Brexit negotiations thread

[Billy Bests boot laces]

All I want to know, is that after march 29th ( or whatever the date is supposed to be ), will our Duty Free allowances still be the same from EU Countries, or instantly revert back to non EU allowances?.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

It was. We were told. Unfortunately we were told by two opposing sides with different views and they did it with lies and half truths. What leave meant to you is wholly at odds with what it means to me. Who is the great British public to believe? You get my drift.

It's exactly as DC said in his pre vote speech. Leave means leave. He then went on to explain what we were leaving. He told the country exactly what it was voting for. There were multitudes of different sources one could choose from to find out what leaving those particular elements of the EU meant. When someone tells you you've got the choice of leaving a club and a particular part of the club and also names that particular part of that club it's down to you to find out what it is you've either got to lose or gain from leaving, not the person that's just told you.

Now, there are some that could have predicted and expected the kind of intransigence the EU would put up. It was inevitable given what's at stake for the Eurogroup, The Troika and the Euro.

so it was, but it wasn't...

 

[Bielzibubz]

so it was, but it wasn't...

Exactly. How could it ever be explained in detail exactly what leaving meant because nobody actually knew. They surmised and assumed and went on their own beliefs based on what they knew or thought they knew and what their political beliefs led them to believe. How could the British public be told or have it explained to them when the outcome is all down to assumptions and unknowns.

Let's put it this way. Say one of the questions on the ballot paper that eventful June day was 'Do you vote to leave the European Single Market, Yes...No?' Now, does Bill Grunthwick from 81 Slingshot Drive, who has already been told that voting leave is a vote to leave the European Single Market by David Cameron, have more of a choice and understanding of what leave means because of that extra question on the paper? No, of course he doesn't. Should that question have had a full paragraph of waffle after it explaining what it could mean or would that have been seen as showing bias on a ballot paper? Of course it would. Should there have been another dozen questions on the paper outlining the hypothetical outcomes of leaving each European financial and trade mechanism? As I said, referendums are by their very nature simplistic in what they ask and how they work regardless of the consequences.

OK, I'm being facetious. The point I'm trying to make is there couldn't have been more of a choice on the voting paper. There was and is no sensible way to do it.

Everyone had the chance to explain, in detail, what we were leaving and what leaving could possibly mean. We were all told by countless experts and sceptics prior to the vote. It was down to us and us alone to digest in own own way that information and act accordingly on it.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Exactly. How could it ever be explained in detail exactly what leaving meant because nobody actually knew. They surmised and assumed and went on their own beliefs based on what they knew or thought they knew and what their political beliefs led them to believe. How could the British public be told or have it explained to them when the outcome is all down to assumptions and unknowns.

Let's put it this way. Say one of the questions on the ballot paper that eventful June day was 'Do you vote to leave the European Single Market, Yes...No?' Now, does Bill Grunthwick from 81 Slingshot Drive, who has already been told that voting leave is a vote to leave the European Single Market by David Cameron, have more of a choice and understanding of what leave means because of that extra question on the paper? No, of course he doesn't. Should that question have had a full paragraph of waffle after it explaining what it could mean or would that have been seen as showing bias on a ballot paper? Of course it would. Should there have been another dozen questions on the paper outlining the hypothetical outcomes of leaving each European financial and trade mechanism? As I said, referendums are by their very nature simplistic in what they ask and how they work regardless of the consequences.

OK, I'm being facetious. The point I'm trying to make is there couldn't have been more of a choice on the voting paper. There was and is no sensible way to do it.

Everyone had the chance to explain, in detail, what we were leaving and what leaving could possibly mean. We were all told by countless experts and sceptics prior to the vote. It was down to us and us alone to digest in own own way that information and act accordingly on it.

I don't mean more choice, I mean it should have been decided in advance explicitly what a Leave vote meant.
I come back to the fact that with 44 days to go Johnson and Gove feel it should mean different things. That is a crazy situation.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

All I want to know, is that after march 29th ( or whatever the date is supposed to be ), will our Duty Free allowances still be the same from EU Countries, or instantly revert back to non EU allowances?.

Non-EU. Stock up.

 

[Billy Bests boot laces]

Non-EU. Stock up.

Cheers for that, booked a trip for mid March!.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Cheers for that, booked a trip for mid March!.

I'll send you my requests early March!

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

And how did you expect the referendum questions to be framed exactly? And how many? Three, four, six? And what questions. Would you ask Joe Public whether they wanted to stay in the single market without explaining exactly what that entails? Would you have asked them if they'd like to stay a part of the single market without explaining exactly what that entails? How much detail do the questions go into in order to make them readily understood and at the same time comprehensive to avoid confusion.

A referendum, by its nature, has to be a vote between simple choices. That's what they are. A piece of paper on which someone has to place their cross is NOT the place to put a set complex questions to help that person make up their mind. All the reasons for and against leaving were out there in the public domain before anyone went into the voting booth. They had the chance to do their research if they wished or to blindly believe all the lies and half truths told to them by all sides. Some chose the former, many chose the later. Like it or loath it that is how referendums are supposed to work.

Unless of course you're a far left socialist government and you ignore the will of 62% of your countries population.

The questions you ask indicate precisely why referenda,which almost by definition involve a binary choice,as you say, (unless you're Swiss ) are an inherently poor way of making complicated political decisions.

We agree on the basic premise which referenda are supposed to serve.Not on the conclusions to be drawn from June 2016.The Great British public reached a narrow majority decision then,which they expected the political class to implement without instructing them on how to go about it.Therein lies the raison d' étre for HMG's current problems.

 

[Bielzibubz]

I don't mean more choice, I mean it should have been decided in advance explicitly what a Leave vote meant.
I come back to the fact that with 44 days to go Johnson and Gove feel it should mean different things. That is a crazy situation.

Again A S S, it was. DC told everyone what it meant. The press told everyone what it meant. In the weeks prior to the vote we had the media telling us night after night what a vote to leave meant.

 

[Bielzibubz]

The questions you ask indicate precisely why referenda,which almost by definition involve a binary choice,as you say, (unless you're Swiss ) are an inherently poor way of making complicated political decisions.

We agree on the basic premise which referenda are supposed to serve.Not on the conclusions to be drawn from June 2016.The Great British public reached a narrow majority decision then,which they expected the political class to implement without instructing them on how to go about it.Therein lies the raison d' étre for HMG's current problems.

I agree, but it shouldn't have been down to anyone to tell them how to do it, they should have known how to go about it. Or have I misunderstood what you've said and who should have instructed them?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Again A S S, it was. DC told everyone what it meant. The press told everyone what it meant. In the weeks prior to the vote we had the media telling us night after night what a vote to leave meant.

DC told you it would lead to WWIII and that he would enact the referendum decision.

 

[Bielzibubz]

You really should be a politician A S S. Nicely swerved, deflected and ultimately ignored.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I agree, but it shouldn't have been down to anyone to tell them how to do it, they should have known how to go about it. Or have I misunderstood what you've said and who should have instructed them?

Don't think you've misunderstood anything.Expecting that this incompetent Tory government "should have known how to go about it" is another matter entirely,however.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

You really should be a politician A S S. Nicely swerved, deflected and ultimately ignored.

Not at all. Leave campaigners gave various interpretations of what Brexit would mean, even now Gove and Johnson want different things.

You want to use the Cameron interpretation, I don't know why as he lied throughout the campaign and seemingly had no intention of hanging around if he lost the vote.
'Cameron said....' is not the best Brexit blueprint I would have thought.

 

[Bielzibubz]

Oh dear Lord, it's like having a conversation with a problematic child

There was no interpretation when Cameron said if you vote leave you are voting to leave the customs union, single market blah blah blah..........I can't be arsed to find the video or quote the text. You know the speech I'm referring to. he made it perfectly plain what we would be leaving. That wasn't ambiguous in any way.

On the other hand the consequences of a leave vote was always down to interpretation by individuals. Leaving was always a big unknown and down to what individuals believed would be the outcome and consequences thereof.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Oh dear Lord, it's like having a conversation with a problematic child

There was no interpretation when Cameron said if you vote leave you are voting to leave the customs union, single market blah blah blah..........I can't be arsed to find the video or quote the text. You know the speech I'm referring to. he made it perfectly plain what we would be leaving. That wasn't ambiguous in any way.

On the other hand the consequences of a leave vote was always down to interpretation by individuals. Leaving was always a big unknown and down to what individuals believed would be the outcome and consequences thereof.

I'm a problematic child but you are contradicting yourself in the same post. Ok Dad.

 

[Bielzibubz]

I'm a problematic child but you are contradicting yourself in the same post. Ok Dad.

No I'm not. When Cameron told us what we were leaving ie the customs union and the single market etc etc. He didn't mention anything about the consequences, just what it was we'd be leaving. Which is exactly what I said in my first paragraph. My second paragraph was all about the consequences of leaving the EU, not what we'd actually be leaving. The second does not contradict the first.

Or to put it in simple terms. We always knew what we'd be leaving (Cameron told us) not what the consequences would be (because no one knew)

 

[SARF]

Cameron didn’t know the consequences. No one does.. until we do what we voted for.. leave... should we ever get the chance..
Every prediction by every serious Remainer from cambo to osbourne to Obama to Carey to the **** at the IMF have been completey wrong. Not a bit wrong.. totally wrong.
No one knows what comes next. Other than the establishment, who were that totally wrong,
want to stop what the UK doing what it voted for.. any way they can ..
I assume despite being wrong aBout nearly everything they assume they know better

 

[MK Shrimper]

Big news coming apparantly I'm reading on Twitter any minute now.

 

[Cricko]

Yeah she lost another vote. What a farse and she wasnt even there to hear it.