Forum Topic

May has not offered the DUP anything other than repeating the failed Attorney General's advice. You are right that May cannot succeed. Her deal is dead and cannot be resurrected. It will simply be voted down again next week.May is so obviously a lame duck PM, it is astonishing that with dozens of ministerial resignations and cabinet rebels remaining in post, her arrogance prevails. Why hasn't she done the honorable thing and resigned? Because it will make no difference now. Those who think that leaving the EU on 29th March would not fulfill the referendum result are making excuses that appear to be based upon the same Treasury crystal ball gazing that proved so comprehensively wrong following the referendum. The EU is in terminal decline as a political project and the Euro with it. Why mainstream media continue to define the exiting the EU agreement as Mrs May's beggars belief when the reality is that it is really the EU's agreement, designed to put other countries off trying to leave. It is frustrating that mainstream media in general has not addressed the unacceptable specifics of the agreement (apart from the Irish backstop) thus educating people how the agreement does not deliver what Mrs May claimed. The reality is that parliament does not want to rejoin the EU or another referendum (with its repercussions for democracy). It cannot ask for an extension to implement the deal if MPs don't want the deal. No one could stomach another drawn out negotiation going on for years or the prospect of European elections, manifestos, campaigns and all that entails. Once you have eliminated all the alternatives, the conclusion is staring us in the face, that the legislation in place and has had an overwhelming majority in parliament is that we leave the EU on the 29th March. I do believe that is what will happen. We can then get on with the range of agreements that both the EU and the UK will need. Why can't the UK be like the majority of countries in the world and operate independently of the EU? Even if there is some short term pain in some sectors of our economy, others will compensate as we undergo a necessary reset that prolonged austerity (an EU policy) has caused. The aircraft will still fly, the lorries will continue to roll and cooperative defence/security will remain as it is now. Wait and see.

Roland Willis Gilmore ● 2798d

Mr Gilmore"Those who think that leaving the EU on 29th March would not fulfill the referendum result are making excuses that appear to be based upon the same Treasury crystal ball gazing that proved so comprehensively wrong following the referendum". I have read of no politician who believes leaving the EU on the 29th would not fulfill the referendum result.The real issue is the terms on which we leave and many think that leaving on the wrong terms could be harmful in many ways.And it is legitimate for people to dispute what 'leaving the EU' - the Referendum result - actually means because in practice it is the unravelling of 40 odd years of trade, economic, social and political treaties and agreements with our closest allies.All of this offers great scope for different interpretation and opinion.Surely what we all want to do is to unravel them at minimum cost and harm to ourselves.I am a Remainer who believes that the world is inexorably  interrelated and is also very dangerous and so fighting our friends and stepping out alone is unnecessarily risky.I also feel we have benefited economically and socially from EU membership.However I concede the country voted to leave.What I can't understand is why the Leavers cannot take May's deal as a valid leaving plan.Her red lines seem to cover all the Leavers objections, taking Britain out of the EU single market and customs union, the common agriculture and fisheries policies, and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.I may not like it but it seems to cover all of the Leavers objections does it not, making it a pretty 'hard' Brexit in my view.So why do not all MPs, especially Labour ones, vote for it as honouring the Referendum vote and move on to the really difficult stage - negotiating a new set of trade, economic, social and political treaties and agreements with our closest allies.

John Hawkes ● 2797d

Amidst all the falsehoods put about by remainers, the worst is the "No Deal" claim, when in fact if we had left in the Summer of 2016, (not "crashed out") we would have saved billions wasted on the EU, and simply aligned ourselves further with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) who has 160 members accounting for approximately 98% of global trade.  This is what I was voting for, to be free traders with dozens of successful countries across the world, not 27 tottering states in a Eurozone entering recession.After being formed 24 years ago, wto.org confirms that it is the only global international trade organisation where agreements are negotiated and signed by the bulk of the worlds' trading nations and ratified by their parliaments.  The goal is that trade flows as smoothly, predictably and freely as possible.  To see the huge benefits of dealing with this well-ordered group, one only has to look at China, whose economy had been managed by a Communist government, who joined in 2001 requiring significant changes to its economy and deeper integration into the world economy.  The rest is history.  WTO Council members rotate on a yearly basis, and include Thailand, Benin, Canada, Panama, Germany, Ecuador, Peru, UK, Paraguay, Namibia, Afghanistan and Lithuania.  Their Trade Negotiations Committee includes Switzerland, Mexico, Kazakhstan, Honduras, Senegal, Guyana, Pakistan and the Council for Trade in Goods includes Guatemala, Norway, Japan, Colombia, Hungary, S Africa, S Korea, Costa Rica, New Zealand, Qatar and Indonesia.GATT - General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, was set up in 1947, when tariffs for participants were about 22% but had dropped to under 5% after the Paraguay Round in 1999.It was Bilderberger Ted Heath who took us out of the EFTA (FREE being the operative word) and led us into the "Common Market" which has expanded too quickly into an ideology compared by Thatcher and Gorbachev to the crumbling Soviet empire.If any endorsement is needed to promote trade with a superior, larger, free trade organisation that has reduced global tariffs, here it is from economic historian Douglas Irwin:"The prosperity of the world economy over the past half century owes a great deal to the growth of world trade which in turn is partly the result of far-sighted officials who created the GATT.  They established a set of procedures giving stability to the trade-policy environment and thereby facilitating the rapid growth of world trade.  With the long-run in view, the original GATT conferees helped put the world economy on a sound foundation and thereby improved the livelihood of hundreds of millions of people around the world".Remain in a fracturing entity run by France and Germany, with little geo-political clout, with a drunken Chairman who claims to have "met several leaders of other planets" (yes, it's on Youtube) or deal with the wider, longer-established world, with transparent, rotating ambassadors who have the power reduce tariffs and open doors for us?That's why the majority outside the Putney bubble voted to leave, not least our fisherman.  What fish Spain has not wiped out, the Dutch are now electrocuting, causing environmental destruction summed up by a Thanet trawlerman -  "it's like fishing in a graveyard". 

Chantal Blake-Milton ● 2794d

Chantal, ‘Falling back on WTO’ is not a viable option for the UK, if we leave the EU, as it would require a hard border in Ireland.The WTO is like a foundation for a house.  Countries build upon that foundation, with other trade agreements, so the foundations then have walls and a roof.  If we leave the EU, the UK would be tearing down the walls and roof and sleeping on a bare floor.The WTO uses Schedules of tariffs, or the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System.  Every item has one of these, so let’s take steel as an example.  The schedule would include specific elements for each grade of steel.  Let’s say that the UK produces 80 tonnes of the 100 tonnes of the specific grade of steel it needs.  The UK would set a small tariff on the first 20 tonnes of steel coming into the country, as we need it.  The UK would then set a higher tariff on any more steel coming in, as we’d want to protect our local producers.  This all makes sense, but means that the UK has to check every lorry, boat etc carrying steel, so we know what’s coming in and can apply the correct tariff.  That requires borders.The EU is the world’s largest free trading area.  Nothing else, including WTO, is better than what we already have.https://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/What-would-trading-on-WTO-terms-mean-Long-Guide.pdf (I haven’t read all of this, as it’s 34 pages, but looks like a good document)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmtAG4RtAp8 (3 blokes in a pub, WTO)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonized_System

Clare Noeken ● 2792d