, eh? Although the battle which was the referendum was lost, I don’t the war is over just yet.
TTFN.
We won’t get a deal by the end of March 2019. In fact, we probably won’t even know at that stage what the outline of Brexit will look like. Or, it will be starting to take shape, but the detail won’t be known. I’ve actually got a bet on that, although it’s only pennies.
By that date we will have extended the timeframes associated with Article 50. We won’t be leaving the EU at the end of March 2019. The extension will probably be either two or three years, so that will take us to March 2021 or 22.
After that date there will be a transition period of at least two years. That will give businesses time to adjust to the new status quo. During the transition period, we will remain part of the EU, we will continue to observe the decisions of the ECJ, and we will continue to pay into the EU coffers.
By that stage, no-one will want to talk about Brexit; it will be a taboo subject. It will belong to nerds and specialists.
However, these extended timeframes will give the UK authorities time to set up new regulatory bodies, so for instance whatever we decide will replace the EMA (European Medicines Agency) can be set up and start to function.
As time goes on, the will to execute Brexit will drain away. Especially with the small kerfuffles which will occur from time to time, when people realise what actual impact Brexit will have. This week there has been uproar that cities in the UK have been ruled out of the competition for European Capital of Culture 2023. To my mind, the loss of this title is a trifling matter when we consider what else will need to be changed in the new Brexitopia. Maybe, though, small matters like these are tangible & understandable examples which people can grasp as a sign of what is to come?
For instance, the company I work for is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority in the UK. Because “passporting” will be lost, we will have to choose a country in the EU to have our European Headquarters, and we will have to work with the financial regulator in that country. But the regulator won’t want to talk to a shell company, when the strings are being pulled in London. So we will have to duplicate our legal Counsel team, and our Risk team, and incur costs which would be unnecessary without Brexit. To my mind, that is a more substantial concern than whether a city is called “European Capital of Culture” for a temporary period.
With the extended timeframes given to Brexit, public interest will wane, and it may be that the opportunity will come to revisit the referendum. In my view, the 2016 referendum would have to be nullified by a second referendum. If Parliament voted against Brexit without going back to the people, they would be accused of ignoring “the will of the people”, despite the facts that it was a 52-48 split, and only 37% of the voting public voted for Brexit. So either we have a second referendum, or possibly Labour could stand on a manifesto cancelling Brexit – if they got elected, then they could maybe put a stop to it. I know that Labour’s current stance is pro-Brexit, but I don’t think they are as dedicated to the cause as some of the right-wing free market fundamentalists occupying the Tory backbenches.
Let’s see how it goes, eh? Although the battle which was the referendum was lost, I don’t the war is over just yet.
TTFN.
Monday, October 23, 2017
Monday 17-10-23 Brexit October Update I
I received my quarterly reminder to update this blog the other day, otherwise known as my GoDaddy invoice. I had been humming and hawing about writing something, but each time I got to it, I couldn't see that what I'd put down on paper was worthwhile and so I deleted it.
Mostly I've been following Brexit developments, and getting more & more worried. We seem to have gone from a situation where we were promised that "it would be easy to get a trade deal with the EU, after all they need to sell us BMWs and prosecco" [writer's note: most of the UK consumption of prosecco seems to happen in our house, I admit, but I don't have and have never bought a BMW] to "actually, no deal wouldn't be so bad, we can rely on WTO rules".
Some research has been done into that latter proposition and it turns out that only one country in the world relies solely on WTO rules and that country is Mauritania. But in an update to that article, it would seem that even Mauritania enjoy preferential trade terms from some developed nations, which means that there is no country that relies solely on WTO rules to trade. So those separatist headbangers who want to leave the EU under any circumstances seem to be "misrepresenting the actualite" when they say that there would be no issue with resorting to WTO rules.
Looking at the list of podcasts I listen to, it would seem that most of my free time is taken up listening to Brexit updates. I am subscribed to several Brexit podcasts, including the following:
Remainiacs: This is probably my favourite Brexit-based podcast. Hosted by Dorian Lynskey (the Guardian), Peter Collins (ex- of the Economist) and Ian Dunt (editor of politics.co.uk and author of “Brexit – What the Hell Happens Now?”). I really like their approach and it’s a good listen.
Brexit Means: This is the Guardian’s weekly Brexit update, and it’s okay, but I will probably bin it off soon.
Brexitcast: This is the BBC’s weekly Brexit update, it is a bit light-hearted, the two hosts take the mickey out of each other somewhat, but it is informative. More often than not they have Laura Kuenssberg on to talk about the politics of Brexit, and let’s face it, it is all about politics.
UK in a Changing Europe: This is a more right-wing take on Brexit, I think, although I’m not overly familiar with it just yet. The two episodes I listened to have been a) Jacob Rees-Mogg addressing the Tory conference fringe and b) Yvette Cooper and Diane Abbott addressing the Labour conference fringe. But the first episode was with a Times journalist, so I think it’s coming from that direction.
Brexit Podcast: This is probably the most open-minded Brexit-related podcast I listen to. Tim Heming and Jennifer Hahn do a good job of asking questions and letting the guests do the talking. They have had Patrick Minford and Alistair Campbell, Henry Bolton (new UKIP leader) and Gina Millar all in to talk about their understanding of Brexit. The one issue I have with this podcast is that many of the interviews seem to be done over the phone and so the sound is not the best.
So that is what is keeping me awake mostly (not that I listen to them in bed or at night).
Mostly I've been following Brexit developments, and getting more & more worried. We seem to have gone from a situation where we were promised that "it would be easy to get a trade deal with the EU, after all they need to sell us BMWs and prosecco" [writer's note: most of the UK consumption of prosecco seems to happen in our house, I admit, but I don't have and have never bought a BMW] to "actually, no deal wouldn't be so bad, we can rely on WTO rules".
Some research has been done into that latter proposition and it turns out that only one country in the world relies solely on WTO rules and that country is Mauritania. But in an update to that article, it would seem that even Mauritania enjoy preferential trade terms from some developed nations, which means that there is no country that relies solely on WTO rules to trade. So those separatist headbangers who want to leave the EU under any circumstances seem to be "misrepresenting the actualite" when they say that there would be no issue with resorting to WTO rules.
Looking at the list of podcasts I listen to, it would seem that most of my free time is taken up listening to Brexit updates. I am subscribed to several Brexit podcasts, including the following:
Remainiacs: This is probably my favourite Brexit-based podcast. Hosted by Dorian Lynskey (the Guardian), Peter Collins (ex- of the Economist) and Ian Dunt (editor of politics.co.uk and author of “Brexit – What the Hell Happens Now?”). I really like their approach and it’s a good listen.
Brexit Means: This is the Guardian’s weekly Brexit update, and it’s okay, but I will probably bin it off soon.
Brexitcast: This is the BBC’s weekly Brexit update, it is a bit light-hearted, the two hosts take the mickey out of each other somewhat, but it is informative. More often than not they have Laura Kuenssberg on to talk about the politics of Brexit, and let’s face it, it is all about politics.
UK in a Changing Europe: This is a more right-wing take on Brexit, I think, although I’m not overly familiar with it just yet. The two episodes I listened to have been a) Jacob Rees-Mogg addressing the Tory conference fringe and b) Yvette Cooper and Diane Abbott addressing the Labour conference fringe. But the first episode was with a Times journalist, so I think it’s coming from that direction.
Brexit Podcast: This is probably the most open-minded Brexit-related podcast I listen to. Tim Heming and Jennifer Hahn do a good job of asking questions and letting the guests do the talking. They have had Patrick Minford and Alistair Campbell, Henry Bolton (new UKIP leader) and Gina Millar all in to talk about their understanding of Brexit. The one issue I have with this podcast is that many of the interviews seem to be done over the phone and so the sound is not the best.
So that is what is keeping me awake mostly (not that I listen to them in bed or at night).
Wednesday, July 19, 2017
Wednesday17-07-19 Bremain?
So here is an improbable scenario...
David Davis and his Brexit negotiations go nowhere. The EU negotiation team stick to their guns and insist that there are four indivisible pillars founding the EU:- freedom of movement of goods, services, capital and labour. And the ECJ has to have a final say on the proposed deal, as well as being the final arbiter over the EU citizens remaining in the UK.
Furthermore, the EU deny any possibility of sector by sector industrial talks, so the car industry or the finance industry won't get special treatment. It seems that all the UK attempts to get any favours out of the EU are destined to fail. It looks like we are going to leave the EU with no deal, on WTO terms.
Keir Starmer and the Labour party get an update in Parliament as to the progress or lack thereof in the talks. Starmer has already advised that the deal needs to be "at least as good as the existing deal" - the update from Davis indicates that there is no hope of that. Corbyn has always been in favour of Brexit, but not dogmatically so; he thinks that if it can be a good thing, it should be pursued. But this looks like a bad deal.
And so, Labour switch their position. The Brexit which the Conservatives are trying to negotiate is going nowhere, time is running out, and tempers are running high. Labour are in front in the polls, so if a general election were called, they would win. All of a sudden, with their clear different position on Brexit, they attract even more support than they currently have.
With the change in position, proceedings in the House of Commons become more fraught, and there is a vote of no confidence. The government is dissolved, and a General Election is called. Labour get in on a mandate to cancel Brexit and so Article 50 is revoked.
Wishful thinking, I suppose.
TTFN.
David Davis and his Brexit negotiations go nowhere. The EU negotiation team stick to their guns and insist that there are four indivisible pillars founding the EU:- freedom of movement of goods, services, capital and labour. And the ECJ has to have a final say on the proposed deal, as well as being the final arbiter over the EU citizens remaining in the UK.
Furthermore, the EU deny any possibility of sector by sector industrial talks, so the car industry or the finance industry won't get special treatment. It seems that all the UK attempts to get any favours out of the EU are destined to fail. It looks like we are going to leave the EU with no deal, on WTO terms.
Keir Starmer and the Labour party get an update in Parliament as to the progress or lack thereof in the talks. Starmer has already advised that the deal needs to be "at least as good as the existing deal" - the update from Davis indicates that there is no hope of that. Corbyn has always been in favour of Brexit, but not dogmatically so; he thinks that if it can be a good thing, it should be pursued. But this looks like a bad deal.
And so, Labour switch their position. The Brexit which the Conservatives are trying to negotiate is going nowhere, time is running out, and tempers are running high. Labour are in front in the polls, so if a general election were called, they would win. All of a sudden, with their clear different position on Brexit, they attract even more support than they currently have.
With the change in position, proceedings in the House of Commons become more fraught, and there is a vote of no confidence. The government is dissolved, and a General Election is called. Labour get in on a mandate to cancel Brexit and so Article 50 is revoked.
Wishful thinking, I suppose.
TTFN.
Monday, June 19, 2017
17-06-19 Brexit Again
I've seen a lot of political commentators over the past few days state that 85% of the UK population voted for Brexit in the General Election that happened a few days ago.
I've got to say, I reckon that is rubbish.
A lot of people voted Conservative, and a lot of people voted Labour. I have to assume that Labour voters wanted to remove the Conservatives from power, and the fact that Brexit was part of their manifesto was a minor consideration if at all.
Before we started discussing Brexit and before we scheduled the Referendum, our membership of the European Union was irrelevant to most people. A couple of headbangers in the Conservative party, and UKIP, were obsessed by it, but to the rest of us, laws were laws and it was irrelevant where they came from, whether Parliament or the EU via the UK Parliament.
Since the Referendum was settled I think the issue has become less important again. A lot of people who voted Remain think we should proceed with Brexit anyway. In their view, it is settled. We voted, the majority voted Leave, so let's get on with it.
I don't see how we can avoid Brexit without a second referendum. I would be happy to see a second referendum, but I don't see how such a referendum could be called.
But I didn't vote the way I did because the party promised Brexit. I voted because I wanted domestic change. If there were a way to engineer Remaining, I would support that.
So I, for one, didn't vote for Brexit.
TTFN.
I've got to say, I reckon that is rubbish.
A lot of people voted Conservative, and a lot of people voted Labour. I have to assume that Labour voters wanted to remove the Conservatives from power, and the fact that Brexit was part of their manifesto was a minor consideration if at all.
Before we started discussing Brexit and before we scheduled the Referendum, our membership of the European Union was irrelevant to most people. A couple of headbangers in the Conservative party, and UKIP, were obsessed by it, but to the rest of us, laws were laws and it was irrelevant where they came from, whether Parliament or the EU via the UK Parliament.
Since the Referendum was settled I think the issue has become less important again. A lot of people who voted Remain think we should proceed with Brexit anyway. In their view, it is settled. We voted, the majority voted Leave, so let's get on with it.
I don't see how we can avoid Brexit without a second referendum. I would be happy to see a second referendum, but I don't see how such a referendum could be called.
But I didn't vote the way I did because the party promised Brexit. I voted because I wanted domestic change. If there were a way to engineer Remaining, I would support that.
So I, for one, didn't vote for Brexit.
TTFN.
Wednesday, May 03, 2017
Wednesday 17-05-03 May the Fourth be With You
Tomorrow is local elections day here in the UK, and it is also Star Wars day. It is known as Star Wars day because it is May the Fourth, which sounds a bit like "May the force (be with you)". See what they did there? That's funny and smart, right? May the Fourth / May the force be with you... Can you see how similar they sound?
Anyway, I shall be performing my civic duty tomorrow by voting in the local elections, and then I shall return to the same polling station a month later on June 8th to vote in the General Election. Should that be capitalised? I don't know really, but it's an important event, so maybe the capitals are warranted. It's a pointless election, but no-one seems to have questioned the crazy groupthink that led to all except 13 MPs voting for the election, like turkeys voting for Christmas. We had a general election (okay, no caps there) in 2015, and then we had the Brexit referendum in 2016. We weren't supposed to have another general election until 2020. Theresa May reckons that her mandate for Brexit will be strengthened if she gets a bigger majority, but she does run the risk of losing seats. She hasn't actually had any of her Brexit plans thwarted by Parliament or the Lords, and the current crop of MPs seem to think it anathema to vote against Brexit in any form, as that would be going against the "will of the people". But it was not the will of the people; only 37% of the UK of voting age voted for Brexit.
I listened to Nick Clegg on the Slacktivist podcast, which is run by Andy Hamilton, and Clegg stated that there were no thresholds, no 60% limits or any safeguards applied to the vote because Cameron was arrogant and thought he would win the vote, i.e., that the general public would not vote for Brexit. If that is the case, Cameron needs to be denied any of the normal trappings that are awarded to ex-PMs. His arrogance and carelessness have cost this country millions, even if it turns out that Brexit does actually lead to bright sunny uplands. The administrative costs involved in Brexit will be astronomical, and will be levied at a time when austerity hasn't worked and we just keep having stuff taken away from us. There will be the "divorce bill", which will probably amount to what we were due to pay into the EU coffers anyway (i.e., about £350m per week that we remain in), then there will be the cost of duplicating all the industry bodies that are currently maintained by the EU. And those will have to be set up while we are still paying into the EU, so there will be an overlap, where we are paying twice, into the EU for ongoing costs as well as set-up costs for new regulatory bodies. all in all, the more I think about it, the more of a clusterf*ck the whole thing is shaping up to be. And then you get Theresa May and David Davis seemingly not talking the same language as the EU negotiators - and I don't mean that May & Davis are speaking English while Barnier & Juncker are speaking French; I think they are not even looking at Brexit and what is involved and the consequences from the same perspective - and all of a sudden the near future looks quite scary indeed.
Anyway, it's voting time tomorrow (again), and it will be voting time (again) in a month's time. And if we don't use our votes, we can't complain when we get shafted over by politicians who are really no cleverer or smarter than we are. So get out there and put your tick in the box, whichever box you prefer.
TTFN.
Thursday, March 30, 2017
Thursday 17-03-30 Brexit And Article 50
So, I won my 39p. Article 50 has been triggered, and the two-year process has begun. Why then do I have a sinking feeling, like there is something nagging at the back of my mind, as I do when there is something that I know I’ve forgotten? I have a sense of slowly-approaching doom, and I don’t think it will become clear until it is almost upon us. I think it has been pointed out several times in the Houses of Parliament that if we are aiming for the same deal as we had before, why don’t we just keep the same deal? The paucity of thinking in this regard is quite scary. It has been suggested that -if- we have to fall back on WTO rules then we can copy and paste the existing EU tariffs and work to those. If we are going to do that, and we are going to transpose the EU bill into UK law, I have to ask: what is the point?
And in my view we are being softened up for “no deal”. It takes two to tango, and I think that if the EU negotiators don’t see things in quite the same way as David Davis - and they won’t - then the UK team will walk away from the table. There is no way that we can have the same deal as a non-member of the EU as we had as a member. We contributed £250M per week last year, and that was used in the running of the EU: paying farmer subsidies, paying regional development funds, paying the salaries of regulatory authorities. We can’t reap the benefits of those initiatives without paying in, so if REACH have to rubberstamp our chemicals, we will have to pay a fee for that. Yes, Regional Development Funds and farmer subsidies will be handled nationally, but we will have to set up bodies to oversee those disbursements. We will have to replicate REACH for the domestic market - BREACH, if you will, and we will have to do this for other EU regulatory bodies. Bureaucracy in the UK will explode come 2019, and the Conservative party will no longer be able to claim to be the party of small government.
In the 36 hours since we triggered Article 50 there have already been disagreements; May suggested that we have the “divorce discussions” and the “future relationship” discussions simultaneously - that has been poo-pooed by the EU. She linked security to a trade deal, and the EU has described that as a non-starter. To be honest, I expect the discussions to go quite badly wrong, although I’d be quite pleased if they didn’t. I understand that our standards are harmonised with Europe, so you’d think discussions would be easy, but I don’t think the mainlanders (I can’t call them Europeans, since we are also Europeans) will make it easy for us. But then, I’ve been feeling pessimistic about the way things have been going for a while. Anyway, hold onto yer hats, it’s going to be one hell of a ride…
TTFN.
And in my view we are being softened up for “no deal”. It takes two to tango, and I think that if the EU negotiators don’t see things in quite the same way as David Davis - and they won’t - then the UK team will walk away from the table. There is no way that we can have the same deal as a non-member of the EU as we had as a member. We contributed £250M per week last year, and that was used in the running of the EU: paying farmer subsidies, paying regional development funds, paying the salaries of regulatory authorities. We can’t reap the benefits of those initiatives without paying in, so if REACH have to rubberstamp our chemicals, we will have to pay a fee for that. Yes, Regional Development Funds and farmer subsidies will be handled nationally, but we will have to set up bodies to oversee those disbursements. We will have to replicate REACH for the domestic market - BREACH, if you will, and we will have to do this for other EU regulatory bodies. Bureaucracy in the UK will explode come 2019, and the Conservative party will no longer be able to claim to be the party of small government.
In the 36 hours since we triggered Article 50 there have already been disagreements; May suggested that we have the “divorce discussions” and the “future relationship” discussions simultaneously - that has been poo-pooed by the EU. She linked security to a trade deal, and the EU has described that as a non-starter. To be honest, I expect the discussions to go quite badly wrong, although I’d be quite pleased if they didn’t. I understand that our standards are harmonised with Europe, so you’d think discussions would be easy, but I don’t think the mainlanders (I can’t call them Europeans, since we are also Europeans) will make it easy for us. But then, I’ve been feeling pessimistic about the way things have been going for a while. Anyway, hold onto yer hats, it’s going to be one hell of a ride…
TTFN.
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
Tuesday 17-03-14 Interesting Times
As the saying goes, “may you live in interesting times”. I think it was meant to be a curse. Well, the bill conferring authority on the Prime Minister to invoke Article 50 became law yesterday, and on the same day Nicola Sturgeon announced her intention to invoke a second Scottish Independence referendum. We are indeed living in interesting times.
The world as we know it is disintegrating around us, and things are going to change beyond all recognition. We will be out of the EU by March 2019, probably without much of a deal with the other members. It certainly feels like Theresa May is preparing us for that eventuality. If the negotiations are tough, we may not have much leverage and so we will come away with nothing.
At the same time I think that if Scotland does hold a second referendum, this time they will vote to leave the Union. It seems that the Scots feel that they are not being listened to, and their concerns are not being addressed. If that feeling spreads widely then I can see Scotland voting themselves out of the Union. And it will be David Cameron and Theresa May who can take responsibility for that unfortunate turn of events.
Then there are other days when I think it won’t have any impact at all. Go figure.
The world as we know it is disintegrating around us, and things are going to change beyond all recognition. We will be out of the EU by March 2019, probably without much of a deal with the other members. It certainly feels like Theresa May is preparing us for that eventuality. If the negotiations are tough, we may not have much leverage and so we will come away with nothing.
At the same time I think that if Scotland does hold a second referendum, this time they will vote to leave the Union. It seems that the Scots feel that they are not being listened to, and their concerns are not being addressed. If that feeling spreads widely then I can see Scotland voting themselves out of the Union. And it will be David Cameron and Theresa May who can take responsibility for that unfortunate turn of events.
Then there are other days when I think it won’t have any impact at all. Go figure.
Tuesday, February 07, 2017
Tuesday 17-02-07 Brexit (again)
As I write this, MPs are debating Article 50 in the House of Commons. I don't know what they are trying to achieve, since the majority of MPs will vote for the Article 50 bill, which gives the PM the power to inform the EU of our wish to invoke Article 50 and withdraw from the EU.
Most MPs don't want to leave the EU, they think it will be bad for Britain and they think that we will be worse off, but they are still going to vote for it.
No amendments to the bill will be accepted, in my expectation, and the bill will go through as it stands. I don't understand why they are wasting time over it; they have another full day of debate tomorrow.
It's all for show, as far as I can see. I'd like to see some discussion of how to actually reverse Brexit, and if it is at all possible. There is no point, in my opinion, going along with Article 50 at this point and then trying to reverse things later. As has already been said in the House of Commons, MPs have already voted to trigger Article 50, and they have agreed with May's timetable, i.e., to do this by end of March. So if any of them renege now, they will be portrayed as untrusted flip-floppers.
I believe most of the Tories are secret Leavers, even if they claimed to be Remainers and campaigned for Remain. The ease with which they have given up the fight is astounding. Anna Soubry and Ken Clarke spring to mind as MPs who have stuck to their principles. And I don't think Labour are much better; I do think that if Corbyn had been on the back benches he would have been a Leaver, and it was only for party unity that he decided to remain.
It does seem though that the process is irreversible; I can't see a way that this might all be turned back so that we can all return to normal. Maybe we will all regain consciousness in the shower, much like Bobby Ewing did in Dallas? I don't see any other option. So fasten your seatbelts kids, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
TTFN.
Most MPs don't want to leave the EU, they think it will be bad for Britain and they think that we will be worse off, but they are still going to vote for it.
No amendments to the bill will be accepted, in my expectation, and the bill will go through as it stands. I don't understand why they are wasting time over it; they have another full day of debate tomorrow.
It's all for show, as far as I can see. I'd like to see some discussion of how to actually reverse Brexit, and if it is at all possible. There is no point, in my opinion, going along with Article 50 at this point and then trying to reverse things later. As has already been said in the House of Commons, MPs have already voted to trigger Article 50, and they have agreed with May's timetable, i.e., to do this by end of March. So if any of them renege now, they will be portrayed as untrusted flip-floppers.
I believe most of the Tories are secret Leavers, even if they claimed to be Remainers and campaigned for Remain. The ease with which they have given up the fight is astounding. Anna Soubry and Ken Clarke spring to mind as MPs who have stuck to their principles. And I don't think Labour are much better; I do think that if Corbyn had been on the back benches he would have been a Leaver, and it was only for party unity that he decided to remain.
It does seem though that the process is irreversible; I can't see a way that this might all be turned back so that we can all return to normal. Maybe we will all regain consciousness in the shower, much like Bobby Ewing did in Dallas? I don't see any other option. So fasten your seatbelts kids, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
TTFN.
Thursday, February 02, 2017
Thursday 17-02-02 Farage and Democracy
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/826914009056161796
Farage is a tit, in my opinion. These MPs are not "enemies of democracy". Less than 40% of the voting public voted for Brexit, so it is only right that some MPs vote against triggering Article 50. MPs are representatives, not delegates. Indeed, most MPs, if it were down to them, would not have voted to trigger Article 50.
But MPs have carried out the will of the people, just as Cameron promised in the introduction to his referendum: "This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide."
And that is why referendums are infrequent in British politics. We elect MPs to represent us in Parliament, and decisions get taken there. We don't instruct our MPs how to vote, they are not delegates. We can petition them, and ask them to vote a certain way during a certain vote, but they are under no obligation to take our views into account when making their decision. I asked my local tory MP to vote for the renationalisation of the railways: I knew he wouldn't, but I wanted him to know that some of us actually agree with that particular proposal. We actually had a good chat about it.
In UK politics the plebiscite (that's you and me) are directly consulted very infrequently, i.e., we don't do referendums. We let the MPs decide on our behalf. I have heard that if we had a referendum on whether hanging should be brought back as a punishment, it would overwhelmingly be approved, and that is part of the reason why we don't have a referendum on it. MPs are protecting us from ourselves - but that is why we vote them in and out of power.
Unfortunately on this occasion, despite the fact that the Brexit vote will lead to a massive constitutional change, Cameron put in no safeguards or thresholds over voting levels or participation. If only one person had voted, we would have had to follow that individual's wishes. That is how ridiculous the Brexit referendum was.
In my opinion, the 114 MPs who voted against the bill should be applauded. They carried out their job, as the representative of their electorate, to the best of their abilities and as their consciences dictated (especially those Labour MPs who voted against the whip). They knew that they wouldn't stop the bill being passed, they knew that they were making a futile gesture, but they went ahead and voted as they did anyway.
They might lose their jobs at the next election, or other considerations might sway the electorate. But by voting as they did, the 114 MPs showed that we were living in a democracy and not a dictatorship, which is probably what Farage would prefer - as long as he was wearing the leather trousers.
TTFN.
Farage is a tit, in my opinion. These MPs are not "enemies of democracy". Less than 40% of the voting public voted for Brexit, so it is only right that some MPs vote against triggering Article 50. MPs are representatives, not delegates. Indeed, most MPs, if it were down to them, would not have voted to trigger Article 50.
But MPs have carried out the will of the people, just as Cameron promised in the introduction to his referendum: "This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide."
And that is why referendums are infrequent in British politics. We elect MPs to represent us in Parliament, and decisions get taken there. We don't instruct our MPs how to vote, they are not delegates. We can petition them, and ask them to vote a certain way during a certain vote, but they are under no obligation to take our views into account when making their decision. I asked my local tory MP to vote for the renationalisation of the railways: I knew he wouldn't, but I wanted him to know that some of us actually agree with that particular proposal. We actually had a good chat about it.
In UK politics the plebiscite (that's you and me) are directly consulted very infrequently, i.e., we don't do referendums. We let the MPs decide on our behalf. I have heard that if we had a referendum on whether hanging should be brought back as a punishment, it would overwhelmingly be approved, and that is part of the reason why we don't have a referendum on it. MPs are protecting us from ourselves - but that is why we vote them in and out of power.
Unfortunately on this occasion, despite the fact that the Brexit vote will lead to a massive constitutional change, Cameron put in no safeguards or thresholds over voting levels or participation. If only one person had voted, we would have had to follow that individual's wishes. That is how ridiculous the Brexit referendum was.
In my opinion, the 114 MPs who voted against the bill should be applauded. They carried out their job, as the representative of their electorate, to the best of their abilities and as their consciences dictated (especially those Labour MPs who voted against the whip). They knew that they wouldn't stop the bill being passed, they knew that they were making a futile gesture, but they went ahead and voted as they did anyway.
They might lose their jobs at the next election, or other considerations might sway the electorate. But by voting as they did, the 114 MPs showed that we were living in a democracy and not a dictatorship, which is probably what Farage would prefer - as long as he was wearing the leather trousers.
TTFN.
Friday, January 27, 2017
Friday 17-01-26 Brexit Update
The Supreme Court came back with their judgement on Tuesday, and actually Parliament do have to vote on whether to grant the Government the power to invoke Article 50. Of course, Parliament will probably vote to do so. Here is the bill, in its entirety:
It is sobering to think that so few words are going to have such a big and lasting effect on the nation. And whether it is a good or a bad thing, it will have a big impact.
I believe that the judges were right to decide that Parliament needed to vote, and that Government could not invoke Article 50 without Parliament's approval. Whatever happens next, at least no-one will be able to say that Article 50 was triggered improperly and claim some sort of compensation from the State.
It also seems that a number of MPs will vote against approving this bill, which will lead to the triggering of Article 50. I think that is only right as well. The basis for that assertion is that the vote was nearly a 50-50 split. Almost the same number of people voted for Brexit as voted against it. There were also a number of people who could have voted but didn't, and when you take their numbers into account, only 37% of the electorate voted for Brexit.
On that basis, the claims by Tory MPs and others that they are enacting "the will of the people" seem bogus. The people who didn't vote either did not have enough information (or misinformation), or, perhaps they were just happy with the status quo, the way things were? I would argue that actually, with less than 40% of the electorate having voted for Brexit, we shouldn't be galloping towards the exit with such enthusiasm.
I think that the Tories, whether they voted remain or leave, see this as an opportunity to throw off the "shackles" of European legislation and regulation. But David Davis has claimed that workers' rights will be unaffected, and we are going to approach the WTO (World Trade Organisation) with exactly the same tariff schedule as we currently have under the EU umbrella. So if nothing is changing, what is the point of leaving? I believe that the Tories see this as a chance to have a "dynamic and thriving" economy, but if they are going to keep exactly the same conditions as we currently have, I'm not sure that I see the point. If, when they study the relevant bits of legislation, they decide that they'd like to keep those bits after all, because actually workers' rights and blue flags on beaches are the right thing to do, what is the point of leaving?
The "state" will have to increase in size, as well. All those monitoring and regulatory bodies which the EU currently maintains will have to be set up from scratch in the UK. We will have to increase the number of border guards and visa stampers currently employed. The annual national budget will have to go up to cover all the bureaucracy that we will have to manage, which was previously handled by the EU, or rendered unnecessary by our membership of the EU.
And this is all Cameron's and Farage's fault. Even if we make a success of Brexit, and there is a chance we might, there should be no argument over the fact that it will cost us money. The Brexit vote was offered to the people by Cameron to settle some internal Tory party wrangling, and he never thought that people would vote for it. So he never put in place the proper safeguards; that over 80% of the voting public had to vote, that >66% had to vote for Out, etc. And so Cameron and Farage should not receive any public honours - no knighthoods, no OBEs or CBEs, or similar. Cameron promised to take us through the Brexit negotiations, and as soon as it didn't go his way and it looked like there was a bit of hard work involved, he jacked it all in. Now, apparently, he is getting paid tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of pounds for giving speeches. So Farage and Cameron have massively inconvenienced the country and shouldn't get any thanks or praise for what they've done.
I'd rather we didn't leave the EU, but then I've never known any different environment. We used to be outside the EU, and we got along perfectly well, so I don't see why we shouldn't do so again. Companies who are working on slim margins might go to the wall, and a large percentage of people may not interact with other European countries at all, so they won't feel the impact at all. But with the change in the exchange rate imports should get more expensive, and that will lead through to higher prices on the high street. My pension fund has increased a lot over the last few months, and that is because the stock market indices have gone up. But the stock market indices have gone up because £ Sterling is worth less than it was. If I was able to access the money in my pension now, the worst possible thing I could do would be to try and spend it overseas. Something that cost $100 in the US, would have cost me £69 last June (exchange rate £1 = $1.45) and today would cost me £80 (exchange rate £1 = $1.25). TW would love me to take her to the U.S. for a shopping trip, but if everything in the U.S. is suddenly 15% more expensive, due to the deteriorating exchange rate, then it is even more unlikely now than it was last May.
Anyway, I've blathered on for long enough. I do have another couple of thoughts, which I may note down separately.
TTFN
It is sobering to think that so few words are going to have such a big and lasting effect on the nation. And whether it is a good or a bad thing, it will have a big impact.
I believe that the judges were right to decide that Parliament needed to vote, and that Government could not invoke Article 50 without Parliament's approval. Whatever happens next, at least no-one will be able to say that Article 50 was triggered improperly and claim some sort of compensation from the State.
It also seems that a number of MPs will vote against approving this bill, which will lead to the triggering of Article 50. I think that is only right as well. The basis for that assertion is that the vote was nearly a 50-50 split. Almost the same number of people voted for Brexit as voted against it. There were also a number of people who could have voted but didn't, and when you take their numbers into account, only 37% of the electorate voted for Brexit.
On that basis, the claims by Tory MPs and others that they are enacting "the will of the people" seem bogus. The people who didn't vote either did not have enough information (or misinformation), or, perhaps they were just happy with the status quo, the way things were? I would argue that actually, with less than 40% of the electorate having voted for Brexit, we shouldn't be galloping towards the exit with such enthusiasm.
I think that the Tories, whether they voted remain or leave, see this as an opportunity to throw off the "shackles" of European legislation and regulation. But David Davis has claimed that workers' rights will be unaffected, and we are going to approach the WTO (World Trade Organisation) with exactly the same tariff schedule as we currently have under the EU umbrella. So if nothing is changing, what is the point of leaving? I believe that the Tories see this as a chance to have a "dynamic and thriving" economy, but if they are going to keep exactly the same conditions as we currently have, I'm not sure that I see the point. If, when they study the relevant bits of legislation, they decide that they'd like to keep those bits after all, because actually workers' rights and blue flags on beaches are the right thing to do, what is the point of leaving?
The "state" will have to increase in size, as well. All those monitoring and regulatory bodies which the EU currently maintains will have to be set up from scratch in the UK. We will have to increase the number of border guards and visa stampers currently employed. The annual national budget will have to go up to cover all the bureaucracy that we will have to manage, which was previously handled by the EU, or rendered unnecessary by our membership of the EU.
And this is all Cameron's and Farage's fault. Even if we make a success of Brexit, and there is a chance we might, there should be no argument over the fact that it will cost us money. The Brexit vote was offered to the people by Cameron to settle some internal Tory party wrangling, and he never thought that people would vote for it. So he never put in place the proper safeguards; that over 80% of the voting public had to vote, that >66% had to vote for Out, etc. And so Cameron and Farage should not receive any public honours - no knighthoods, no OBEs or CBEs, or similar. Cameron promised to take us through the Brexit negotiations, and as soon as it didn't go his way and it looked like there was a bit of hard work involved, he jacked it all in. Now, apparently, he is getting paid tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of pounds for giving speeches. So Farage and Cameron have massively inconvenienced the country and shouldn't get any thanks or praise for what they've done.
I'd rather we didn't leave the EU, but then I've never known any different environment. We used to be outside the EU, and we got along perfectly well, so I don't see why we shouldn't do so again. Companies who are working on slim margins might go to the wall, and a large percentage of people may not interact with other European countries at all, so they won't feel the impact at all. But with the change in the exchange rate imports should get more expensive, and that will lead through to higher prices on the high street. My pension fund has increased a lot over the last few months, and that is because the stock market indices have gone up. But the stock market indices have gone up because £ Sterling is worth less than it was. If I was able to access the money in my pension now, the worst possible thing I could do would be to try and spend it overseas. Something that cost $100 in the US, would have cost me £69 last June (exchange rate £1 = $1.45) and today would cost me £80 (exchange rate £1 = $1.25). TW would love me to take her to the U.S. for a shopping trip, but if everything in the U.S. is suddenly 15% more expensive, due to the deteriorating exchange rate, then it is even more unlikely now than it was last May.
Anyway, I've blathered on for long enough. I do have another couple of thoughts, which I may note down separately.
TTFN
Sunday, November 06, 2016
Sunday 16-11-06 Brexit Again
Brexit hasn't exactly been keeping me awake at night, but it has been keeping me entertained during the day. I find it hard to understand why people are so exercised (is that the right phrase?) about this issue - until the referendum, it wasn't a thing.
Now, there are threats of rioting in the streets if Parliament doesn't carry out the will of the people. And up until last Thursday, Parliament wasn't even going to get a say on things. But then some expert judges decided that if the invoking of Article 50 was to have any authority, it needed to be voted on by Parliament in its totality and not just Government.
Lots of people are hoping now that MPs will vote against Brexit, and certainly the members of the House of Lords may vote in majority against it, but actually my suspicion is that the vote for Brexit will pass with little (if any) controversy. The MPs in the Commons will state that they are carrying out "the will of the people", and if the Lords rebel, they will ping-pong until the Government invoke the supremacy of the Commons and the vote will pass.
I didn't comprehend that for a while, but I guess that the MPs are taking a macro view and they have seen that 52% of the nation who voted, voted for Brexit. So that is the decision that they must implement. However, if I were an individual MP, I would look at the breakdown of the voting in my constituency, and I would weigh up whether I should vote for or against Brexit. After all, come 2020 (if there is no General Election before then), other local factors may be more "top-of-mind" than Brexit. And that is why I have to poo-poo the idea that there will be rioting in the streets.
In my mind, I think (and I may have said this before, so excuse me if I have) that Andrew Marr had it right when he said that it won't be as bad as people fear, and it won't be as great as people hope. If anything does lead to rioting in the streets, I think that the cause of that can be squarely laid at the feet of David Cameron. Before he offered the referendum on membership of the EU, it was seen as a niche issue, debated by hardcore politicos - at least, that is my take on it. Now it's led to family splits and fallings-out between friends. And all because Cameron was trying to outflank UKIP and keep his own backbench MPs happy.
I quite enjoy listening to Redwood and Rees-Mogg, probably more than the next man, but after the interview ends and I have analysed what they said, it is at that point that I dismiss their ideas as "barking". I'm a bit slow on the uptake, still even after all this time, but at least I still maintain an open mind, and I would like that marked in my favour.
I still sincerely believe that we will get to the end of this process of Brexit and look back on it, and look at each other with puzzled expressions on our faces and we will say to each other, "was that it? Is that we've worried and sweated and argued about for the last two years? For this?" There is a reason it has been a niche discussion, and that is because, on the whole, we can get through our days without having to resort to the ECHR or European directives. On the whole the directives issued by the EU are common sense and practical, and it is the interpretation of those directives ("better safe than sorry") which cause the issue (e.g., recycling teabags). I do not believe that there will be an immediate and apparent change to daily life in the UK; after all, we have spent the last 40 years aligning with the EU over laws and regulations. Any divergence will be gradual and unnoticeable, until all of a sudden, certain things become incompatible. But if we made a point of shadowing the EU parliament, and implementing the changes they made which we agreed with, we would still be more closely aligned with their view on things than differing.
But as I have opined, I think, at the end of it, it won't amount to a hill of beans. The ride to get there might be exciting though.
TTFN.
Now, there are threats of rioting in the streets if Parliament doesn't carry out the will of the people. And up until last Thursday, Parliament wasn't even going to get a say on things. But then some expert judges decided that if the invoking of Article 50 was to have any authority, it needed to be voted on by Parliament in its totality and not just Government.
Lots of people are hoping now that MPs will vote against Brexit, and certainly the members of the House of Lords may vote in majority against it, but actually my suspicion is that the vote for Brexit will pass with little (if any) controversy. The MPs in the Commons will state that they are carrying out "the will of the people", and if the Lords rebel, they will ping-pong until the Government invoke the supremacy of the Commons and the vote will pass.
I didn't comprehend that for a while, but I guess that the MPs are taking a macro view and they have seen that 52% of the nation who voted, voted for Brexit. So that is the decision that they must implement. However, if I were an individual MP, I would look at the breakdown of the voting in my constituency, and I would weigh up whether I should vote for or against Brexit. After all, come 2020 (if there is no General Election before then), other local factors may be more "top-of-mind" than Brexit. And that is why I have to poo-poo the idea that there will be rioting in the streets.
In my mind, I think (and I may have said this before, so excuse me if I have) that Andrew Marr had it right when he said that it won't be as bad as people fear, and it won't be as great as people hope. If anything does lead to rioting in the streets, I think that the cause of that can be squarely laid at the feet of David Cameron. Before he offered the referendum on membership of the EU, it was seen as a niche issue, debated by hardcore politicos - at least, that is my take on it. Now it's led to family splits and fallings-out between friends. And all because Cameron was trying to outflank UKIP and keep his own backbench MPs happy.
I quite enjoy listening to Redwood and Rees-Mogg, probably more than the next man, but after the interview ends and I have analysed what they said, it is at that point that I dismiss their ideas as "barking". I'm a bit slow on the uptake, still even after all this time, but at least I still maintain an open mind, and I would like that marked in my favour.
I still sincerely believe that we will get to the end of this process of Brexit and look back on it, and look at each other with puzzled expressions on our faces and we will say to each other, "was that it? Is that we've worried and sweated and argued about for the last two years? For this?" There is a reason it has been a niche discussion, and that is because, on the whole, we can get through our days without having to resort to the ECHR or European directives. On the whole the directives issued by the EU are common sense and practical, and it is the interpretation of those directives ("better safe than sorry") which cause the issue (e.g., recycling teabags). I do not believe that there will be an immediate and apparent change to daily life in the UK; after all, we have spent the last 40 years aligning with the EU over laws and regulations. Any divergence will be gradual and unnoticeable, until all of a sudden, certain things become incompatible. But if we made a point of shadowing the EU parliament, and implementing the changes they made which we agreed with, we would still be more closely aligned with their view on things than differing.
But as I have opined, I think, at the end of it, it won't amount to a hill of beans. The ride to get there might be exciting though.
TTFN.
Wednesday, September 07, 2016
Some Brexit-related Thoughts
A couple of days ago, our new Prime Minister Theresa May stated that "Brexit means Brexit, precisely because it does". This is the sort of language an exasperated parent might use with a querulous and unruly child, and it brooks no further discussion.
But I think that there are a couple of interesting things to point out. I'm not going to argue in favour of or against Brexit, but I am intrigued by the fall-out of the vote, and the unexpected things that have happened.
First things first, everyone involved in the vote (from a leadership perspective) has resigned / retired from public view. Farage has stood down as leader of UKIP, Boris Johnson withdrew from the PM leadership race, despite being the bookies' favourite, and Gove stood for the leadership but was knocked out in the early rounds.
Cameron resigned the morning after the vote, despite pledging to stay and negotiate the will of the British people. Poor guy, probably the main things he will be remembered for are Brexit and pig-bothering (at least one of those is an actual fact). Farage and Johnson weren't in any position to promise anything to the British people, such as an extra £350M for the NHS, or a points-based immigration system. None of them were in power, and so they couldn't enact any policies or initiatives to deliver what they were promising. If Johnson had seen through his leadership challenge, he could have issued directive after directive from No. 10, but I believe that when he peered over the edge of the abyss and thought through what he had signed up to, he decided not to accept the offer of the poisoned chalice. Who would want to be remembered as the PM who took Britain out of the EU?
Well, it seems that Theresa May does. Maybe her desire to be PM trumps everything else, and maybe she thinks she can stall until she is voted out of office, but it does seem that something weird is going on. Article 50 hasn't been invoked yet, and we are now two and a bit months after the vote. We need to get our skates on, I think.
The other weird thing is the level of confidence in business circles has risen dramatically. Of course the stock market crashed after the vote, and the £/$ exchange rate plummeted, but since then the FTSE 100 and the FTSE 250 have roared ahead with all guns blazing. My pension, invested as it is in stocks and shares, is feeling positively healthy. And it seems that there is a healthy dose of optimism washing over the nation.
It isn't washing over me, I am still waiting for "the other shoe to drop", but maybe that's because I'm a pessimistic middle-aged man, who is now used to living in a zero-inflation, zero-growth environment. If inflation does start to kick in, I believe I will be worse off than I am now, and thinking back, I believe I had more disposable income five years ago than I do today. Sad, isn't it?
But I hope that the markets have priced Brexit in to future expectations. Although that would be hard to do, considering that currently it seems that no-one knows what to expect from Brexit. Apparently the "experts" have been saying that we would do well if we managed to deflate our economy, and we seem to have done that overnight - the £ is now worth $1.33 (approx) when it was worth nearly $1.50 before the Brexit vote.
All in all, we are in uncharted waters. Some people think we should be able to negotiate trade deals outside the EU now, while others take the opposing view. Some people think we should invoke Article 50 as soon as possible, while others think we should delay (and even now we have no idea when it will be invoked). We are in a state of limbo while our "leaders" decide what Brexit looks like, and whether it is acceptable to the members of the EU. And in the meantime, life goes on, we have to buy goods & services, and city folk have to trade stocks and shares. And currently things seem to be on the up, much like Dennis Waterman, but I can't help feeling that there is more to come, like a particular Vic & Bob ad for yogurt. I guess we will see.
What I am trying to say is that the jury is still out. We need to see how things pan out. Good luck, and see you on the other side...
TTFN.
But I think that there are a couple of interesting things to point out. I'm not going to argue in favour of or against Brexit, but I am intrigued by the fall-out of the vote, and the unexpected things that have happened.
First things first, everyone involved in the vote (from a leadership perspective) has resigned / retired from public view. Farage has stood down as leader of UKIP, Boris Johnson withdrew from the PM leadership race, despite being the bookies' favourite, and Gove stood for the leadership but was knocked out in the early rounds.
Cameron resigned the morning after the vote, despite pledging to stay and negotiate the will of the British people. Poor guy, probably the main things he will be remembered for are Brexit and pig-bothering (at least one of those is an actual fact). Farage and Johnson weren't in any position to promise anything to the British people, such as an extra £350M for the NHS, or a points-based immigration system. None of them were in power, and so they couldn't enact any policies or initiatives to deliver what they were promising. If Johnson had seen through his leadership challenge, he could have issued directive after directive from No. 10, but I believe that when he peered over the edge of the abyss and thought through what he had signed up to, he decided not to accept the offer of the poisoned chalice. Who would want to be remembered as the PM who took Britain out of the EU?
Well, it seems that Theresa May does. Maybe her desire to be PM trumps everything else, and maybe she thinks she can stall until she is voted out of office, but it does seem that something weird is going on. Article 50 hasn't been invoked yet, and we are now two and a bit months after the vote. We need to get our skates on, I think.
The other weird thing is the level of confidence in business circles has risen dramatically. Of course the stock market crashed after the vote, and the £/$ exchange rate plummeted, but since then the FTSE 100 and the FTSE 250 have roared ahead with all guns blazing. My pension, invested as it is in stocks and shares, is feeling positively healthy. And it seems that there is a healthy dose of optimism washing over the nation.
It isn't washing over me, I am still waiting for "the other shoe to drop", but maybe that's because I'm a pessimistic middle-aged man, who is now used to living in a zero-inflation, zero-growth environment. If inflation does start to kick in, I believe I will be worse off than I am now, and thinking back, I believe I had more disposable income five years ago than I do today. Sad, isn't it?
But I hope that the markets have priced Brexit in to future expectations. Although that would be hard to do, considering that currently it seems that no-one knows what to expect from Brexit. Apparently the "experts" have been saying that we would do well if we managed to deflate our economy, and we seem to have done that overnight - the £ is now worth $1.33 (approx) when it was worth nearly $1.50 before the Brexit vote.
All in all, we are in uncharted waters. Some people think we should be able to negotiate trade deals outside the EU now, while others take the opposing view. Some people think we should invoke Article 50 as soon as possible, while others think we should delay (and even now we have no idea when it will be invoked). We are in a state of limbo while our "leaders" decide what Brexit looks like, and whether it is acceptable to the members of the EU. And in the meantime, life goes on, we have to buy goods & services, and city folk have to trade stocks and shares. And currently things seem to be on the up, much like Dennis Waterman, but I can't help feeling that there is more to come, like a particular Vic & Bob ad for yogurt. I guess we will see.
What I am trying to say is that the jury is still out. We need to see how things pan out. Good luck, and see you on the other side...
TTFN.
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
Some Thoughts on Brexit
It's been a funny few days since the results of the referendum became clear. I stayed up to see the first results come in, and when Newcastle weren't definitively "In" I feared the worst. When I woke up at 5am and went downstairs to watch the ongoing coverage, those fears were confirmed.
Not that leaving the EU will be the worst thing we ever do; in fact I took a test and was advised that I was "60% In", i.e., I can see that there might be benefits in leaving. I just worried that the potential disruption would outweigh any upside, and unfortunately so it has turned out. There really is no plan for an orderly secession and the UK currency and shares have taken a pounding. I'm kind of hoping that is due to the markets betting the wrong way on the outcome and having to unwind their positions, but we'll see - it's only been two whole business days since the result.
Lots has happened though; Cameron resigned on Friday morning even before I started work, and then Sunday and yesterday (Monday) 20 members of the Shadow Cabinet resigned, and there is going to be a vote of No Confidence in Corbyn later today. If that leads to a leadership contest, which is highly likely in my opinion, he will get re-elected by the members and the split between the PLP and the grass roots membership will become more pronounced.
So while the secession is a slow, drawn-out process which will probably last two years or more, there are already casualties to the outcome.
Cameron has said that the incoming PM will be responsible for triggering Article 50, the official notice that we are leaving the EU, but there are some legal opinions advising that we would need to pass an Act of Parliament in order to do that, and since most MPs are anti-Brexit I struggle to see that happening. And someone could run for PM on an anti-Brexit ticket - i.e., promising not to invoke Article 50. Cameron promised that he would give a referendum and he has, now he's resigned and it turns out that the referendum is only "advisory", which means it doesn't have to be implemented. Yes, there would be uproar, but it might be the best of both worlds.
Or, sod it, let's break away, let's not negotiate with the EU, since they're having a hissy fit ("there will be no informal negotiations before Article 50 is invoked"), and let's see how we get on.
But please, not with Boris Johnson at the helm...?
Not that leaving the EU will be the worst thing we ever do; in fact I took a test and was advised that I was "60% In", i.e., I can see that there might be benefits in leaving. I just worried that the potential disruption would outweigh any upside, and unfortunately so it has turned out. There really is no plan for an orderly secession and the UK currency and shares have taken a pounding. I'm kind of hoping that is due to the markets betting the wrong way on the outcome and having to unwind their positions, but we'll see - it's only been two whole business days since the result.
Lots has happened though; Cameron resigned on Friday morning even before I started work, and then Sunday and yesterday (Monday) 20 members of the Shadow Cabinet resigned, and there is going to be a vote of No Confidence in Corbyn later today. If that leads to a leadership contest, which is highly likely in my opinion, he will get re-elected by the members and the split between the PLP and the grass roots membership will become more pronounced.
So while the secession is a slow, drawn-out process which will probably last two years or more, there are already casualties to the outcome.
Cameron has said that the incoming PM will be responsible for triggering Article 50, the official notice that we are leaving the EU, but there are some legal opinions advising that we would need to pass an Act of Parliament in order to do that, and since most MPs are anti-Brexit I struggle to see that happening. And someone could run for PM on an anti-Brexit ticket - i.e., promising not to invoke Article 50. Cameron promised that he would give a referendum and he has, now he's resigned and it turns out that the referendum is only "advisory", which means it doesn't have to be implemented. Yes, there would be uproar, but it might be the best of both worlds.
Or, sod it, let's break away, let's not negotiate with the EU, since they're having a hissy fit ("there will be no informal negotiations before Article 50 is invoked"), and let's see how we get on.
But please, not with Boris Johnson at the helm...?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)