Hard or Soft Brexit?

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

The EU wont negotiate until Article 50 is invoked.



How much do you want to know?, and is there a disadvantage to our negotiating position if it becomes known?

What exactly would we want to hide from the EU now that we would then spring on them mid negotiation? I don't buy into that disadvantage negotiation vibe, I think it's the public they don't want to tell because they don't actually know what their own aims are.

 

[callan]

The media will try to make sure that there is (did you see the Mail Online's disgraceful headline earlier that they've since edited?) but there shouldn't be. The High Court stressed that it wasn't making a verdict on Brexit, it's a verdict on constitutional law.

I don't read the Mail, so haven't seen their headlines.

I actually believe that Parliament should endorse the decision made back in June.

 

[callan]

What exactly would we want to hide from the EU now that we would then spring on them mid negotiation? I don't buy into that disadvantage negotiation vibe, I think it's the public they don't want to tell because they don't actually know what their own aims are.

Which comes back too how much you want to know?....does it not?

What would satisfy you?

Also can we arrange to meet up at some point to play cards for cash?, I will of course expect to see your hand.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Which comes back too how much you want to know?....does it not?

What would satisfy you?

Also can we arrange to meet up at some point to play cards for cash?, I will of course expect to see your hand.

I don't play cards or have any cash.


My stance all along was that the government would make a hash of leaving the EU - the fact that they didn't even comprehend the legal precedent for the first stage of the process I find alarming.


Broadly speaking - we should be told what we will be losing and what it will be replaced with. That incorporates a myriad of elements - which is the problem. I wouldn't even know where to begin. The department for Brexit need to explain it to Parliament and if they are happy then they will explain it to us. At the moment all we seem to know is that we will leave the EU - that could mean anything.


I don't see why negotiations would be hampered by deciding in advance whether we want to have access to the single market, whether the EU nationals here now can stay (and therefore whether UK nationals can stay in the EU) - basics such as these should be decided in advance by Parliament.


I don't see how 'leave the EU' as the only solid aim and then just see what we can haggle from there is beneficial or acceptable. This court ruling has reinforced that the government are accountable - but they are accountable at the start of the process not just at the end, and that is how it should be.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Which comes back too how much you want to know?....does it not?

What would satisfy you?

Also can we arrange to meet up at some point to play cards for cash?, I will of course expect to see your hand.

It's not a game of poker.

Which is probably a good thing as Liam Fox has already revealed what one of his main cards is:facepalm:

The aim of negotiation isn't to defeat the other side but to ensure you come up with a solution that's workable for all parties. The EU already know our strengths and weaknesses. We're not going to wrong foot them on it. At most we might hold up matters and once the clock is against us that's probably not to our advantage. And if I was negotiating the main "card" I'd want to have to play is the ability to walk away if the right deal isn't there. I'd have therefore sought Parliamentary approval to serve Article 50 through an Act of Parliament which specified that the terms to Leave had to be approved by Parliament or a further referendum.

 

[callan]

It's not a game of poker.

Which is probably a good thing as Liam Fox has already revealed what one of his main cards is:facepalm:

The aim of negotiation isn't to defeat the other side but to ensure you come up with a solution that's workable for all parties. The EU already know our strengths and weaknesses. We're not going to wrong foot them on it. At most we might hold up matters and once the clock is against us that's probably not to our advantage. And if I was negotiating the main "card" I'd want to have to play is the ability to walk away if the right deal isn't there. I'd have therefore sought Parliamentary approval to serve Article 50 through an Act of Parliament which specified that the terms to Leave had to be approved by Parliament or a further referendum.

Fox has no more played a card than Juncker has.

At present the situation (in terms of negotiation) is distributive rather than integrative, and that can only really change once article 50 is served and the EU officially recognise that negotiating can begin.

Both sides know each others strengths and weaknesses, the unknown will be the strength of political will.

Walking away is your last card, not necessarily your main card.

 

[callan]

I don't see why negotiations would be hampered by deciding in advance whether we want to have access to the single market, whether the EU nationals here now can stay (and therefore whether UK nationals can stay in the EU) - basics such as these should be decided in advance by Parliament.


I don't see how 'leave the EU' as the only solid aim and then just see what we can haggle from there is beneficial or acceptable. This court ruling has reinforced that the government are accountable - but they are accountable at the start of the process not just at the end, and that is how it should be.

In fairness, I'm surprised that the government hasn't issued any ''seek to' notices as far as Brexit is concerned.

With regards the single market, we do want access...that is clear....how much or indeed remaining part of however?

With the EU nationals remaining, I would want similar assurances for uk citizens in the EU...which we dont have.

 

[maninasuitcase]

I am not sure why the leavers are against the High Court ruling. Isn't this exactly what we voted for, to restore UK parliamentary democracey?

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

It is a surprising Court decision and in open voting it would be political suicide for a MP to vote contrary to his/ her electorate.

However if the EU big wigs and knobs had made any real consolatory offers and much less of the threats/bullying would the remain bandwagon now be gaining momentum?
The professional politicians (Junker, Hollande etc) have shown that they lack wisdom and respect for democracy.

 

[MK Shrimper]

It is a surprising Court decision and in open voting it would be political suicide for a MP to vote contrary to his/ her electorate.

But the electorate in one constinuency isn't just purely "leave" or purely "remain" it's a mixture of the two.

 

[londonblue]

But the electorate in one constinuency isn't just purely "leave" or purely "remain" it's a mixture of the two. I've no idea where my local MP lies in regards to the EU and how he would vote if it came to a free vote. In fact, I've just checked as he's Remain.

Apparently about 450 MPs voted to remain in the referendum. That doesn't mean they'll vote that way in Parliament.

 

[southendkid]

It is a surprising Court decision and in open voting it would be political suicide for a MP to vote contrary to his/ her electorate.

However if the EU big wigs and knobs had made any real consolatory offers and much less of the threats/bullying would the remain bandwagon now be gaining momentum?
The professional politicians (Junker, Hollande etc) have shown that they lack wisdom and respect for democracy.

It's become very clear that whilst people voted for Brexit they have different ideas of what Brexit should be. May was attempting to go over everyone's heads and do it the way she wanted, there is almost no chance this will stop Brexit happening (despite what some of the tabloids are saying to sell papers), it just means the rest of parliament gets to have a voice in how we go about it, which seems a good idea since the vote didn't spell out what would actually happen.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Tory MP Stephen Phillips has thrown a hissy fit and has resigned from his Sleaford and North Hykeham seat with “immediate effect”. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

 

[londonblue]

Tory MP Stephen Phillips has thrown a hissy fit and has resigned from his Sleaford and North Hykeham seat with “immediate effect”. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Wouldn't it be sensible of him to wait until the appeal before throwing his toys out of the pram?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Wouldn't it be sensible of him to wait until the appeal before throwing his toys out of the pram?

He's a top-earning barrister who thinks his constituents "are lucky to have him," apparently.

Some talk on the DP that he was disappointed not to be offered a Cabinet post in May's government.

 

[londonblue]

He's a top-earning barrister who thinks his constituents "are lucky to have him," apparently.

Some talk on the DP that he was disappointed not to be offered a Cabinet post in May's government.

Maybe he'll get one in June's.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Maybe he'll get one in June's.

Whitfield? Is she replacing TM?

 

[Napster]

Whitfield? Is she replacing TM?

Sarpong. Its the youth vote.

ps we have the best judges in the world. Glad theyve seen sense.

 

[GrumpyBlue]

So what was the point of the referendum? If they aren't going to abide by the result, it was a waste of time.

To win Cameron a General Election

 

[RHB]

The Lord Chancellor has backed the independence of the UK's judiciary but stopped short of condemning attacks on senior judges over the Brexit ruling. So mob and media law rules ok then? Maybe we just shouldn't bother with the Rule of Law in our democracy. Twitter or Facebook will do instead.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37883576