Hard or Soft Brexit?

[Yorkshire Blue]

May arguing that no deal would be better than a bad deal is just laughably incoherent.

Obviously all of Brexit is ridiculously incoherent, but it makes sense for her to take this line to strengthen the UK's weak bargaining position. In any negotiation the side that needs the deal the most is at a disadvantage as the other can walk away easier. Only the loopiest of fruitcakes actually want Hard Brexit but by positioning Hard Brexit as our starting position, it attempts to diffuse one of the EU's strongest hands which is that we need a deal more than them, by claiming that we don't actually need a deal and that we could just walk away. We obviously have no intention of actually walking away, but by putting doubt in the EU's mind we might be able to get a slightly less worse deal than would have been the case*.

Of course, most of May's bargaining isn't with the EU (who, incidentally, have already won the opening positioning battles by establishing that the negotiations will take place on their terms - e.g. only after Article 50 has been served) but with the Tory hard right, the handful of nutcase media barons who decide the red-tops' agenda and to a lesser extent the British public. And with the latter, it's useful to help position us to fear the worse so when we get a deal with some concessions we somehow think this is a success, even though it would still put us in a far worse position than we were in before the vote.

*The best way to achieve the ability to not need a new deal would be to put any final deal to the British people to accept the new terms or remain in the EU. Unfortunately Brexiters don't seem to believe in the strength of their, admittedly flimsy, arguments that we're going to get a better deal than we already have, otherwise they wouldn't be so frightened of letting the people decide in a second referendum between the new terms negotiated and remaining after all.

So May has to go to the House of Commons to trigger Article 50. This will dragggggggggggg this out for an age....but least if we have to come out it'll can be done correctly and benefit all of us rather than those who want to slit their own throat to spite their face.

The process will drag out for an age because it is hugely complicated to undo a lifetime's developments.

The decision doesn't mean it will be done correctly and benefit all of us, it merely gives us a better chance that it will. It's still highly unlikely that it will benefit all of us or even the majority of us.

 

[yogi bear up the cagire]

Obviously all of Brexit is ridiculously incoherent, but it makes sense for her to take this line to strengthen the UK's weak bargaining position. In any negotiation the side that needs the deal the most is at a disadvantage as the other can walk away easier. Only the loopiest of fruitcakes actually want Hard Brexit but by positioning Hard Brexit as our starting position, it attempts to diffuse one of the EU's strongest hands which is that we need a deal more than them, by claiming that we don't actually need a deal and that we could just walk away. We obviously have no intention of actually walking away, but by putting doubt in the EU's mind we might be able to get a slightly less worse deal than would have been the case*.

Of course, most of May's bargaining isn't with the EU (who, incidentally, have already won the opening positioning battles by establishing that the negotiations will take place on their terms - e.g. only after Article 50 has been served) but with the Tory hard right, the handful of nutcase media barons who decide the red-tops' agenda and to a lesser extent the British public. And with the latter, it's useful to help position us to fear the worse so when we get a deal with some concessions we somehow think this is a success, even though it would still put us in a far worse position than we were in before the vote.

*The best way to achieve the ability to not need a new deal would be to put any final deal to the British people to accept the new terms or remain in the EU. Unfortunately Brexiters don't seem to believe in the strength of their, admittedly flimsy, arguments that we're going to get a better deal than we already have, otherwise they wouldn't be so frightened of letting the people decide in a second referendum between the new terms negotiated and remaining after all.




The process will drag out for an age because it is hugely complicated to undo a lifetime's developments.

The decision doesn't mean it will be done correctly and benefit all of us, it merely gives us a better chance that it will. It's still highly unlikely that it will benefit all of us or even the majority of us.

Respect for Owen Smith who, when it comes to the vote, will follow his conscience rather than the likely party line.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/24/remoaner-article-50-brexit-labour

 

[mrsblue]

Respect for Owen Smith who, when it comes to the vote, will follow his conscience rather than the likely party line.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/24/remoaner-article-50-brexit-labour

Dear Owen the man who tried and failed to topple Jezza...the deluded Smith now wants to ignore the majority's vote.

No wonder Labour are in self destruct mode.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Dear Owen the man who tried and failed to topple Jezza...the deluded Smith now wants to ignore the majority's vote.

No wonder Labour are in self destruct mode.

how do these 2 statements link up?

 

[Benfleet A1]

how do these 2 statements link up?

**Awaits pearls of wisdom**

 

[mrsblue]

how do these 2 statements link up?

How many people voted for Brexit....yet Smithy simply wants to brush them all aside because he thinks they were stupid and dumb to vote out.

Old Owen urged on by that sour faced twin tried to oust Jezza...everyone told him he ain't winning didly squat,yet the deluded one carried and was soundly thrashed.

Deluded twice over.

 

[MK Shrimper]

I don't think it will prolong anything by much. The government will walk through parliament and the only sticking point I can see ahead is around a 100 unelected LibDem lords trying to derail the whole thing. They are irrelevant and Tim Farron is a wet lettice who no one pays any attention to.

Really? If May and co weren't that bothered why did they spend millions challenging the original ruling?

 

[mrsblue]

Really? If May and co weren't that bothered why did they spend millions challenging the original ruling?

Whose money did May use?.....the clue is there.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Whose money did May use?.....the clue is there.

and your conspiracy theory is..........?

 

[mrsblue]

and your conspiracy theory is..........?

Token gesture........some lawyers made a mint !

May never spent one single penny of her own money....it's a game MK,just a game.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

How many people voted for Brexit....yet Smithy simply wants to brush them all aside because he thinks they were stupid and dumb to vote out.

Old Owen urged on by that sour faced twin tried to oust Jezza...everyone told him he ain't winning didly squat,yet the deluded one carried and was soundly thrashed.

Deluded twice over.

doesn't make sense - you say Smith is making a bad call - which the majority of the Labour Party agreed with you on and didn't back Smith, then you say that's why the Labour Party are imploding - by rejecting the person you think they should reject.....huh?

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

Respect for Owen Smith who, when it comes to the vote, will follow his conscience rather than the likely party line.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/24/remoaner-article-50-brexit-labour

Completely ignoring the complete disrespect he is showing for the constituents who he is supposed to represent who voted for Brexit of course.

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

Really? If May and co weren't that bothered why did they spend millions challenging the original ruling?

But look at the Supreme Court ruling for a moment. It gives the UK parliament the vote, not the welsh or northern irish assembly's and more importantly, NOT Holyrood. Labour have already said they won't vote against the will of the people so this leaves some wet LibDems, some anti English Jocks and Ken Clarke - not a issue.

 

[londonblue]

But look at the Supreme Court ruling for a moment. It gives the UK parliament the vote, not the welsh or northern irish assembly's and more importantly, NOT Holyrood. Labour have already said they won't vote against the will of the people so this leaves some wet LibDems, some anti English Jocks and Ken Clarke - not a issue.

Plus any Labour MPs who follow their leader's lead, and vote against the party. Still won't be enough though. As I said when the first ruling came out, all this will do is delay the process, but ensure the law is followed.

 

[mrsblue]

doesn't make sense - you say Smith is making a bad call - which the majority of the Labour Party agreed with you on and didn't back Smith, then you say that's why the Labour Party are imploding - by rejecting the person you think they should reject.....huh?

I think *** if Labour bigwigs entered your home and then proceeded to smash it up whilst taking a dump on your bed...you would say "it was an accident"....or "they never meant to do that".....your loyalty is admirable,foolish but still admirable.

 

[yogi bear up the cagire]

There may be a contstitutional side to this, which I don't know of but it does pose an interesting question. Who exactly is a 21st century MP actually beholden to?

1. The party who have been democratically elected to run the country.
2. The constituents who elected him.
3. The will of the (very small) majority people in an advisory referendum, even though this may run contrary to the will
of the constituents who elected him.
4. His own conscience in making a decision in what he or she believes to be in the best interests for the country's future.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Completely ignoring the complete disrespect he is showing for the constituents who he is supposed to represent who voted for Brexit of course.

And how many Tory & Labour will vote for Brexit against the wishes of the majority of their constituents, especially in London?

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

There may be a contstitutional side to this, which I don't know of but it does pose an interesting question. Who exactly is a 21st century MP actually beholden to?

1. The party who have been democratically elected to run the country.
2. The constituents who elected him.
3. The will of the (very small) majority people in an advisory referendum, even though this may run contrary to the will
of the constituents who elected him.
4. His own conscience in making a decision in what he or she believes to be in the best interests for the country's future.

Thankfully in this country we have a system which allows "the people" (to a point) decide who represents them. If he or she decides to vote out of sycn with their electorate then it will be for electorate to decide whether or not to keep them as their representative. It's far from perfect but I can't think of a better one.
Take Tristram Hunt (good labour name that) for example, a staunch remainer but one who represented one of the biggest LEAVE votes in the country - how does he vote? Obviously doesn't matter anymore as UKIP will have their second MP soon so Stoke will have proper representation :smile:

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

And how many Tory & Labour will vote for Brexit against the wishes of the majority of their constituents, especially in London?

Agreed - vote with your conscience by all means but be prepared for the consequences.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I think *** if Labour bigwigs entered your home and then proceeded to smash it up whilst taking a dump on your bed...you would say "it was an accident"....or "they never meant to do that".....your loyalty is admirable,foolish but still admirable.

this is of no relevance to the point you were making which made no sense