ChatterBank2 mins ago
Ben Act Letwin Amendment Palava..
this is seriously getting on my nerves, this whole brexit thwarting tactics....errr
i just want to see an end to it, leave obviously..how long can this go on, court cases to stop it
were all going to die, were doomed etc etc.
i just want to see an end to it, leave obviously..how long can this go on, court cases to stop it
were all going to die, were doomed etc etc.
Answers
I too don't understand the logic that No Deal (aka WTO terms) means impoverishme
18:44 Sat 19th Oct 2019
Letwin was always going to vote for the deal. Which is actually rather rash of him as the whole point of this is to enable parliament to scrutinise this properly and make sure Oct 31 doesn’t come and go before the thing is through Parliament.
This will be a really important bill and deserves more than a 4 hour debate.
The more I read of it personally the less I like it.
This will be a really important bill and deserves more than a 4 hour debate.
The more I read of it personally the less I like it.
Boris Johnson has been his own worst enemy here: he’s behaved in a way which has alienated Labour MPs he might need to support him. Alienated the DUP whose votes he might also need (they’ve learned the hard way he’s not to be trusted) and above all his obsession with October 31 still has many worried that even with a deal he’ll call time on it if that deadline predates the legislation. That latter point is the key to why people like Oliver Letwin seek assurance or perhaps insurance via this amendment.
TTT: OK, so, firstly, there is exactly no chance at all of doing a "sensible free trade deal on day 1 ", because that's just not how trade deals work. Secondly, the point is that under WTO rules you can't have different rules for different countries absent trade deals, so we couldn't avoid getting either flooded by cheap produce from outside the EU, or cutting off all the stuff we want from the EU (and, for that matter, other countries).
The government's own analysis tells you this; so does more or less every other economic analysis. It's simply not sensible, and will be damaging, in one way or another, for the UK to implement No-Deal related trade policies.
The government's own analysis tells you this; so does more or less every other economic analysis. It's simply not sensible, and will be damaging, in one way or another, for the UK to implement No-Deal related trade policies.
It's the temporary cost of gaining the benefit. Longer term, which is the more reasonable way to view it, it won't be damaging.
Boris has had little room for maneuver. He had to do whatever was necessary to sideline the activities of the thwarters and come to an agreement with the EU. Hardly the action of someone being their own worst enemy.
Boris has had little room for maneuver. He had to do whatever was necessary to sideline the activities of the thwarters and come to an agreement with the EU. Hardly the action of someone being their own worst enemy.
Quite true, Jim. But in the event of WTO rules the UK will not be compelled to impose EU level tariffs on things we don't want to (and EU tariffs are usually, if not exclusively, imposed to protect EU manufacturers and producers). There will be no need, for example, to impose tariffs on New World wine (imposed to protect European producers), oranges (imposed to protect the small industry in southern Europe), rice (€65 per tonne which was imposed to protect the miniscule operation in southern Italy). There is no justification for any of these and all they do is to increase the price of goods for the consumer as part of the EU's protectionist policies. When did you last buy any rice from Italy? But the rice you buy from traditional origins is subject to a 6p per kilo tax to encourage you to do so. Your contention that the nation will be "impoverished" if it switched to WTO rules does not hold up to scrutiny. There is no reason to believe the country will be swamped by cheap inferior produce and even if it is the consumer has the choice to buy it or not. Trade finds its own levels and thrives despite politicians' best efforts to thwart it not because of their attempts to rig the markets in favour of their own products.
It isn't my contention though, is it? It's the contention of leading authorities from every major sector of the UK economy, almost every leading economist, etc etc etc. The simple fact is that No Deal will be seriously harmful to the UK's economy, and that's only in the best case.
As to the argument that "the consumer has the choice", fair enough, but given a choice between expensive British and cheap foreign, people will opt for cheap foreign. And if the UK industries -- farming, in particular -- respond to that by lowering their prices, then they *still* suffer. Perhaps this is because the UK business structure has become too heavily dependent on EU membership, but even if that is the case, then the solution is not to rip the EU band-aid off in a flash. All that does is lead to heavy bleeding. That's the reason that, if Johnson's deal passes, then the first part of it is deliberately a one-year or more period in which almost nothing changes.
As to the argument that "the consumer has the choice", fair enough, but given a choice between expensive British and cheap foreign, people will opt for cheap foreign. And if the UK industries -- farming, in particular -- respond to that by lowering their prices, then they *still* suffer. Perhaps this is because the UK business structure has become too heavily dependent on EU membership, but even if that is the case, then the solution is not to rip the EU band-aid off in a flash. All that does is lead to heavy bleeding. That's the reason that, if Johnson's deal passes, then the first part of it is deliberately a one-year or more period in which almost nothing changes.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.