BJ must now learn to comb his hair

1 hour ago, tebee said:

Common misconception - article 24 means nothing of the sort 

 

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/brexit/no-deal-brexit-and-wto-article-24-explained/

I agree it's not as straightforward as some suggest, but it can be done. 

2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

I have asked Brexiteers many times why they are afraid of a second referendum; none have given a straight answer.

You have asked many times and you got answered many times , mybe no one bothers to answer you now , because they , like me , are tired of writing the same thing over and over again in reply 

12 minutes ago, Thaifriends said:

BJ must now learn to comb his hair

Some of us are old enough to remember Worzel Footage! ????

4 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Some of us are old enough to remember Worzel Footage! ????

Worzal Gummidge ?

One would hope that there are enough One Nation, sensible Tory MPs who are committed to rejecting No Deal, to ensure the likes of BJ, Raab etc don't make it to the final two. A "sensible" Brexiteer would be Penny Mordaunt . Personally I'd back Rory McGregor.

If a hard-core No Dealer managed to win (which they will if the Tory membership gets its way) running out the clock so we crash out on 31 October won't happen. There are enough sensible Tories who would put country before party and join Labour and the opposition in bringing down the government. Brexit would have to be revoked as there would be no government. Then a determining General Election could be held.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

3 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

One would hope that there are enough One Nation, sensible Tory MPs who are committed to rejecting No Deal, to ensure the likes of BJ, Raab etc don't make it to the final two. A "sensible" Brexiteer would be Penny Mordaunt . Personally I'd back Rory McGregor.

If a hard-core No Dealer managed to win (which they will if the Tory membership gets its way) running out the clock so we crash out on 31 October won't happen. There are enough sensible Tories who would put country before party and join Labour and the opposition in bringing down the government. Brexit would have to be revoked as there would be no government. Then a determining General Election could be held.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 

Just a question about " Brexit would have to be revoked as there would be no government."

 

If there is no government , who is going to revoke ? I was thinking only a government can revoke ,but if none is there ….

8 hours ago, david555 said:

A general election could give the E.U. the moral duty to give anyway (unfortumnally)  another extension ….

           

             A permanent extension /  or Bonkers declare war on Europe . 

            We aint seen nothing yet , tighten your belts expats. 

        

 

1 minute ago, elliss said:

           

             A permanent extension /  or Bonkers declare war on Europe .

 

So a kind of revoking A50 in another naming  and so all stay like it is  ...

The longer this Brexit thing last the more it seems to become complicated 

I think it's a good time to air this one; https://twitter.com/i/status/1132229042516692993

 

33 minutes ago, Thaifriends said:

BJ must now learn to comb his hair

       i think we are expecting too much ,  he could not tie his own bootlaces..

 

 

 

31 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Worzal Gummidge ?

Michael Foot

(Dead ringer for Worzel Gummage in the HoC in the 80s)

20 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

One would hope that there are enough One Nation, sensible Tory MPs who are committed to rejecting No Deal, to ensure the likes of BJ, Raab etc don't make it to the final two. A "sensible" Brexiteer would be Penny Mordaunt . Personally I'd back Rory McGregor.

If a hard-core No Dealer managed to win (which they will if the Tory membership gets its way) running out the clock so we crash out on 31 October won't happen. There are enough sensible Tories who would put country before party and join Labour and the opposition in bringing down the government. Brexit would have to be revoked as there would be no government. Then a determining General Election could be held.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 

They already tried with a remain voting leader, so it's highly unlikely they'll put another remainer in charge. That basically cuts the list of candidates down quite dramatically. 

 

I gather you meant to say Rory Stewart. He's an impressive speaker, highly intelligent and very credible.  But although he got behind Brexit in the end he did vote remain. And does he have the right public image or charisma to beat Corbyn? I like him a lot, but doubt he has a chance of winning the leadership contest. 

 

Raab would be my choice. Humble beginnings (son of a refugee etc.), polite and articulate. He's more likely to bring people together in my opinion. Not to mention he's a very talented lawyer, which would be extremely useful during the new negotiations. He was completely hamstrung by May and Robbins while Brexit Secretary. 

 

I think the reality is that we'll get Boris though. The party will see him as the candidate who has the charisma to defeat Corbyn in a GE. Despite his (many) shortcomings he is a winner - elected London Mayor twice in a Labour city. Ultimately the Tories want a winner in the top job. 

They already tried with a remain voting leader, so it's highly unlikely they'll put another remainer in charge. That basically cuts the list of candidates down quite dramatically. 
 
I gather you meant to say Rory Stewart. He's an impressive speaker, highly intelligent and very credible.  But although he got behind Brexit in the end he did vote remain. And does he have the right public image or charisma to beat Corbyn? I like him a lot, but doubt he has a chance of winning the leadership contest. 
 
Raab would be my choice. Humble beginnings (son of a refugee etc.), polite and articulate. He's more likely to bring people together in my opinion. Not to mention he's a very talented lawyer, which would be extremely useful during the new negotiations. He was completely hamstrung by May and Robbins while Brexit Secretary. 
 
I think the reality is that we'll get Boris though. The party will see him as the candidate who has the charisma to defeat Corbyn in a GE. Despite his (many) shortcomings he is a winner - elected London Mayor twice in a Labour city. Ultimately the Tories want a winner in the top job. 

Apologies. Yes, I meant Rory Stewart.

Sent from my SM-A500F using Tapatalk

One would hope that there are enough One Nation, sensible Tory MPs who are committed to rejecting No Deal, to ensure the likes of BJ, Raab etc don't make it to the final two. A "sensible" Brexiteer would be Penny Mordaunt . Personally I'd back Rory McGregor.

If a hard-core No Dealer managed to win (which they will if the Tory membership gets its way) running out the clock so we crash out on 31 October won't happen. There are enough sensible Tories who would put country before party and join Labour and the opposition in bringing down the government. Brexit would have to be revoked as there would be no government. Then a determining General Election could be held.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

One Nation..Pauline Hanson..She's an Ozzie!![emoji23]

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

3 hours ago, billd766 said:

How can there be a second referendum until the first on has been completed?

The UK is not the EU where if the result is unfavourable we have to vote again to get it right.

Answered your own question and got it wrong. Carry on.

1 hour ago, evadgib said:

Michael Foot

 

 

 What a complete and total paul anker. closely followed by another great socialist, of fill your boots fame in the EU trough,  Neil K. 

 

A baiting post has been removed.

 

2 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

I agree it's not as straightforward as some suggest, but it can be done. 

no it's nothing about continuing existing arrangements, it's about implementing new trade agreements before they are ratified

 

  

 Ordinarily, all WTO Members have to charge identical tariffs on similar products, regardless of where they are sourced from, Article XXIV allows two or more Members to charge lower tariffs on one another's goods provided they jointly sign, and transparently notify to the WTO, a comprehensive and reciprocal trade agreement.

This article has been invoked in the Brexit context because of a provision in it which allows parts of an incomplete Free Trade Agreements to be implemented on an interim basis while the final details are agreed. Prominent figures have suggested that should no deal be reached with the EU, an interim agreement under Article XXIV to eliminate all bilateral tariffs could serve in place of the transition period. Some have gone as far as to suggest the Article is a secret weapon which could be used to compel the EU to provide tariff free access to its market for up to ten years. None of these are credible options.

They are not credible because they rely on the following absurd assumptions:

That the consent of the European Union is either unnecessary to invoking Article 24, or would be forthcoming.
The former is absurd, because Article XXIV is explicitly based on jointly notifying the WTO of a new arrangement. It can't be used to compel anyone to do anything.

The latter has been explicitly rejected as an option by the EU and envisages their dropping hundreds of pages of carefully negotiated Withdrawal Agreement legal text for a hastily scrolled note saying "no tariffs."

That the bilateral elimination of tariffs would be an adequate replacement for the transition period.
While preventing or delaying the imposition of EU tariffs would come as a relief to some heavily exposed sectors like beef and lamb, it would do very little to mitigate the disruption of a No-Deal on the UK economy. Tariffs are a No-Deal problem, they are not the No-Deal problem.

If the UK leaves without a deal and thus immediately becomes a separate customs territory with standards and regulations completely independent of the EU, border checks and their resultant paperwork will need to be imposed. Even if tariffs between the UK and EU are eliminated, UK exporters will still be faced with the need to provide exponentially more paperwork to demonstrate that their goods are sufficiently of UK origin to enter tariff free (so called 'Rules of Origin declarations') and that they comply with EU standards and regulations. This will slow border traffic, disrupt supply chains and significantly increase business operating costs.

Article XXIV would also do nothing for the access of UK services firms to the EU market, where the barriers are regulations and visas, not tariffs. UK firms would lose the ability to provide services into the EU market, without the benefit of a two year transition period during which better access might have been negotiated or mitigating steps taken.

In summary, any discussion of Article XXIV is a distraction because it assumes the solution to a political impasse in negotiations with the EU lies in invoking a legal loophole that is neither a serious option nor a remotely adequate solution.

6 hours ago, puipuitom said:

How you know the majority wanted to leave on 29th of March = a no deal Brexit ? ? Maybe 40 %, but that's it. 

I am fine with a deal, but not the one written by the EU and given to May to shove down our throats, remaining for the time being would be better than that

 

6 hours ago, puipuitom said:

How you know the majority wanted to leave on 29th of March = a no deal Brexit ? ? Maybe 40 %, but that's it. 

 

To be fair we are at a Mexican stand-off, leave MP's would not pass May's deal, similarly, remain MP's will not vote for no-deal WTO,

 

Neither will ever be passed by parliament, the EU has said no new deal on the table.

 

So we will crash out 31st October

26 minutes ago, bartender100 said:

To be fair we are at a Mexican stand-off, leave MP's would not pass May's deal, similarly, remain MP's will not vote for no-deal WTO,

 

Neither will ever be passed by parliament, the EU has said no new deal on the table.

 

So we will crash out 31st October

As all other  options besides WTO also being rejected , none the U.K. would accept any other trade option than what they already had inside E.U. membership , only no rules taking for it ….. free membership with no obligations, V.I.P. Clubcard with all the benefits ...

1 hour ago, tebee said:

no it's nothing about continuing existing arrangements, it's about implementing new trade agreements before they are ratified

 

  

 Ordinarily, all WTO Members have to charge identical tariffs on similar products, regardless of where they are sourced from, Article XXIV allows two or more Members to charge lower tariffs on one another's goods provided they jointly sign, and transparently notify to the WTO, a comprehensive and reciprocal trade agreement.

This article has been invoked in the Brexit context because of a provision in it which allows parts of an incomplete Free Trade Agreements to be implemented on an interim basis while the final details are agreed. Prominent figures have suggested that should no deal be reached with the EU, an interim agreement under Article XXIV to eliminate all bilateral tariffs could serve in place of the transition period. Some have gone as far as to suggest the Article is a secret weapon which could be used to compel the EU to provide tariff free access to its market for up to ten years. None of these are credible options.

They are not credible because they rely on the following absurd assumptions:

That the consent of the European Union is either unnecessary to invoking Article 24, or would be forthcoming.
The former is absurd, because Article XXIV is explicitly based on jointly notifying the WTO of a new arrangement. It can't be used to compel anyone to do anything.

The latter has been explicitly rejected as an option by the EU and envisages their dropping hundreds of pages of carefully negotiated Withdrawal Agreement legal text for a hastily scrolled note saying "no tariffs."

That the bilateral elimination of tariffs would be an adequate replacement for the transition period.
While preventing or delaying the imposition of EU tariffs would come as a relief to some heavily exposed sectors like beef and lamb, it would do very little to mitigate the disruption of a No-Deal on the UK economy. Tariffs are a No-Deal problem, they are not the No-Deal problem.

If the UK leaves without a deal and thus immediately becomes a separate customs territory with standards and regulations completely independent of the EU, border checks and their resultant paperwork will need to be imposed. Even if tariffs between the UK and EU are eliminated, UK exporters will still be faced with the need to provide exponentially more paperwork to demonstrate that their goods are sufficiently of UK origin to enter tariff free (so called 'Rules of Origin declarations') and that they comply with EU standards and regulations. This will slow border traffic, disrupt supply chains and significantly increase business operating costs.

Article XXIV would also do nothing for the access of UK services firms to the EU market, where the barriers are regulations and visas, not tariffs. UK firms would lose the ability to provide services into the EU market, without the benefit of a two year transition period during which better access might have been negotiated or mitigating steps taken.

In summary, any discussion of Article XXIV is a distraction because it assumes the solution to a political impasse in negotiations with the EU lies in invoking a legal loophole that is neither a serious option nor a remotely adequate solution.

I realise it has to be bilateral. Do you not think the EU would work with the UK on making it happen - given the importance to both economies? And that the WTO member countries would be accommodating given the importance of stability to the global economy? 

8 hours ago, puipuitom said:

How you know the majority wanted to leave on 29th of March = a no deal Brexit ? ? Maybe 40 %, but that's it. 

 

 

And how do you know that only 40% now want to leave. Presumably you have facts to prove your number. If so please show them.

I am an American and don't have a dog in this fight. But I like the Brits, particularly their self-effacing humor. So here goes:

 

I predict there'll be another referendum in the UK  - soon after the UK leaves the EU. In fact, to make it precise there'll be another referendum within two years of Brexit, after the British economy's done a 737 Max and Brits picking foodstuff out of garbage bins can stop long enough to tell pollsters exactly what they think post factum.

7 minutes ago, Bang Bang said:

I am an American and don't have a dog in this fight. But I like the Brits, particularly their self-effacing humor. So here goes:

 

I predict there'll be another referendum in the UK  - soon after the UK leaves the EU. In fact, to make it precise there'll be another referendum within two years of Brexit, after the British economy's done a 737 Max and Brits picking foodstuff out of garbage bins can stop long enough to tell pollsters exactly what they think post factum.

 

 

 

I can see why you are not allowed to keep dogs!

37 minutes ago, Bang Bang said:

I am an American and don't have a dog in this fight. But I like the Brits, particularly their self-effacing humor. So here goes:

 

I predict there'll be another referendum in the UK  - soon after the UK leaves the EU. In fact, to make it precise there'll be another referendum within two years of Brexit, after the British economy's done a 737 Max and Brits picking foodstuff out of garbage bins can stop long enough to tell pollsters exactly what they think post factum.

 

I think we might see that referendum before we leave. If Boris Johnson becomes leader nothing really changes in parliament. If he wants to go for a "no deal" exit there will be a vote of no confidence in his Government (called by the Labour Party) and some of his fellow Conservatives will vote against him. That would mean a General Election, and with the new Brexit Party stealing traditional Tory votes he knows he will lose. His only real option will be to re-run the vote based on remain vs no deal exit. I think he'll take that gamble. 

2 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

I realise it has to be bilateral. Do you not think the EU would work with the UK on making it happen - given the importance to both economies? And that the WTO member countries would be accommodating given the importance of stability to the global economy? 

No.

3 hours ago, bartender100 said:

To be fair we are at a Mexican stand-off, leave MP's would not pass May's deal, similarly, remain MP's will not vote for no-deal WTO,

 

Neither will ever be passed by parliament, the EU has said no new deal on the table.

 

So we will crash out 31st October

 

Nope. You'd have a vote of no confidence initiated by Labour ... which will get over the line courtesy of Conservative remainers ... remember the Government's majority is wafer thin. The last thing the Conservatives want is a General Election that will usher in Corbyn. 

 

Johnson, presuming he wins, will have to gamble with a remain vs no deal referendum. 

 

One Nation..Pauline Hanson..She's an Ozzie!![emoji23]

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Yeah, she doesn't have much in common with One Nation Tories ( but she has much in common with the Right of the party).

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app