Being upbeat about Brexit.

[ProfessorDavey]

He is not precluding changing his vote in future.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/06/labour-will-block-article-50-unless-theresa-may-agrees-to-jeremy/
A source close to Mr Corbyn told the Telegraph: "We won't be seeking to block Article 50, only amend or influence the government's negotiating terms if they do not meet our red lines.

"Our support for invoking article 50 is unconditional, but we would seek to amend or influence the government's negotiating terms."

Never claimed there was a guarantee, refer you to Corbyn source above.

That article is over a month ago - all sorts of things have moved on since then - including the debate where Starmer was clear:

 'I have made it absolutely clear that nothing in today’s motion precludes any party, including my own, from tabling an amendment to proposed legislation, if there is proposed legislation, and voting on it. I am astonished that some Members are willing to pass up the opportunity to have a vote in the first place and to restrict our ability to debate amendments.'

Just this afternoon Starmer has made further statements to the effect that Labour would look to block any attempt at a hard brexit.

[jakswan]

I'm not a betting man.

Not surprised, you seem very certain about things, on anything my degree of certainty is never very high. If it is at odds with a betting market its interesting.

But you keep changing your line.

First it was MPs voted for brexit (they didn't).

Then MPs voted on brexit (they didn't)

Then MPs voted on a brexit issue (perhaps so, but what on earth does that mean)

The that the vote was hugely significant (it wasn't, as Starmer makes absolutely clear)

For about the last few pages my position is, in my opinion, that this vote was significant. In my opinion several reputable news outlets also reported on this as being significant. If it was about Brexit issue, on brexit, is semantics I think, but feel free to tell yourself you won.

You have a different view and have found a quote that should change my opinion but doesn't, mainly because I haven't seen him being pressed on the issue and the vote was a majority of 373, so it'll pass with a majority of 372.

You have different views from me, the Guardian, Telegraph, Huffington Post etc is fine we will agree to disagree.

Now finally all you are left with is that it might happen, perhaps more likely than not. And here again all you are doing is moving your position to agree with me - way back I said that the March timetable might be met, but the most significant factor in whether it is or not is the Supreme Court ruling. So while we are on betting - do you not think that the Supreme Court ruling will move the odds significantly one way or another depending on its outcome? Worth noting that since the vote last week the odds have drifted back toward a later trigger date.

Well the fact we agree on something is surely a cause for celebration. No I would not subscribe to the view that the Supreme Court ruling is the "most significant factor", for that to be true I'd have to know a little more about proceedings, my impression from afar is that it didn't go well for the government. If this were true and the betting market agreed that it was the "most significant factor" then the odds would have changed a lot not "drifted back".

But hey ho don't get upset that I don't agree, life is like that.

Also your betting odds don't actually align with the government plan (which is by end March), but your odds are for either Jan-Jun 2016 or from July 2017. So if article 50 is triggered in April, May or June that would be a delay against the government plan.

So thanks very much for agreeing with me.

Yes I would agree again, blimey this is great, the actual odds for March will be lower. (Not really sure we actually agree but you seem to get a little upset if I do and you sound like you need to calm down.)

[jakswan]

That article is over a month ago - all sorts of things have moved on since then - including the debate where Starmer was clear:

 'I have made it absolutely clear that nothing in today’s motion precludes any party, including my own, from tabling an amendment to proposed legislation, if there is proposed legislation, and voting on it. I am astonished that some Members are willing to pass up the opportunity to have a vote in the first place and to restrict our ability to debate amendments.'

Just this afternoon Starmer has made further statements to the effect that Labour would look to block any attempt at a hard brexit.

Corbyn is the leader, as I recall Diane Abbot was on pretty much the same page as Corbyn on Sunday. I seem to recall John McDonnell saying the same thing on Pienaar on Sunday as well, hey does it really matter. We await more news with interest.

 

[ProfessorDavey]

For about the last few pages my position is, in my opinion, that this vote was significant. In my opinion several reputable news outlets also reported on this as being significant. If it was about Brexit issue, on brexit, is semantics I think, but feel free to tell yourself you won.

You have a different view and have found a quote that should change my opinion but doesn't, mainly because I haven't seen him being pressed on the issue and the vote was a majority of 373, so it'll pass with a majority of 372.

I have a different view from you. I don't have a different view from the  Guardian, Telegraph, Huffington Post etc when you actually bother to read beyond the headline. Sure each of the papers needs to 'spin' their editorial line (e.g. the Guardian sees this as a huge victory for the anti brexit brigade, the telegraph a huge victory for the pro brexit brigade). But actually once you get behind the headlines, what each article tells you is very similar - there were non binding votes on whether the government should provide a plan and on the government's proposed timetable.

On the significance of the vote I'm less interested in the newspaper spin than the view of the person who actually lead the debate, and he was clear that the vote was of no significance:

'I have made it absolutely clear that nothing in today’s motion precludes any party, including my own, from tabling an amendment to proposed legislation, if there is proposed legislation, and voting on it.'

[ProfessorDavey]

No I would not subscribe to the view that the Supreme Court ruling is the "most significant factor" ...

Here is a question for you.

If the Supreme Court case isn't so significant why are the government throwing everything and the kitchen sink at it to try to avoid losing.

If it was largely irrelevant (as you claimed previously) and that the whole process would go through fine whatever the result of the ruling, why wouldn't the government have simply accepted the verdict in the High Court and ploughed on regardless.

The reality is that the government is terrified of letting parliament have any meaningful say in the brexit process and deal and is fighting tooth and nail to prevent it.

[ProfessorDavey]

Corbyn is the leader, as I recall Diane Abbot was on pretty much the same page as Corbyn on Sunday. I seem to recall John McDonnell saying the same thing on Pienaar on Sunday as well, hey does it really matter. We await more news with interest.

Actually I don't think it is the opposition who are the ones putting the brakes on full implementation of brexit. It now seems that the second most senior figure in the government - the chancellor - is clear that full implementation should be delayed.

[jakswan]

I have a different view from you. I don't have a different view from the  Guardian, Telegraph, Huffington Post etc when you actually bother to read beyond the headline. Sure each of the papers needs to 'spin' their editorial line (e.g. the Guardian sees this as a huge victory for the anti brexit brigade, the telegraph a huge victory for the pro brexit brigade). But actually once you get behind the headlines, what each article tells you is very similar - there were non binding votes on whether the government should provide a plan and on the government's proposed timetable.

On the significance of the vote I'm less interested in the newspaper spin than the view of the person who actually lead the debate, and he was clear that the vote was of no significance:

'I have made it absolutely clear that nothing in today’s motion precludes any party, including my own, from tabling an amendment to proposed legislation, if there is proposed legislation, and voting on it.'

You think that what he means is that vote is of no significance, I think he means that it doesn't preclude him from voting differently or basically what he actually said.

[jakswan]

Here is a question for you.

If the Supreme Court case isn't so significant why are the government throwing everything and the kitchen sink at it to try to avoid losing.

It will be a pain to have to get it through Parliment, they will get it through, I'm not claiming its of no significance, think that is a daft position to hold to.

If it was largely irrelevant (as you claimed previously) and that the whole process would go through fine whatever the result of the ruling, why wouldn't the government have simply accepted the verdict in the High Court and ploughed on regardless.

Largely irrelevant to Article 50 being triggered, I think it might highly relevant for setting a precedent.

The reality is that the government is terrified of letting parliament have any meaningful say in the brexit process and deal and is fighting tooth and nail to prevent it.

Supreme court ruling is about article 50, other issues to do with Brexit, Great repeal act, final deal, etc there is little question it needs to go through Parliament.

[jakswan]

Actually I don't think it is the opposition who are the ones putting the brakes on full implementation of brexit. It now seems that the second most senior figure in the government - the chancellor - is clear that full implementation should be delayed.

Seem to be moving around a bit here, have we finished the article 50 discussion? Yes interim deal sounds sensible, I've no great objection to it in principle.

[ProfessorDavey]

You think that what he means is that vote is of no significance, I think he means that it doesn't preclude him from voting differently or basically what he actually said.

So let's get this right.

The vote didn't make anyone do anything.

The vote is irrelevant in the outcome of future votes as the vote doesn't preclude parties voting in a completely different manner on similar votes (if they happen) in the future.

I think that means it is of no significance as it has no bearing on what will actually happen. But don't take my word for that, take the word of the person who lead the debate.

[ProfessorDavey]

Seem to be moving around a bit here, have we finished the article 50 discussion? Yes interim deal sounds sensible, I've no great objection to it in principle.

Strange how brexity-type people seem obsession with the point at which the process starts, but completely relaxed about the point at which the process ends. I'd have thought that if you were a brexiter when it started would be less important than the date of full implementation, given that during that period we will remain members of the EU.

And of course there are plenty of examples of 'transitional' arrangements becoming 'permanent'.

[jakswan]

So let's get this right.

The vote didn't make anyone do anything.

The vote is irrelevant in the outcome of future votes as the vote doesn't preclude parties voting in a completely different manner on similar votes (if they happen) in the future.

Yes to all of those.

I think that means it is of no significance as it has no bearing on what will actually happen. But don't take my word for that, take the word of the person who lead the debate.

No we have been talking about the chances of something happening. You seemed to agree that Article 50 would be triggered early (in line with BetFair market which possibly pre-dates T. May March 2017 statement). What has a bearing on what will happen are a number of things, Govt position that it should before the end of March 17, loss of case in high court, the way each political parties will vote.

In every interview when pushed every Labour politician gets a question like this 'If you don't get any conditions, amendments through on Article 50 bill would you vote against' everyone has replied (paraphrasing) 'I will not vote against 50'.

Which leads me to think that actually the Labour party position is consistent with Corbyn spokesperson statement given earlier. The LibDems on the other hand say their support is conditional.

So prior to this vote, it seems to me that the chances are high that an Article 50 vote in Parliament would get through. I would expect the LibDems to be against and Labour to be for, Cons for, naturally some rebels.

However Labour are a bit all over the place so a vote on the motion with an amendment to trigger Article 50 by March, (Guardian "as MPs overwhelmingly backed a government amendment endorsing the prime minister’s self-imposed March deadline for triggering article 50"), and it being consistent broadly with each parties position, is significant in my opinion.

I don't think Kier's statement is any different from anything I have heard from Labour before and doesn't change Labour position that essentially their support for Article 50 is unconditional.

[jeremyp]

I read an article the other day that puts a different perspective on all these votes and the posturing about Brexit and what kind of deal we want. Apologies, by the way, that I can't link the article because I forgot where I read it.

The article claimed that Theresa May is going to get her arse handed to her by the EU. They have already made their position clear: it's either hard Brexit or (effectively) no Brexit. Britain is negotiating from a fundamentally weak position. Apart from the disparity in size, if the negotiations fail, the default position is WTO rules, which is the hardest of hard Brexits and that is far worse for us than the EU. As the Italian minister put it when Boris crassly threatened his Prosecco industry, there are twenty seven other countries where Italy can sell it.

All the other EU governments are probably pissing themselves about all this to and fro with respect to what kind of Brexit we want. When it comes to negotiating, they will lay down the terms and that will be that.

[jakswan]

Strange how brevity-type people seem obsession with the point at which the process starts, but completely relaxed about the point at which the process ends. I'd have thought that if you were a brexiter when it started would be less important than the date of full implementation, given that during that period we will remain members of the EU.

And of course there are plenty of examples of 'transitional' arrangements becoming 'permanent'.

Who is obsessed with anything. I'm interested in the process and the timings but if it takes 3/4/5 years not that bothered.

[jakswan]

I read an article the other day that puts a different perspective on all these votes and the posturing about Brexit and what kind of deal we want. Apologies, by the way, that I can't link the article because I forgot where I read it.

The article claimed that Theresa May is going to get her arse handed to her by the EU. They have already made their position clear: it's either hard Brexit or (effectively) no Brexit. Britain is negotiating from a fundamentally weak position. Apart from the disparity in size, if the negotiations fail, the default position is WTO rules, which is the hardest of hard Brexits and that is far worse for us than the EU. As the Italian minister put it when Boris crassly threatened his Prosecco industry, there are twenty seven other countries where Italy can sell it.

All the other EU governments are probably pissing themselves about all this to and fro with respect to what kind of Brexit we want. When it comes to negotiating, they will lay down the terms and that will be that.

Yep there is a school of thought that we should just leave and go to WTO rules immediately, we will make a profit from the tariffs and as the currency is 20% cheaper the tariffs are wiped out for our exports.

[ProfessorDavey]

Who is obsessed with anything. I'm interested in the process and the timings but if it takes 3/4/5 years not that bothered.

For a person not obsessed you do seem unusually fixed on May's timetable of triggering article 50 by end of March.

[jakswan]

For a person not obsessed you do seem unusually fixed on May's timetable of triggering article 50 by end of March.

No you first suggest the vote wasn't valid due to demographics, then this vote meant nothing, the supreme court was most important, accused me of quote mining, accused me of being obsessed with timing, then claimed the new opposition was the chancellor.

My position is that this vote was significant for reasons I've explained, not really about the timing but about article 50 getting triggered.

[ProfessorDavey]

No you first suggest the vote wasn't valid due to demographics,

No I didn't - I suggested that demographic shift would likely result in the current majority for brexit amongst the electorate disappearing within 4-5 years of the 2016 vote, in other words at the point at which the full settlement is likely to be enacted. I provided robust evidence for this, that you were unable to counter. And having failed to be able to provide any evidence in response declared yourself uninterested.

then this vote meant nothing

Actually I said it was of no significance to the likelihood of article 50 being triggered by parliament and the timing of that act. I continue to consider to be the case. The vote wasn't binding, and were the votes not to have taken place at all I fail to see why it would make parliament more or less likely to vote for article 50 (which is of course dependent on them being given the option so to do by the Supreme Court). Similarly had there been no vote I fail to see how the timing on triggering article 50 would be brought forward or drifted back. The key issue on trigger date is the Supreme court judgement. If they rule that parliament doesn't need to have a say an early trigger (from the government) becomes much more likely. If on the other hand the Supreme Court rule that parliament must have a say and that they must actually trigger articled 50 then early trigger likelihood diminishes massively and a much later date become far more likely.

But the point is that neither the likelihood of parliament voting in favour of triggering article 50, nor the likely time when it is triggered is affected by the vote last week, or indeed had their not been a vote at all.

the supreme court was most important

See above - I stand by this view, and frankly so do virtually all knowledgeable commentators. If it wasn't exceptionally important why do you think that (for the first time ever) all justices sat, and also the whole proceeding were broadcast live (again unprecedented).

accused me of quote mining

Which you were as I demonstrated, on the basis of selectively picking headlines out of context of the entire articles they related to. Where by picking the headline you tried to give the impression that your view was correct, but when taking that quote in the context of the whole article it was clear that they actually pretty well perfectly aligned with my stated view.

accused me of being obsessed with timing

Perhaps obsessed is too strong a term, so I'll retract and apologise - I suggest instead overly interested in, noting that you were even quoting betting odds at the rest of us on this.

then claimed the new opposition was the chancellor.

No I didn't - read what I actually said and get your facts straight please. I said that is was the chancellor who was most likely to be putting the brakes on full brexit implementation - actual quote:

'Actually I don't think it is the opposition who are the ones putting the brakes on full implementation of brexit. It now seems that the second most senior figure in the government - the chancellor - is clear that full implementation should be delayed.'

He was widely reported as saying that full implementation of brexit should be delayed, calling for a transitional period on the basis that it wouldn't be possible to complete the arrangements set out within article 50 without causing serious damage to Britain.

Given that Hammond is the second most senior member of the government I think his views are far more likely to come to fruition than those of opposition politicians because he is part of the top table team making those decisions.

My position is that this vote was significant for reasons I've explained, not really about the timing but about article 50 getting triggered.

You've failed to provide any evidence to back this up. While I have demonstrated that:

1. The vote didn't make anyone do anything

2. The vote was non binding

3. The person whose debate it was clearly indicated that the vote would have absolutely no bearing on the future approach of his or other parties.

4. That the is no evidence that had the vote not taken place at all that parliament would be more or less likely to be given a say, be more or less likely to vote in favour if given a say. Or that had the vote not taken place that there was a greater or lesser likelihood of article 50 being triggered earlier or later.

So if a vote changes nothing now, and has no bearing on what happens in the future - yup sounds like it is of no significance.

[jakswan]

No I didn't - I suggested that demographic shift would likely result in the current majority for brexit amongst the electorate disappearing within 4-5 years of the 2016 vote, in other words at the point at which the full settlement is likely to be enacted. I provided robust evidence for this, that you were unable to counter. And having failed to be able to provide any evidence in response declared yourself uninterested.

I'm not going over that again. Actually I will, you started of by claiming X% of Y demographic voted to remain which was factually incorrect, so I thought you might not be across your numbers. Some way into this debate I thought 'hang on this is madness what a daft argument, there are far better arguments for another referendum than this even if Davey is accurate with his demographics'. I'm not sure you were actually accurate but I don't care because that argument wouldn't convince me even if you were.

This is what baffles me is you clutch at different arguments pedantically trying to score points in attempt to convince yourself that you have in some way "won" when in fact your side lost the battle. You can still win the war but the path to winning isn't to "win" a debate but to convince me and others that your path is the right one.

Actually I said it was of no significance to the likelihood of article 50 being triggered by parliament and the timing of that act. I continue to consider to be the case. The vote wasn't binding, and were the votes not to have taken place at all I fail to see why it would make parliament more or less likely to vote for article 50 (which is of course dependent on them being given the option so to do by the Supreme Court). Similarly had there been no vote I fail to see how the timing on triggering article 50 would be brought forward or drifted back. The key issue on trigger date is the Supreme court judgement. If they rule that parliament doesn't need to have a say an early trigger (from the government) becomes much more likely. If on the other hand the Supreme Court rule that parliament must have a say and that they must actually trigger articled 50 then early trigger likelihood diminishes massively and a much later date become far more likely.

But the point is that neither the likelihood of parliament voting in favour of triggering article 50, nor the likely time when it is triggered is affected by the vote last week, or indeed had their not been a vote at all.

Which we have discussed and disagreed, you actually said "the vote means nothing except a bit of political posturing."

See above - I stand by this view, and frankly so do virtually all knowledgeable commentators. If it wasn't exceptionally important why do you think that (for the first time ever) all justices sat, and also the whole proceeding were broadcast live (again unprecedented).

The most important with regard to article triggered early next year? Again we disagree you will have cite "virtually all knowledgeable commentators" in order for that to be anything other than a wild assertion.

Which you were as I demonstrated, on the basis of selectively picking headlines out of context of the entire articles they related to. Where by picking the headline you tried to give the impression that your view was correct, but when taking that quote in the context of the whole article it was clear that they actually pretty well perfectly aligned with my stated view.

You demonstrated that you didn't know what quote mining was.

Perhaps obsessed is too strong a term, so I'll retract and apologise - I suggest instead overly interested in, noting that you were even quoting betting odds at the rest of us on this.

Thanks for the apology, we were discussing the chances of something happening, the betting market directly relates to this.

No I didn't - read what I actually said and get your facts straight please. I said that is was the chancellor who was most likely to be putting the brakes on full brexit implementation - actual quote:

'Actually I don't think it is the opposition who are the ones putting the brakes on full implementation of brexit. It now seems that the second most senior figure in the government - the chancellor - is clear that full implementation should be delayed.'

He was widely reported as saying that full implementation of brexit should be delayed, calling for a transitional period on the basis that it wouldn't be possible to complete the arrangements set out within article 50 without causing serious damage to Britain.

Given that Hammond is the second most senior member of the government I think his views are far more likely to come to fruition than those of opposition politicians because he is part of the top table team making those decisions.

My turn I apologise my statement should read:-

No you first suggest the vote wasn't valid due to demographics, then this vote meant nothing, the supreme court was most important, accused me of quote mining, accused me of being obsessed with timing, then claimed the new person putting the brakes on full brexit is the chancellor.

You've failed to provide any evidence to back this up. While I have demonstrated that:

1. The vote didn't make anyone do anything

2. The vote was non binding

3. The person whose debate it was clearly indicated that the vote would have absolutely no bearing on the future approach of his or other parties.

4. That the is no evidence that had the vote not taken place at all that parliament would be more or less likely to be given a say, be more or less likely to vote in favour if given a say. Or that had the vote not taken place that there was a greater or lesser likelihood of article 50 being triggered earlier or later.

So if a vote changes nothing now, and has no bearing on what happens in the future - yup sounds like it is of no significance.

Jeez we are going round in circles, my position, I think, my opinion is that it was significant, I have given my reasons, you are free to disagree for your reasons. All the evidence you need for my position - my opinion is the words you are reading.

[Sassy]

And judging from the content of the rest of the post, you are not clear on anything else.

You obviously know far less than I, seeing as you were unable to add anything useful to the thread or really make a comment on it's actual subject.

So what do you know about how the system works in the court? No copying and paste, please.

[floo]

Could be Sass knows how courts works as she has been up before the beak a few times!

[jeremyp]

we will make a profit from the tariffs

No we won't. The tariffs will have a depressing effect on trade. People won't buy the goods which means that the government loses not only the tariff, but also the VAT.

If tariffs were profitable, there would be no country in the World that does not apply them.

and as the currency is 20% cheaper the tariffs are wiped out for our exports.

So the imports are 20% more expensive and there's an extra tariff on top. Goodbye to the BMW/Fiat/Renault dealer networks employing thousands of people.

[ProfessorDavey]

No we won't. The tariffs will have a depressing effect on trade. People won't buy the goods which means that the government loses not only the tariff, but also the VAT.

And the corporation tax for the companies whose profitability has been seriously dented.

And the income tax and NI contributions for people made unemployed when those companies need to lose staff due to the downturn in their financial position.

As Jeremy pointed out, if tariffs were a successful way to increase the wealth of a country everyone would be doing it - but they aren't - indeed quite the reverse, countries realise getting rid of tariffs increases trade and economic prosperity in the countries that do it. And it isn't a zero sum game.

[L.A.]

we will make a profit from the tariffs

That is just a ridiculous statement, once you get into a tariff war everybody loses. It's the kind of stupidity that could bring about a world recession.

[jakswan]

And the corporation tax for the companies whose profitability has been seriously dented.

And the income tax and NI contributions for people made unemployed when those companies need to lose staff due to the downturn in their financial position.

As Jeremy pointed out, if tariffs were a successful way to increase the wealth of a country everyone would be doing it - but they aren't - indeed quite the reverse, countries realise getting rid of tariffs increases trade and economic prosperity in the countries that do it. And it isn't a zero sum game.

So having a free trade deal is in everyone's interests, I agree. Most likely outcome is out of common market, free trade deal, free movement of labour, and more free trade deals for UK with rest of world.