It looks like the new deal will be accepted by the EU countries (but we don't know for sure yet), but getting it through the British Parliament may prove much more difficult. The reason is probably what Higgins just posted about. I think Johnson's best hope is that we're so close to the finish line and a hard Brexit is very likely if the Parliament says no.
Remarkable that this is constantly mentioned by the same people who easily overlook all of Johnson‘s faults and wrongdoings (which are well documented in contrary to Juncker‘s rumored alcoholism).
And even if it was true, it hasn‘t affected Juncker‘s professional attitude and performance - how about Johnson :v
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I don't think Johnson's or Junker's appetites are very important when it comes to Brexit. I'm more interested in if the new deal has a chance in Parliament and how that result will influence the next election.
Just following the parliamentary debate and have 2 things which I find absolutely annoying:
1. Corbyn!
Everything that he says about the reasons for not voting for the deal is correct (dumbing down standards, workers rights, environmental standards, social standards).
But those are all the consequences of BREXIT, no matter how - so he should consequently stand up and say: We want to remain!
2. Johnson still phantasysing about the nebulous "Elites which run Brussels". Seems that he has never left his (wrong and totally lying) mindset of his Brussels Journalist days over a decade ago.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I don't see how worse workers' rights, environmental standards etc. is an automatic result of Brexit. The EU have standards that members at least have to follow, but New standards will be completely up to the British voter after Brexit.
I don't see how lower standards in the areas you mention have to be the result of Brexit. The EU have standards the member states have to at least follow or be better than, but Brexit leaves Britan free to make their own standards. If these new standards are better or worse than those of the EU will be up to the British voters in the future.
Taxes: The UK will compete against the EU in terms of taxes. Which means less taxes -> less money for those in need, less money for the NHS, less money for schools, social benefits and so on.
That lower taxes "pay for themselfs" is a common lie, you can see that by the US and their exploding deficit from the recent tax cut.
One big reason to get out of the EU is to get rid of the regulations.
Most of the EU regulations are not because of the sadism on side of the bureaucrats but to keep certain standards, like environment, worker's conditions and rights, product safety, animal rights and sustainability.
As the UK will compete with the EU in many fields, they must be able to offer cheaper and that means less of all what the regulations are standing for.
Just ask yourself why China is so successful and cheap in their industrial sector.
The worker's wages are low (you can't do that in the UK), the safety standards for products and workers are lower, environmental standards significantly lower, social benefits hardly exist.
If the UK want to compete with the EU agricultural sector, they must be able to produce meat, milk, corn etc cheaper than the big competitors from the EU. So they must cut many of the regulations which kept the standards EU-wide at least.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
There are international treaties for fishing stopping people from fishing the North Sea dry, and they won't og away just because Britain leaves the EU. I don't by your claim that the UK has to lower standards to compete with the EU. Look at Sweden and finland before they joined the EU. Did they have low standards for workers rights? Not at all. Were they able to compete? yes.
Factors like inovation, quality, trade deals, effectivenes etc factor in when it comes to exports. You don't necceserely have to lower standards to compete in the international market.
Well, the EU so far did not prevent the UK from being innovative, high quality, efficient and so on.
The EU boundaries, regulations and limits are there to prevent of dumbing down.
So ask yourself where the extra cometitivity comes from?
As for the trade deals, who will give a Country with a market of 65 million people better trade deals than to the Eu with a market of around 500 million?
Same for investment: who will invest in a factory in the UK with a market of 65 million when he can invest in the EU with 500 million takers?
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
No, of course the EU didn't prevent the UK from being inovative etc.
I'm just saying there are other ways of staying competitive than lowering standards socially, for workers and the enviroment.
EU boundries are often there to prevent member states from lowering their standards, just like you say, but I don't think that countries have to lower standards if they leave. I also agree in what you say about the size of markets and economies and being competitive.
I even agree that it's possibe these standards will drop in the UK when they leave. I just don't think it inevitable.
The Parliament didn't support Johnson's Brexit deal today, but instead they voted yes to Letwin's suggestion. That suggestion makes it impossible to have a hard Brexit, doesn't it? I think it's possible to get his Brexit deal through by the end of the month, but it'll be very difficult.
I love it when he bellows "order!"
The House of Commons is very ….. lively, don't you think? If anyone in our Storting had behaved like that they would've been clubbed by the Speaker and it would be a scandal. The House of Commons is usually more entertaining, but I prefer it dignified. I'm guessing Bundestag is a more formal affair too?
The more that I am watching House of Parliament, the less „lively“ I find it.
I see it like a staged play of theatre, not much is really spontanous and real, I hate (and Corbyis the worst in it) when questions are not replied to and politician move to „party line speech“.
The whole staging is full of formalities. It begins with addressing to the speaker instead of addressing to the MPs and the „right honorable friend“ wears off quickly.
The Bundestag may be less entertaining, but at least questions are being replied to and people behave more „real“.
Berkow wanted to resign on 31st October but I find it quite possible that he‘ll do it a bit longer.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Aren't the questions in the Bundestag formally directed to the Speaker? In the Storting every question and comment starts with "honourable President" (the president of the parlieament). Isn't that the case in the Bundestag?
While we often see MPs towing the party line I still call the House of Commons lively …. or wild and unruly. The entertainment value is high, at least for me.
No, in the Bundestag, every speech is directed to the President, the MPs and the audience at the beginning only.
But that‘s only a „ladies and gentlemen“ as introduction. The rest of the speech, the questions and replies are directly addressed.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Well, it's in the beginning only in the Stortinget too. It's only a formality and the MPs ask and reply directly to each other. One of the differences from the House of Commons is that no-one can speak unless they've been called to the podium. Laughter is permitted (remember when the president said one letter wrong in the name of the leader of the Center agrerian party and called him "the representative mr Brawl) but I don't know if applause is permitted.
I am just reading an interesting article, what the Letwin act from today was really all about:
We have a No-No Deal law, which forces the PM to call for an extension incase that there is no Deal agreed in Parliament.
So, some obviously feared that there could be a loophole as follows:
If the parliament would agree with a deal today, the No-No-Deal law would become obsolete.
Having now 10 days to put the deal into law, Johnson could have just blocked the process again and by default, the UK would have crashed out of the EU without a Deal and the suspicion was, that Johnson in his heart is still after that scenario
Johnson closed the parliament twice already to cut the time till 31st Oct. shorter and obviously a large part of the UK parliament where afraid, that this could be well his masterplan.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Comments
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Sounds to me that Theresa May was negotiating tougher than Teddybear Boris
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Juncker: „They were right“
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o3YsEgZJvK8
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
And even if it was true, it hasn‘t affected Juncker‘s professional attitude and performance - how about Johnson :v
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Gerry Adams could then make the backstop 'disappear'... :v
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Oh, I see, but it's easy to forget that sometimes. Thanks for the reminder.
1. Corbyn!
Everything that he says about the reasons for not voting for the deal is correct (dumbing down standards, workers rights, environmental standards, social standards).
But those are all the consequences of BREXIT, no matter how - so he should consequently stand up and say: We want to remain!
2. Johnson still phantasysing about the nebulous "Elites which run Brussels". Seems that he has never left his (wrong and totally lying) mindset of his Brussels Journalist days over a decade ago.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Taxes: The UK will compete against the EU in terms of taxes. Which means less taxes -> less money for those in need, less money for the NHS, less money for schools, social benefits and so on.
That lower taxes "pay for themselfs" is a common lie, you can see that by the US and their exploding deficit from the recent tax cut.
One big reason to get out of the EU is to get rid of the regulations.
Most of the EU regulations are not because of the sadism on side of the bureaucrats but to keep certain standards, like environment, worker's conditions and rights, product safety, animal rights and sustainability.
As the UK will compete with the EU in many fields, they must be able to offer cheaper and that means less of all what the regulations are standing for.
Just ask yourself why China is so successful and cheap in their industrial sector.
The worker's wages are low (you can't do that in the UK), the safety standards for products and workers are lower, environmental standards significantly lower, social benefits hardly exist.
If the UK want to compete with the EU agricultural sector, they must be able to produce meat, milk, corn etc cheaper than the big competitors from the EU. So they must cut many of the regulations which kept the standards EU-wide at least.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
After Brexit, UK fishermen without the EU quotes will fish the Northern Sea empty like there is no tomorrow
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Factors like inovation, quality, trade deals, effectivenes etc factor in when it comes to exports. You don't necceserely have to lower standards to compete in the international market.
The EU boundaries, regulations and limits are there to prevent of dumbing down.
So ask yourself where the extra cometitivity comes from?
As for the trade deals, who will give a Country with a market of 65 million people better trade deals than to the Eu with a market of around 500 million?
Same for investment: who will invest in a factory in the UK with a market of 65 million when he can invest in the EU with 500 million takers?
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I'm just saying there are other ways of staying competitive than lowering standards socially, for workers and the enviroment.
EU boundries are often there to prevent member states from lowering their standards, just like you say, but I don't think that countries have to lower standards if they leave. I also agree in what you say about the size of markets and economies and being competitive.
I even agree that it's possibe these standards will drop in the UK when they leave. I just don't think it inevitable.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
The House of Commons is very ….. lively, don't you think? If anyone in our Storting had behaved like that they would've been clubbed by the Speaker and it would be a scandal. The House of Commons is usually more entertaining, but I prefer it dignified. I'm guessing Bundestag is a more formal affair too?
I see it like a staged play of theatre, not much is really spontanous and real, I hate (and Corbyis the worst in it) when questions are not replied to and politician move to „party line speech“.
The whole staging is full of formalities. It begins with addressing to the speaker instead of addressing to the MPs and the „right honorable friend“ wears off quickly.
The Bundestag may be less entertaining, but at least questions are being replied to and people behave more „real“.
Berkow wanted to resign on 31st October but I find it quite possible that he‘ll do it a bit longer.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
While we often see MPs towing the party line I still call the House of Commons lively …. or wild and unruly. The entertainment value is high, at least for me.
But that‘s only a „ladies and gentlemen“ as introduction. The rest of the speech, the questions and replies are directly addressed.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
We have a No-No Deal law, which forces the PM to call for an extension incase that there is no Deal agreed in Parliament.
So, some obviously feared that there could be a loophole as follows:
If the parliament would agree with a deal today, the No-No-Deal law would become obsolete.
Having now 10 days to put the deal into law, Johnson could have just blocked the process again and by default, the UK would have crashed out of the EU without a Deal and the suspicion was, that Johnson in his heart is still after that scenario
Johnson closed the parliament twice already to cut the time till 31st Oct. shorter and obviously a large part of the UK parliament where afraid, that this could be well his masterplan.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
https://twitter.com/i/status/1184880499778605063