Brexit negotiations thread

[Yorkshire Blue]

Some strange logic you are exercising here Yorkie, My understanding is that 80 per cent of the vote in the recent GE went to parties that support Brexit...using your premise thats a lot of remainers that now support leave.

As for your second part had (Remainer) Cameron actually considered that he might lose...we might not be in the situation we are now.

They don't necessarily support leave and with the Article 50 notice being served (and remember May only served it because of her own arbitrary deadline) we're into a damage limitation phase. There's a lot of pragmatism going on to try and minimise its damage with Labour offering a softer option than the Maybot.

Cameron didn't think he would win in 2015 and have to offer the referendum. Clearly he was wrong with that and with not nailing down the question. Compare the Proportional Representation referendum granted as a sop to the Lib Dems which offered just one version of PR (which wouldn't even have produced a proportional result) to the EU referendum which was granted as a sop to the Tory swivel eyed brigade but offered no one version of what Leave would look like. The flaws of the Alternative Vote system could be easily pointed out, but nailing down the flaws of Brexit was nigh on impossible because the goalposts kept moving. All the Brexit options are flawed and had one single vision of Brexit been put forward it would have been dismissed by the electorate but instead we were offered numerous different contradictory versions of Brexit which detached from reality allowed Leave to claim all the supposed benefits of leaving but deny all the downsides.

If you want to argue that as an example of incompetence I wouldn't necessarily disagree. But what is clear is that whilst some politicians who are Remain are clueless, all politicians who are Leavers are clueless. Although feel free to to name names of Leave politicians who have answers to the Brexit questions.

 

[callan]

They don't necessarily support leave and with the Article 50 notice being served (and remember May only served it because of her own arbitrary deadline) we're into a damage limitation phase. There's a lot of pragmatism going on to try and minimise its damage with Labour offering a softer option than the Maybot.

Cameron didn't think he would win in 2015 and have to offer the referendum. Clearly he was wrong with that and with not nailing down the question. Compare the Proportional Representation referendum granted as a sop to the Lib Dems which offered just one version of PR (which wouldn't even have produced a proportional result) to the EU referendum which was granted as a sop to the Tory swivel eyed brigade but offered no one version of what Leave would look like. The flaws of the Alternative Vote system could be easily pointed out, but nailing down the flaws of Brexit was nigh on impossible because the goalposts kept moving. All the Brexit options are flawed and had one single vision of Brexit been put forward it would have been dismissed by the electorate but instead we were offered numerous different contradictory versions of Brexit which detached from reality allowed Leave to claim all the supposed benefits of leaving but deny all the downsides.

If you want to argue that as an example of incompetence I wouldn't necessarily disagree. But what is clear is that whilst some politicians who are Remain are clueless, all politicians who are Leavers are clueless. Although feel free to to name names of Leave politicians who have answers to the Brexit questions.

My argument is that having planned a referendum, the Government should have had a plan in place for leave.

The fact that all of these incompetent flawed Leave politicians managed to win the referendum against such stunning and erudite remain politicians (who were backing Camerons failed re-negotiation) doesn't say much for either side, does it?

 

[haveaguiness]

Nafta is presently being re-negotiated , and it is certainly true that Trump did not appear to be a great fan of trading bloc's per se in the run up to the US election, however Trumps main gripes appear to be more concerned with currency manipulation etc...I certainly wouldn't rule out the UK joining other trading blocs such as Nafta, TPP etc...in many ways it makes perfect sense.

As for a bespoke deal, there is an illusion that has been cleverly propagated that anything individually designed for the UK post Brexit will be to the detriment of the EU, mainly based on the premise that the UK can't be seen to be doing better outside of the EU totally ignoring the fact that both Switzerland and Norway have already to different extents achieved this.

If as you say a bespoke deal with the UK has no value to the EU then the UK will revert to WTO in terms of trade and MFN status....relying on our abilities to form trade agreements outside of the single market.

Should the UK prove to be ultimately successful outside of the EU with no deal, something we won't probably know until 2030 then it simply won't matter will it...in terms of who bowed down to who.

From my reading, Trump is concerned that Nafta is against the interests of America first, so any re-negotiating of the agreement will be entirely in America's favour. Anyone else joining Nafta would simply be serving America as the main power in that agreement. All I am saying, is would this actually be good for Britain, bearing in mind what people have voted to leave in Europe?

In regards to the bespoke deal, whilst I am not saying we will not and cannot get one, the idea of a deal that better serves Britain out of the EU, than if it was in it, will simple not happen. Not because we cannot be seen to be doing better out of the EU than in it, but because the EU cannot be seen to offer better terms - not following all EU legislation but still getting all the benefits of the trade deal, as an example - as this will make other countries think, "wait a minute why do they get all the good bits and none of the bad bits?"

I just can't see that an organisation as large as the EU are going to offer Britain a bespoke deal that is going to give leavers what they were promised when they voted. It was all well and good people saying we are going to stop free movement, as an example, but have free trade access, when deep down, we all know that is not going to happen. I would love it to happen (getting the deal through, not the end of free movement), but I don't see it. By the way, despite Switzerland and Norway not being in the EU, they actually have FAR higher levels of EU immigration as a percentage of population than Britain currently does.

As for WTO, other than tariffs which would be a huge burden on companies, we would still have to comply with pretty much all legislation to be allowed to even trade with the EU anyway, just with those tariffs on top. WTO would work OK in terms of opening trade agreements with other countries but as you say, we would need to wait a long time to see if that is successful.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

My argument is that having planned a referendum, the Government should have had a plan in place for leave.

The fact that all of these incompetent flawed Leave politicians managed to win the referendum against such stunning and erudite remain politicians (who were backing Camerons failed re-negotiation) doesn't say much for either side, does it?

So logically not having had a plan in place the government should not have held a referendum.

We should basically call the whole thing off then.

 

[callan]

From my reading, Trump is concerned that Nafta is against the interests of America first, so any re-negotiating of the agreement will be entirely in America's favour. Anyone else joining Nafta would simply be serving America as the main power in that agreement. All I am saying, is would this actually be good for Britain, bearing in mind what people have voted to leave in Europe?

In regards to the bespoke deal, whilst I am not saying we will not and cannot get one, the idea of a deal that better serves Britain out of the EU, than if it was in it, will simple not happen. Not because we cannot be seen to be doing better out of the EU than in it, but because the EU cannot be seen to offer better terms - not following all EU legislation but still getting all the benefits of the trade deal, as an example - as this will make other countries think, "wait a minute why do they get all the good bits and none of the bad bits?"

I just can't see that an organisation as large as the EU are going to offer Britain a bespoke deal that is going to give leavers what they were promised when they voted. It was all well and good people saying we are going to stop free movement, as an example, but have free trade access, when deep down, we all know that is not going to happen. I would love it to happen, but I don't see it. By the way, despite Switzerland and Norway not being in the EU, they actually have FAR higher levels of EU immigration as a percentage of population than Britain currently does.

As for WTO, other than tariffs which would be a huge burden on companies, we would still have to comply with pretty much all legislation to be allowed to even trade with the EU anyway, just with those tariffs on top. WTO would work OK in terms of opening trade agreements with other countries but as you say, we would need to wait a long time to see if that is successful.

Trump I believe has realised just what is at stake by pulling away from Nafta, and has taken the decision to renegotiate.
Yes he wants a better deal for the States but from what I've seen the 1994 agreement was in desperate need of updating anyway.

Would it be good for the UK?...estimates are that this would replace a 3rd of our trade with the EU....who don't forget are dominated by Germany both politically and economically.

At the point of leaving the UK will already have all the existing EU legislation in place, which would certainly be enough to cover Trade.

The EU is a large organisation and indeed that is one of it major flaws, it's only solutions are more Europe and its failure to reform rather than evolve will eventually be the death of it.

Both Norway and Switzerland indeed have free movement forced on them, however they are signed up to agreements with the EU that allow that.

Outside of this how many Non EU countries do the EU force Freedom of movement on?...no need to answer this!

Why might the EU want a bespoke deal?...lots of reasons and the following link gives an insight into why as well as giving an insight into trade under WTO and the possibilities and opportunities it offers.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/01/27/post-brexit-trade-can-thrive-under-wto-rules/

 

[callan]

So logically not having had a plan in place the government should not have held a referendum.

We should basically call the whole thing off then.

Are you thinking that your vote for wee Timmy, can still come good?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Are you thinking that your vote for wee Timmy, can still come good?

Due to the inequity of the electoral system whoever I voted for was going to be a wasted vote.

I've lived in four different constituencies and have only once had anything approaching a meaningful vote (when I got to vote out someone for voting for the Iraq war) in Parliamentary elections.

I suppose my European Parliament elections are probably the only meaningful elections I've taken part in. My democratic rights are therefore going to be diluted:sad:

ps Talking of democracy being diluted, did anyone else spot the guff in the no longer great Repeal Bill about creating temporary powers for Parliament to make secondary legislation?

 

[londonblue]

They don't necessarily support leave and with the Article 50 notice being served (and remember May only served it because of her own arbitrary deadline) we're into a damage limitation phase. There's a lot of pragmatism going on to try and minimise its damage with Labour offering a softer option than the Maybot.

Cameron didn't think he would win in 2015 and have to offer the referendum. Clearly he was wrong with that and with not nailing down the question. Compare the Proportional Representation referendum granted as a sop to the Lib Dems which offered just one version of PR (which wouldn't even have produced a proportional result) to the EU referendum which was granted as a sop to the Tory swivel eyed brigade but offered no one version of what Leave would look like. The flaws of the Alternative Vote system could be easily pointed out, but nailing down the flaws of Brexit was nigh on impossible because the goalposts kept moving. All the Brexit options are flawed and had one single vision of Brexit been put forward it would have been dismissed by the electorate but instead we were offered numerous different contradictory versions of Brexit which detached from reality allowed Leave to claim all the supposed benefits of leaving but deny all the downsides.

If you want to argue that as an example of incompetence I wouldn't necessarily disagree. But what is clear is that whilst some politicians who are Remain are clueless, all politicians who are Leavers are clueless. Although feel free to to name names of Leave politicians who have answers to the Brexit questions.

Which is why the idea of a second referendum once the deal has been negotiated would be a good idea. People (particularly leavers) will be able to judge whether or not their expectations have been met. If they have they can then vote leave again, and if they haven't then they can voice their disapproval. It would also work for remainers. If they see that the deal is better than they feared then they'll be able to vote leave, and if it isn't then they can vote remain again.

It won't happen though.

 

[callan]

Which is why the idea of a second referendum once the deal has been negotiated would be a good idea. People (particularly leavers) will be able to judge whether or not their expectations have been met. If they have they can then vote leave again, and if they haven't then they can voice their disapproval. It would also work for remainers. If they see that the deal is better than they feared then they'll be able to vote leave, and if it isn't then they can vote remain again.

It won't happen though.

Whilst personally I am not against the idea of a further referendum based on the deal, this may impact on the deal itself.

Also having seen only one referendum in my lifetime (I was 8 years old on the first), is there a case that in order for it to become acted upon there should be a clear percentage majority to do so.

Thoughts?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

They don't necessarily support leave and with the Article 50 notice being served (and remember May only served it because of her own arbitrary deadline) we're into a damage limitation phase. There's a lot of pragmatism going on to try and minimise its damage with Labour offering a softer option than the Maybot.

Cameron didn't think he would win in 2015 and have to offer the referendum. Clearly he was wrong with that and with not nailing down the question. Compare the Proportional Representation referendum granted as a sop to the Lib Dems which offered just one version of PR (which wouldn't even have produced a proportional result) to the EU referendum which was granted as a sop to the Tory swivel eyed brigade but offered no one version of what Leave would look like. The flaws of the Alternative Vote system could be easily pointed out, but nailing down the flaws of Brexit was nigh on impossible because the goalposts kept moving. All the Brexit options are flawed and had one single vision of Brexit been put forward it would have been dismissed by the electorate but instead we were offered numerous different contradictory versions of Brexit which detached from reality allowed Leave to claim all the supposed benefits of leaving but deny all the downsides.

If you want to argue that as an example of incompetence I wouldn't necessarily disagree. But what is clear is that whilst some politicians who are Remain are clueless, all politicians who are Leavers are clueless. Although feel free to to name names of Leave politicians who have answers to the Brexit questions.

Hindsight tell us that the Lib Dems should have insisted on PR (and not just a referendum on it) as their price for going into a formal coalition with the Tories in the first place.

Which reminds me, wonder how much the DUP are asking for officially? Should be good news for Scotland/Wales once the Barnett formula comes into play.

 

[londonblue]

Whilst personally I am not against the idea of a further referendum based on the deal, this may impact on the deal itself.

Also having seen only one referendum in my lifetime (I was 8 years old on the first), is there a case that in order for it to become acted upon there should be a clear percentage majority to do so.

Thoughts?

Wow, you grow up fast. It was only last year!

Being serious though (something I struggle with most of the time) I'm not really sure what you're getting at.

 

[Sandbach Shrimper]

Which is why the idea of a second referendum once the deal has been negotiated would be a good idea. People (particularly leavers) will be able to judge whether or not their expectations have been met. If they have they can then vote leave again, and if they haven't then they can voice their disapproval. It would also work for remainers. If they see that the deal is better than they feared then they'll be able to vote leave, and if it isn't then they can vote remain again.

It won't happen though.

But happens if people reject the deal? Do we just not leave the EU, or do we keep having referendums until we get a deal people are happy with?

I'm against the idea of a second referendum. It's our politicians' job to get the best deal for Britain, that's what they're elected and paid to do.

 

[londonblue]

But happens if people reject the deal? Do we just not leave the EU, or do we keep having referendums until we get a deal people are happy with?

I'm against the idea of a second referendum. It's our politicians' job to get the best deal for Britain, that's what they're elected and paid to do.

If the deal isn't what people want then we don't leave. The only reason a leaver would be against this idea is that they're scared the vote might go the other way next time.

As for your 2nd point, that's the reason for not having a referendum in the 1st place: we elect our politicians to decide these things for us. If you don't trust them with making the original decision then how on earth can you trust them to get the best deal?

 

[MK Shrimper]

Everybody who's here will be staying, able to claim every benefit and service that the British born can, and no doubt they'll be able to bring over relatives who'll be able to do the same.

Ever feel like you've been cheated Brexiteers?

 

[londonblue]

Everybody who's here will be staying, able to claim every benefit and service that the British born can, and no doubt they'll be able to bring over relatives who'll be able to do the same.

Ever feel like you've been cheated Brexiteers?

Of course not, because none of them voted to on EU immigrants anyway.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Of course not, because none of them voted to on EU immigrants anyway.

No, course not. :facepalm:

 

[londonblue]

Looks like we're already losing our clout in the world:

BBC: Chagos Islands

Most EU countries abstained from the vote, which BBC diplomatic correspondent James Landale described as an "embarrassing diplomatic defeat" for the UK.
He said it signalled that Britain's diplomatic clout had waned after the vote for Brexit.

As it happens I wouldn't mind if the UK loses this case because the diving off Diego Garcia is amazing and completely un-spoilt because almost no-one has been allowed to dive there. (The BBC were allowed to dive their about a year ago and posted some seriously amazing footage.) Sod that it's a very strategic place, I want to SCUBA dive!

 

[callan]

If the deal isn't what people want then we don't leave. The only reason a leaver would be against this idea is that they're scared the vote might go the other way next time.

As for your 2nd point, that's the reason for not having a referendum in the 1st place: we elect our politicians to decide these things for us. If you don't trust them with making the original decision then how on earth can you trust them to get the best deal?

In which case shouldn't there be a deal for remaining in the EU on the table which would need to be better than the rubbish they offered Cameron, the only reason a remainer would be against the idea is that they are frightened that the EU would be incapable of listening to the concerns of it's citizens.

 

[callan]

Everybody who's here will be staying, able to claim every benefit and service that the British born can, and no doubt they'll be able to bring over relatives who'll be able to do the same.

Ever feel like you've been cheated Brexiteers?

Cheated...over what?

 

[londonblue]

In which case shouldn't there be a deal for remaining in the EU on the table which would need to be better than the rubbish they offered Cameron, the only reason a remainer would be against the idea is that they are frightened that the EU would be incapable of listening to the concerns of it's citizens.

I don't have a problem with that, but practically you can't negotiate to leave, and negotiate a better deal to stay at the same time! I suppose the best you could do is (assuming a hypothetical 2nd vote is to stay because the leave deal isn't good enough) then have a 3rd vote on a new deal with the EU.

Personally I think that's a bit of a mess, but I didn't want a referendum in the 1st place!